MovieChat Forums > From the Earth to the Moon (1998) Discussion > Nitpick -- Episode: Galileo Was Right

Nitpick -- Episode: Galileo Was Right

posted 15 years ago by jah1958
13 replies | jump to latest

While I thought "Galileo was Right" was a great episode, in fact it is my second favorite behind "Spider", I do have a nitpick.

In the scene in Deke's office where Deke, Jack and Dr. Pemberton are discussing training Dr. Pemberton states that the astronauts do not have scientific minds. If you look at the education of all the astronauts that walked on the moon you find the following:

One had degrees in geology (Schmitt), twelve had engineering degrees (I am counting the crew of Apollo 13 since they would have had to have gone through the same training as everyone else), and one (Alan Shepard) I couldn't find. All I can find is that he graduated from the Naval Academy but I cannot find out his degree. I assume it is engineering since for the most part you cannot be a test pilot in the Air Force without an engineering degree and I assume it is the same for the Navy.

Now I realize that engineering is not science, I have degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering, but they are obviously closely related, so someone with an engineering degree would not have much trouble understanding the sciences that they were being taught in their training.

Otherwise I thought it was a great episode.

[–] chris-cp 15 years ago

Understanding is not the same as interest though, this is purely YMMV but I would consider an engineer to be interested in building things and make them work, as opposed to studying the underlying principles, they are primarily concerned with application and not theory.

It was handled somewhat bluntly though, and I'm not saying that the astronauts were disinterested in science, engineering and science are in no way diametrically opposed, but that could be a justification for the dramatic license taken in that episode.

[–] jah1958 15 years ago

Chris,

I very much understand the difference since I am an engineer but in his quote he said that they did not have "scientific minds" which to me implied that they could not understand the science they were being taught.

My opinion is that the whole scene could have been handled differently, without the appearance that the astronauts would have trouble with the science.

As I said, great episode otherwise.

[–] boutetr 12 years ago

I finished Jim Hansen's "First Man" a few months before Armstrong's passing and one comment by Harrison Schmitt was particularly insightful of Neil's capabilities. Schmitt was instrumental in preparing Neil and Buzz for the geological sampling they would perform on the moon. This was pretty rudimentary compared to later missions but according to Schmitt, "Neil's collection of rocks was the best that anybody did on the moon."(Not sure if Harrison was including his samples with that remark). He chalked this up to Neil's engineering interest that closely jived with the logic involved with a certain geology theory when it came to determining the appropriate samples to collect. I thought that was pretty amazing considering how much better prepared the follow on missions where and how little time AP-11 was on the moon compared to them.

[–] ellisdtripp 9 years ago

I didn't take the "scientific minds" comment as meaning that the astronauts couldn't UNDERSTAND the science, but that they didn't have the drive and curiosity for scientific exploration for its own sake.

They were largely military types, who signed on to fly to the moon in a Cold War battle with the Soviets. Once the US made the first few landings, the focus slowly shifted to questions of lunar geology and origins, which some of the astronauts were less than enthusiastic about.

[–] t_smitts 15 years ago

I assume that the science they were referring to were specific fields such as geology and geochemistry, which were not fields some astronauts, with their backgrounds being predominantly in engineering, were too enthusiastic about, initially.

This of course varied greatly. From what I've read, Al Shepard wasn't passionate about geology, though he did everythinh asked of him on his mission, it's just that he probably wasn't as enthusiastic about it as some.

Dave Scott, on the other hand, apparently was quite eager to make a contribution to science. In fact his apparent lack of interest at the start of the episde is apparently a bit of a license. In A Man on the Moon, the book upon which the series is based, it was actually Jim Lovell, training for Apollo 13, who was the skeptical commander who was eventually won over by Lee Silver's field trips. When the mini-series was made, that character arc was assigned to Scott.

Regarding Schmitt, OF COURSE he would have a degree in geology, since he was a PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST! It would be strange if he didn't have one. I believe Pemberton was specifically referring to the pilot-astronauts.

[–] jah1958 15 years ago

Oh I agree that the interest may not have been there among all the astronauts. I am just saying that the script wording was bad. It made it appear that the astronauts could not handle the work. I am not particularly interested in biology but with my background as an engineer I could certainly handle the course work in the subject at least at the BS level.

You're right that he was refering to the pilot astronauts but rememeber they did have degrees in engineering. I think the script would have worked better and been more accurate if he had just brought up the disinterest and not the lack of ability.

[–] gmat6441 13 years ago

He's probably lumping them with the earlier test pilot group, not the later scientist group, and also from the viewpoint of the scientists on the ground, that is probably a true opinion. But remember that the earlier astronauts could and did influence their crews. Al Shepard stands as a good example. Also some people would say that engineering deals with the application while scientist would refer to a research scientist, a distinction that the latter would stress. No disrespect to engineers intended.

[–] johnston.scot 13 years ago

I agree that the line wasn't very well-written.

Presumably what they were going for was the notion that the astronauts had "practical minds" as opposed to "scientific minds." Of course, the latter phrase isn't really the right one if you're looking for the antithesis to the former. I'm not sure what the better adjective would've been. The astronauts don't have "spacey minds"? I'm pretty sure that would've worked even worse....

[–] t_smitts 13 years ago

That is a bit of a licence. While it's true that many astronauts were more interested in the piloting and engineering aspects than the science, A Man on the Moon notes a few that were:

Wally Schirra was supposedly a promising geology student (interesting considering how famous he was for fighting to keep his missions from being loaded up with experiments). Roger Chaffee supposedly saw geology as his ticket to a lunar landing mission. (Frankly, given what I've read of Deke Slayton, I doubt that would've been a factor, however).

One other error I learn from an interview I watched with the real Alfred Worden was that the episode showed him flying a Cessna over Hawaii with Farouk el-Baz. Worden says he flew a T-38 over the Southwest. He also sometimes flew over sites were Dave Scott and Jim Irwin were simulating EVA's. That would've been a neat thing to put in the episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylOHsv_2c9k

[–] Stormin1775 12 years ago

Shepard was a NAVAL officer and was a Navy test pilot, having graduated in 1950 from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

I concur that this was an outstanding episode, probably my favorite as well.

[–] Shaggy99 12 years ago

I'm with you on this episode and Spider. Both of those were my top favs. This series aired when I was in high school. It really inspired me to get in gear about my studies in science and doing so made feel very happy and motivated. I did eight years in the navy and now work for Lockheed/Martin. Anyways, I thought that line was a little strange myself. They were all scientists just maybe some lacked the enthusiasm to be great at it but they still did what ever they were told to do.

The line I really didn't like was when that same guy said "I think the Astronauts should take some responsibility." As far as their job goes they took on quite a bit of responsibility.

Yes you are reading my signature.

[–] mcgill-646-33556 12 years ago

I think the comment was made in the view that there is a difference between how (engineering) things work as opposed to why (science) things work. And some of the astronauts were criticised for their lack of enthusiasm for the science. This seemed to change after 14. I don't think there is any argument that Shepard was under the pump for his lack of enthusiasm for the science.

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

I have a BS and an MS in Nuclear Engineering. I think that I think like an engineer. Also, I had a 25-year military career, mostly in intelligence.

I worked alongside and with nuclear physicists, as well as scientists in other disciplines. I can, sometimes, put on my scientist hat and make a good attempt at thinking like a scientist.

Here is my thought on it and the answer I once gave to someone who asked me the difference between how an engineer and a scientist thinks:

An engineer is a problem solver. We are not thinking about ultimate truth. We want to use the latest in scientifically derived knowledge to solve practical problems in achieving specifically desired results.

A scientist is applying a set of rules for discovering one step closer to ultimate truth. This is a never ending quest because the step closer always reveals more information that leads to more questions. A scientist seeks to attack the unknown and reduce it by changing some of it to known.

The astronauts were certainly more than "Pilots." They were engineers, and applied scientists. Engineers certainly have "scientific" minds in that we know how to apply the scientific method. We may not be ideally suited to doing scientific research, especially not theoretical science.