"Houston, we've had a problem..."

On April 13, 1970, began one of the most spectacular and ultimately successful rescue missions of the 20th century. Two days earlier, the Apollo 13 spacecraft with crew Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise had launched to the moon as planned. Until the moment when a fatal explosion occurred out of nowhere, there was no indication that this moon mission was not going to reach its goal. Reason enough to briefly examine what characterized the cooperation between the three crew members and NASA's ground control center in Houston during the four-day rescue phase.

Quick inventory and sober classification

The error analysis carried out jointly by the ground control center and the crew revealed that two of the three fuel cells in the service module had exploded, seriously damaging both oxygen tanks. It became clear that command module of Apollo 13 was from now on facing serious problems: too little oxygen, too little water, and too little energy to ignite the engines in order to be able to return to earth after orbiting the moon. However, the classification also comprised putting the threatening damage into perspective. This included the findings that the explosion had occurred in a non-critical phase of flight and that the landing module and its engines were still fully operational.

Generation and implementation of options

In this situation, it was important to generate unconventional ideas as quickly as possible in order to at least defuse some aspects of the threatening problems. At an early stage, ground control center and the crew developed the idea of converting the landing module into a "lifeboat". Energy-reducing measures on board, tapping into the landing module's battery, reducing water consumption and calculating new low-energy return trajectories were among the options identified and implemented.

Language

In the radio logs before the explosion, it is noticeable that communication had not been only technical. Addressing each other by their first names, praising actions successfully carried out or a simple "Thank you" for a given answer indicate that, despite the technical task, the personal relationship was regularly maintained. This was the base for the open exchange after the explosion. As the rescue operation progressed, the personal relationship deepened significantly: "I want to say you guys are doing real good work." (Jack Swigert to ground control). On the penultimate day of the rescue it even allowed taking a new perspective characterized by understatement: "Well, I can't say that this week hasn't been filled with excitement." (James Lovell to ground control). The appropriate answer from ground control was not long in coming: "Well, James, if you can't take any better care of a spacecraft than that, we might not give you another one." In a stable relationship irony can also be a linguistic tool that strengthens cohesion in critical situations.