So I've been listening to season 2 of #13MinutesToTheMoon, the @BBCSounds podcast series about the Apollo missions. This season covers Apollo 13. I was struck by some of the key moments described in episode 4 and the lessons/reminders for governments today and #GCdigital.

With the astronauts now in the LEM-as-lifeboat, Mission Control is pivoting from initial crisis to the return-home game plan. Chief Flight Director Gene Krantz has assembled a team, away from the fray, to look a few steps ahead — at the next problems facing the astronauts.

Krantz, an Apollo program veteran, is giving this crew a "pep talk" about the free-return trajectory plan and their prospects. He's interrupted by Flight Controller John Aaron who argues there isn't enough power to pull this off as-is.

"Gene, you can't do that."

The narrator observes: "In a room full of senior engineers, 27-year old Aaron has just interrupted @NASA's most senior flight director, pointing out a fundamental problem."

So what happens next? Is this a dreaded career-limiting move?

Krantz pauses, listens, and — apparently within seconds — announces Aaron will be responsible for this.

"Rather than having a whole huddle of committees… trying to get their version of what the power sequence should be, he appointed one man to manage that critical resource."

The lessons?
1. There was psychological safety, to use the current, popular term. Aaron could challenge Krantz. And Krantz listened. This reflected a culture where expertise and contribution mattered most, not age or seniority.

2. The solution to the problem was making somebody accountable for it, not a "huddle of committees". Aaron engaged others, of course — they would pitch, negotiate, and (critically) cede their power needs — but he owned the problem, and he controlled the resource.

The valuing of substance over seniority comes up again in Ep.4, in a segment about the LEM long-burn dubbed "PC+2" (2h post-pericynthion, the closest approach to the moon) used to get the astronauts back 10h earlier: "one of the most critical maneuvers of the whole mission".

Who called that critical play?

"That decision, and the shape of the solution, was left to the young flight controllers in the trench. [Flight director] Gerry Griffin deferred entirely to the expertise of people younger and more junior than him."

Right.

NASA official elaborates: "Space flight is tough. […] Get the right people on it, motivate them, empower… we had decisions in those days made at these very low levels. […] today, everything tends to elevate decisions to the higher levels."

Say it ain't so. (It too often is.)

Another mission controller describes the culture of empowerment in a related scene where he and a colleague go to brief NASA senior management — "human space exploration royalty", he calls it — about the now-famous PC+2 burn.

"We briefed them on all the options and… unlike maybe what would happen today — 'Well have you thought about…', we thought we might get that question, 'Why haven't you thought about this?', 'Why haven't you done that?' — there was just a long silence."

And then?

"Finally, the head of the agency, Tom Paine, said 'What can we do to help you?' That was it."

That was it.

A cultural course-correction for risk aversion we always talk about. Don't lead with all the can't-be-done critiques and hole-poking. See the potential. Empower.

All in all, Ep.4 spoke to me. It's a curated telling (albeit by a reputable source), so I won't pretend to know exactly how representative these stories were of 1970 NASA, let alone that there were no warts. But I found myself double-taking over and over. "Oh! I recognize that."

All core tenets in digital gov.
— Trust and empower teams.
— Experts in the room where decisions are made.
— Clear accountability (single service owner) > service mgmt. by committee.
— Contribution, not seniority.
— Push decision-making down/out.
— Create psychological safety.

(To be categorically clear: I share none of this from a preachy perch. The good bits from these @NASA vignettes are goals, things I aspire to, not things I've got all sorted out and perfected — far from it, as my colleagues would be quick and fair to point out, if asked).

What's that? You want more? Apollo 13 bonus lesson for government?

Bonus lesson!

(Answering your own questions is easy.)

With particles from the explosion around the craft obscuring the stars, the crew got creative, using the sun to check orientation. Flight Dynamics Officer Dave Reid: "Was it as precise as going to a star? No. But was it sufficient to get exactly done what we needed? Absolutely."

Or, as the narrator put it: "The sun was all they needed. Perfect was the enemy of good enough."

(This is actually just a lesson for me, because I have to fight perfectionist instincts sometimes. Sorry, @AndreaGilbrook. And @JohnMillons. And many others.)

And so that is where I will leave this #13MinutesToTheMoon thread: at good enough. Fin.