On 11 April 1970 an America spaceship, Apollo 13, blasted off from the Kennedy Space Centre at Cape Canaveral.  Abroad were three astronauts, John Swigert, Fred Haise and Commander Jim Lovell.  Their mission was a moon landing.

For two days everything went according to plan.  Then, fifty-six hours into the flight, a potential disaster occurred; one that was to cause an unpredictable problem for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  This problem would threaten the lives of the Apollo crew as well as the future viability of the entire space programme.

The story of Apollo 13 is one of great courage. It also demonstrates very clearly, how a seemingly insurmountable problem can be solved by people who have the will to do so.

The world first heard that something was amiss when the crackled words of Jim Lovell was heard over the wireless:  “Houston, we have a problem”.

Upon learning these words, those in charge at NASA in Houston, Texas, wanted to leap into action.  But first they had to get the facts.  What happened?

One of the on-board oxygen tanks had exploded.  This meant that, unless something was done, there would not be enough power, water or oxygen to get Apollo 13 back to earth.  Because the craft was out of the earth’s gravitational pull, it could stay forever suspended in space, with three corpses inside it, a monument to the failure of its mission.

Because such an event had never before occurred, huge uncertainties existed.  Decisions had to be made without precedent.  Furthermore, time was at a premium.  If the real issues were not addressed there would be no second chance.

Mission control, therefore, analysed the situation:

• What exactly happened?
• Why did an oxygen tank explode?
• Was the spaceship damaged?
• How much oxygen was left?
• How long would the ship have power?
• Could the astronauts turn the command module around to face earth?

These and many more questions were asked to get the facts and appraise the extent of the problem.

Below is a brief summary of Apollo 13’s predicament:

• an explosion had destroyed a vital supply of oxygen, leaving the spaceship crippled.  There was very little power left. The reason for the explosion was unknown;

• the crew had only a small quantity of water and no prospect of getting more;

• the remaining supply of oxygen was extremely limited;

• the mechanism for filtering and removing carbon dioxide from the command module was damaged.  This meant that the crew would be breathing in more and more carbon-dioxide until they finally succumbed to asphyxiation;

• the explosion occurred at a point of no return. Apollo 13 was on track to the moon;

• there was a navigational problem. Power was needed to steer the ship; yet adequate power was what they no longer had;

• power could be conserved by lowering the temperature of the spacecraft. However, at a lower temperature, condensation would form on electrical and electronic components posing the danger of arcing extensively sensitive circuits. If this occurred it could cause a complete loss of control over the equipment in space.

The words by Jim Lovell:  “We have a problem,” was no understatement. But what could be done about it?  Those back in Houston considered the possibilities.  Two key variables were obvious: power and oxygen.  They had to consider numerous scenarios, juxta positioning these variables, making assumptions about how much power was available, where to distribute what was left, and how long the astronauts could survive in the face of a build-up of carbon monoxide.  They considered various options and the consequences of each option.

In the end, the most viable option was to continue towards the moon and, at a critical point, alter the trajectory of Apollo 13 by a short power burst.  This would realign the spacecraft so that, with the increased momentum of “burn,” its orbit around the moon would slingshot it back to earth.  However, one miscalculation would end in disaster.

Although the above option provided the best chance of success, after all possibilities and consequences had been considered, it was by no means a sure thing.  The burst, even a small one, could exhaust all the remaining power, leaving the spaceship completely depleted without energy to enter the earth’s atmosphere.

There was also the problem of water.  At a minimum rate of consumption, and allowing for essential water-cooling that was required for re-entering the earth’s atmosphere it was thought that the crew could just about make it.

What about the problem of condensation and arcing when, of necessity, the temperature in the spacecraft was allowed to drop?  Calculations were made and previous expeditions referred to.  It was determined that there was a reasonable chance of minimal rather than extensive damage of shorting occurring.  This was due to the safeguards built into the module after Apollo 1 caught fire three years earlier.  NASA authorities decided to take their chances on this one.

Now, there was the problem of asphyxiation.  If Lovell Swigert and Haize died there would be little point in even trying to bring Apollo 13 back to earth if, indeed this was possible.

More facts were gathered, option’s evaluated and “what if’s?” considered.  Just how this problem was solved is testimony to the determination and ingenuity of those involved.

With only the materials available inside Apollo 13, NASA officials found a way out.  Firstly the crew moved from the command module into the much smaller lunar module that was still attached.

Next, a way was found to improve and redirect the carbon monoxide filtering system from the command module to the lunar module.  This was a huge feat, and a great deal of creativity had to be exercised in finding a workable solution with the extremely limited supply of materials.  The astronauts and their colleagues also had to overcome design problems in linking the two modules, such as connecting the square opening of lithium hydroxide containers in the command vehicle with the round openings of the lunar module.

At the best of times, space travel is a risky venture when things go wrong, especially something as serious as that which happened to Apollo 13, there is a strong probability of failure.  I heard a scientific commentator say, on the radio that the odds of the disabled spaceship returning to earth were greater than 100 to 1, even if the identified problems could be resolved.  One tiny mistiming and all would be lost.  One miscalculation and the situation would be out of control.  If the power burst to sling Apollo 13 around the moon lasted too long, or too short, there was no way of compensating for the error.  If the spaceship re-entered the earth’s atmosphere at the wrong angle it would be burned up.  If the angle was too shallow it could skim off into space again.  Alignment was critical.

Flight Director Gerald Griffin in his book “Apollo Expeditions to the Moon” talks of the stress and tension that remained with him until splashdown:  “Some years later, when I went back to the log and looked up that mission, my writing was almost illegible I was so damned nervous.”

Looking back to Apollo 13 we all know what happened.  Against incredible odds, the three astronauts made it.  Furthermore the explosion, decisions and solutions all contributed to a better understanding of the dangers of space flight, of safeguards and rescue procedures and of the power of teamwork.

What is not often thought of, however, is the efficient manner in which problems were solved.  Decision-makers followed a structured and systematic method of addressing the potential catastrophe.  So, apart from Apollo 13 being an exciting story, what can we learn from it?

First of all, when the proverbial hit the fan nobody panicked.  The situation was appraised from every angle, data obtained and the facts ascertained.  Too often, when something goes wrong the person in charge makes a quick decision based on a superficial knowledge and cursory examination of the data.  Very often the apparent problem is not the real problem.  Don’t jump to conclusions.   Take the time and trouble to get as much information as possible, from all perspectives.

Next, set an objective, what is it that you want to achieve?  Of course, the objective can only be based on what is possible, given the facts.

Third, consider the options, think of all possible alternatives and don’t be afraid to be creative.  The solution may not be in the way things have been done in the past.  In the case of Apollo 13 there was no precedent.  In the situations you and I face we may, too easily, rely on past solutions when there is a better one.

Fourth, weigh up the consequences of pursuing each option.  And don’t simply think of the here-and-now.  What about future consequences?

Finally, a decision must be made, the best decision well, of course, be the one that resolves the problem in the most advantageous manner for all concerned.

There we have it:  a five part process that will make an enormous difference to our businesses and our lives, if applied.  The most successful companies are those that are best at learning, at solving problems, so too, are the most successful people