Apollo 13 False Statement

I discovered this incredible statement on the Asronautix website:

From http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm
“When the Apollo 13 Command Module was examined after its return, it was found that the crew had tried to wire up a manual deployment switch for the recovery parachutes. However - they had in fact wired the switch to the parachute jettison control. If they had decided to use their jury-rigged manual override they would have in reality released the parachutes from the command module and plunged to their deaths in the ocean below.”

After checking with my memory, my retired NASA colleagues and Fred Haise, I can assure you all that the statement is FALSE.
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime"
www.apolloeecom.com

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:21:58 -0500, Sy Liebergot wrote
(in article ):


I discovered this incredible statement on the Asronautix website:

From http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm
“When the Apollo 13 Command Module was examined after its return, it was
found that the crew had tried to wire up a manual deployment switch for the
recovery parachutes. However - they had in fact wired the switch to the
parachute jettison control. If they had decided to use their jury-rigged
manual override they would have in reality released the parachutes from the
command module and plunged to their deaths in the ocean below.”

After checking with my memory, my retired NASA colleagues and Fred Haise, I
can assure you all that the statement is FALSE. Sy Liebergot "Apollo EECOM:
Journey of A Lifetime" www.apolloeecom.com

With any luck, Mark Wade will update his site accordingly.

--
Herb Schaltegger
"You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you
down." - Johnny Cash
http://www.angryherb.net

Gene Cash wrote:
They'd have too much discipline and knowledge about what happens when
one does unauthorized dicking around with complex equipment.

More to the point, they already had a manual parachute deployment
button right in front of them on the control panel...

Mark

Herb Schaltegger writes:

With any luck, Mark Wade will update his site accordingly.

Sy could have been more helpful to Mark than just labeling a long,
multipart statement as "false". It could have some truth in it and
still be false. Sy's criticism is so short as to have a whiff of
hiding something, leaving me wondering, at least, if the switch was
wired up, but correctly.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:55:14 GMT, (Gary W.
Swearingen) wrote:

Sy could have been more helpful to Mark than just labeling a long,
multipart statement as "false". It could have some truth in it and
still be false. Sy's criticism is so short as to have a whiff of
hiding something, leaving me wondering, at least, if the switch was
wired up, but correctly.

....You know, choosing between believing someone who was *there*, and
someone obviously trolling, is pretty ****ing easy.

PLONK

....Enjoy sodomy with Brad Guth and the rest of his ilk in Killfile
Hell, you worthless sack of inhuman excrement.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Originally Posted by Gary W. Swearingen

Herb Schaltegger LID writes:

With any luck, Mark Wade will update his site accordingly.

Sy could have been more helpful to Mark than just labeling a long,
multipart statement as "false". It could have some truth in it and
still be false. Sy's criticism is so short as to have a whiff of
hiding something, leaving me wondering, at least, if the switch was
wired up, but correctly.

I've sent Mark my comments. No conspiracy here--the entire statement is totally false. Never happened. Nada. I was there. So was Fred Haise.
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime"
www.apolloeecom.com

Originally Posted by Sy Liebergot

I've sent Mark my comments. No conspiracy here--the entire statement is totally false. Never happened. Nada. I was there. So was Fred Haise.
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of A Lifetime"
www.apolloeecom.com

From Mark Wade:
Sy-Thanks for that. This story came from someone who claimed to be an insider. I of course will take your word as definitive, and delete itfrom the site.
--
Mark Wade
Encyclopedia Astronautica
http://www.astronautix.com/


Of course, I asked mark who the "insider" is. I don't expect him to divulge the name.

Sy

Speaking of mis-conceptions about Apollo 13, I've a question connected
to the Hollywood film. In connection with powering-up the CSM in
preparation for re-entry, the film implies that the key constraint was
the current being drawn. My recollection and logic tell me that in
fact the constraint was the number of amp-hours drawn; is this correct?
If so, I'd guess the reason the film chose to fudge this is that an
ammeter makes a nice dramatic device.

Speaking of mis-conceptions about Apollo 13, I've a question connected
to the Hollywood film. In connection with powering-up the CSM in
preparation for re-entry, the film implies that the key constraint was
the current being drawn. My recollection and logic tell me that in
fact the constraint was the number of amp-hours drawn; is this correct?
If so, I'd guess the reason the film chose to fudge this is that an
ammeter makes a nice dramatic device.

Originally Posted by Proponent

Speaking of mis-conceptions about Apollo 13, I've a question connected
to the Hollywood film. In connection with powering-up the CSM in
preparation for re-entry, the film implies that the key constraint was
the current being drawn. My recollection and logic tell me that in
fact the constraint was the number of amp-hours drawn; is this correct?
If so, I'd guess the reason the film chose to fudge this is that an
ammeter makes a nice dramatic device.

We could read the current drawn from the three 40-amp hour rated batteries during the planned power profile (time) for the CM, then calculated the amp-hour usage.
i.e amps X hours= amp-hours. Simple.
Sy