Electrical Load Simulators

Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will be kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test, killing Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will be kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test, killing Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

LaDonna,

I checked out the two electrical engineering forums in the 'sci' heirarchy.
The most active one (sci.engr.electrical.compliance) has a problem like that
of sci.space.history. It's 98% porn! However, straightforward web research
continues to indicate that Scott's scenario could well be close to the mark.

I strongly suspect that (Apollo 1) load simulators were being used to
control the magnitude of the electrical load on CM and SM internal power
sources for the Plugs-Out Test (batteries, in this case). In addition to
Scott's scenario, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suspect that
NASA and/or North American didn't do a very good job of controlling said
magnitude on the day of the fire. That could account for some of the
anomalies recorded prior to the fire (possibly a smokescreen for the fatal
short). That's just an educated guess (without a copy of the final test
plan and the final test configuration/procedures to be implemented that
day).

I hope this is of some limited help to the Grissom cause.

John Maxson

In message , John Maxson
writes
"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will be kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test, killing Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

LaDonna,

I checked out the two electrical engineering forums in the 'sci' heirarchy.
The most active one (sci.engr.electrical.compliance) has a problem like that
of sci.space.history. It's 98% porn!

Are you sure you're looking in the right place?
"RF/EM field strength meter 0.2-3000 MHz, 0.2-600 V/m, Isotropic Probe"
doesn't look like porn to me (grabbing the most esoteric topic I could
see :-)

Note: Original mistakenly sent to Michael Gardner.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maxson"
To: "Michael Gardner"
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:05 PM
Subject: Electrical Load Simulators


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gardner"
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: Electrical Load Simulators


In article ,
"John Maxson" wrote:

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load
simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will
be
kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo
One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the
launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test,
killing
Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

LaDonna,

I checked out the two electrical engineering forums in the 'sci'
heirarchy.
The most active one (sci.engr.electrical.compliance) has a problem
like
that
of sci.space.history. It's 98% porn! However, straightforward web
research
continues to indicate that Scott's scenario could well be close to the
mark.

I strongly suspect that (Apollo 1) load simulators were being used to
control the magnitude of the electrical load on CM and SM internal
power
sources for the Plugs-Out Test (batteries, in this case). In addition
to
Scott's scenario, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suspect
that
NASA and/or North American didn't do a very good job of controlling
said
magnitude on the day of the fire. That could account for some of the
anomalies recorded prior to the fire (possibly a smokescreen for the
fatal
short). That's just an educated guess (without a copy of the final
test
plan and the final test configuration/procedures to be implemented
that
day).

Way too much assumption even for a "experienced space guy like
yourself".

Well, then cite a relevant assumption from my two posts. Keep in mind
that
the telemetry is classified.

The load simulators like you reference are nothing more than variablely
controlled resistance/inductance devices. Given a specified input, you
can control the offered load. If such a device had been used - and the
load, set too high - there would have been multiple indications in the
way of excessively high current flow/loss of voltage to go along with
such a setting.

It looks like you're the one making assumptions -- as to what the settings
were. Nevertheless, thanks for parroting (despite your spelling errors)
the
essence of my two posts and thus helping me make my point.

As for the RCS simulators - I don't know the details, but I can't
imagine they were anything but components designed to electrically look
exactly like RCS components, just without RCS valves attached.

Remember, the only valid references cited have been to RCS *load*
simulators, in combination with SM/CM load simulators. Additionally,
*banks
and wires* have been used to officially describe them, nothing else (to
date, at least). Finally, what you "imagine" still has no demonstrable
basis in fact, even at this late date.

Why do ANYTHING else?

You're the guy who's always claimed to have all the answers. Why not?
This
was circa 1965-66, insofar as the test design.

mgg

I hope this is of some limited help to the Grissom cause.

John Maxson
--
sig goes here

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , John Maxson
writes
"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load
simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will be
kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo
One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the
launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test, killing
Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

LaDonna,

I checked out the two electrical engineering forums in the 'sci'
heirarchy.
The most active one (sci.engr.electrical.compliance) has a problem like
that
of sci.space.history. It's 98% porn!

Are you sure you're looking in the right place?

Of course, I even double-checked it, last night.

He's looking into something that's rather old, you know. Even people
with experience on Apollo are having to go back and review these and
many other questions. It's not that simple, as I've explained before.
Further, it appears with the information I've gathered thus far, that
the load simulators were just that, "load" simulators. "Why do
ANYTHING else?" Because it's somewhat important to know if the valves
are going to open BEFORE the mission is progress. And we STILL have a
schematic showing that two of twelve of those valves did not open,
while ten did. It's not labelled "RCS He2A and 2C Simulated Valve
Positions!"
LaDonna

Doesn't surprise me, given the wide range of chatter in here!

Unless I've missed posts somewhere (which is entirely possible), no one
has raised the issue that too much load was being generated by the load
simulators. The issue is the functioning (and malfunctioning) of the
valves being opened.
LaDonna

Actually, I thought about this for a few minutes, and the issue WAS
raised once, but it was a few weeks ago. There WAS a problem with GSE
equipment. According to Jim Lovell's book (No, Hedrick, I'm not going
to climb upstairs with my broken toe and get the page number; go buy
the book and read it!) until Apollo 10 NAA somehow "missed" the fact
that the systems they designed for 28 vdc in-flight were actually
receiving 65 vdc while hooked up to GSE during testing. That was the
reason the O2 tank was pulled from 10 and ultimately found its way to
13.
LaDonna

I subscribed and downloaded. Maybe you simply made a quick check of the
Google index. If so, that group certainly would not have looked very active
to you. Apparently most of those porn messages I downloaded (which account
for so much of the traffic there) don't get archived by Google.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , John Maxson
writes
"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Here's a current (modern day) application of an electrical load
simulator:

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_systemCAPdetails.asp?ID=29

Maybe some of the electrical engineering experts in the group will be
kind
enough to compare this application with (or relate it to) the Apollo
One
situation, as described by LaDonna's Plugs-Out timeline for the
launch-pad
fire which occurred during the simulated RCS static fire test, killing
Gus
Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White.

John Maxson

LaDonna,

I checked out the two electrical engineering forums in the 'sci'
heirarchy.
The most active one (sci.engr.electrical.compliance) has a problem like
that
of sci.space.history. It's 98% porn!

Are you sure you're looking in the right place?
"RF/EM field strength meter 0.2-3000 MHz, 0.2-600 V/m, Isotropic Probe"
doesn't look like porn to me (grabbing the most esoteric topic I could
see :-)