|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo: One gas environment?
Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system. Is this correct? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bill wrote: Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen) environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system. That, plus the need to do spacewalks without lengthy prebreathing, plus the much greater complexity of two-gas life-support systems. Post-fire, Apollo used 60% oxygen 40% nitrogen as the *cabin* atmosphere on the pad, but the crew always breathed pure oxygen, and the cabin shifted to pure oxygen during ascent. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill" wrote in message ... Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen) environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system. Is this correct? Yes. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Rocky Top" wrote in message news:NmEkc.10917$5a.962@okepread03... "Bill" wrote in message ... Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen) environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system. Is this correct? Yes. To detail a bit more. All took off with a mixed gas atmosphere (N2 and O2) at I believe 1 atmosphere pressure. The N2 was bled off until the they reached the partial pressure of the O2 was left. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Doug... wrote: In article , says... In article , Bill wrote: Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen) environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system. Post-fire, Apollo used 60% oxygen 40% nitrogen as the *cabin* atmosphere on the pad, but the crew always breathed pure oxygen, and the cabin shifted to pure oxygen during ascent. Pre-Fire, of course, the cabin was pressurized to roughly 17 psia of pure oxygen. They also overpressurized the cabin at times during post- Fire operations, but as Henry says, the air was 40% nitrogen. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to look this up, not knowing what a psi is equivalent to. I'm sure everyone knows that 1 atmosphere = 101.3 kPA ... but many of us forget that this equals 14.7 psi So they pressurised to 1.16 atmospheres (117.2 kPa) and then dropped to 0.24 atm (24.1 kPa). Nick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 5/1/04 6:42 AM, in article , "Nicholas
Fitzpatrick" wrote: I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to look this up, not knowing what a psi is equivalent to. I'm sure everyone knows that 1 atmosphere = 101.3 kPA ... but many of us forget that this equals 14.7 psi We do? Gee, *I* got through 4th grade science! Brett |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" So they pressurised to 1.16 atmospheres (117.2 kPa) and then dropped to 0.24 atm (24.1 kPa). Yeah well it makes just as much sense to say they kept about a 3.5 psi of positive pressure..... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I agree.
For a normal person it is almost impossible to understand all these interesting topics when it is full of gallons, feets and psi's instead of litres, meters and Pascals I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to look this up, not knowing what a psi is equivalent to. I'm sure everyone knows that 1 atmosphere = 101.3 kPA ... but many of us forget that this equals 14.7 psi So they pressurised to 1.16 atmospheres (117.2 kPa) and then dropped to 0.24 atm (24.1 kPa). Nick |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Hans" wrote: I agree. For a normal person it is almost impossible to understand all these interesting topics when it is full of gallons, feets and psi's instead of litres, meters and Pascals "Normal person", huh? You mean, some sort of "units snob?" Well, since a good part of these "interesting topics" all use Imperial measurements (the American part, of course), wouldn't it behoove you to learn a few simple conversions so you can understand the discussion? After all, a good many of us did so and can work fairly easily in either system. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | UK Astronomy | 8 | August 1st 04 09:08 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | UK Astronomy | 11 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |