Apollo 13 Service Module

Did anyone ever do a study post Apollo 13 to determine what state the main
propulsion engine on the service module was in? They did have some pictures
after CM separation of the SM with the side panel blown away. Were any
conclusions drawn from that, other than being able to nail down the cause of the
problem in the first place?

Would the engine have worked if they tried to start it?

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:
Did anyone ever do a study post Apollo 13 to determine what state the main
propulsion engine on the service module was in? ...
Would the engine have worked if they tried to start it?

It seems likely -- with the reservation that, of course, you need electric
power in the SM to do that -- but nobody is entirely certain. The tank
burst *probably* did not damage anything related to the propulsion system.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

"Bruce Palmer" wrote in message
t...
Did anyone ever do a study post Apollo 13 to determine what state the main
propulsion engine on the service module was in? They did have some
pictures
after CM separation of the SM with the side panel blown away. Were any
conclusions drawn from that, other than being able to nail down the cause
of the
problem in the first place?

My understanding is that some of the photos did indicate some possible
damage to the main engine.



Would the engine have worked if they tried to start it?

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

Am Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:32:47 GMT schrieb "Greg D. Moore (Strider)":

Did anyone ever do a study post Apollo 13 to determine what state the main
propulsion engine on the service module was in? They did have some pictures
after CM separation of the SM with the side panel blown away. Were any
conclusions drawn from that, other than being able to nail down the cause
of the problem in the first place?

My understanding is that some of the photos did indicate some possible
damage to the main engine.

But thas was not to be revealed until jettisoning the SM. Even a
possible EVA by an astronaut would not have cleared up all doubts, if
the engine would have worked or not. So NASA used the safest option to
not rely on any SM ressources, as long as the SM was not an absolutely
necessary source. So they used only the remaining oxygen and maybe
water - all other was provided by CM reserves and Aquarius' (LM'S)
ressources. And the SM was not jettisoned shortly after the explosion
for weight reduction by two main causes: It could provide SOME
oxygen, and it was not known, how the heat shield would behave, when
it was exposed over some days to the open space - so hey left it
attached.

And, (afair) even if it _would_ have been safe to ignite the SM
engine, it would not have been possible to steer (gimbal and switch
on/off) it in the right manner without electric energy, because that
would have to be provided by fuel cells, that relied on the ruptured
SM tankage, so the fuel cells had starved. So there were MANY factors
and not only a single one affected by the LOX tank loss...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:

Did anyone ever do a study post Apollo 13 to determine what state the main
propulsion engine on the service module was in? ...
Would the engine have worked if they tried to start it?


It seems likely -- with the reservation that, of course, you need electric
power in the SM to do that -- but nobody is entirely certain. The tank
burst *probably* did not damage anything related to the propulsion system.

Fascinating. I guess they would have considered lighting it up *only* if the LM
descent engine failed. A very high pucker factor there.

Oh wait... that would have required CM systems to be running for navigation and
control and they weren't available. Never mind.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

In article ,
Alan Erskine wrote:
...nobody is entirely certain. The tank
burst *probably* did not damage anything related to the propulsion system.

I seem to remember seeing one of the photos showing a nice big dent in the
bell.

The photos weren't very good, and I think that was conjecture rather than
a definite conclusion.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in
:

In article ,
Alan Erskine wrote:
...nobody is entirely certain. The tank
burst *probably* did not damage anything related to the propulsion
system.

I seem to remember seeing one of the photos showing a nice big dent in
the bell.

The photos weren't very good, and I think that was conjecture rather
than a definite conclusion.

From the air-to-ground transcript, at 05;18:04.46 MET right after they've
jettisoned the SM:

CDR: And there's one whole side of that spacecraft missing.
CC: Is that right?
CDR: Right by the - Look out there, will you? Right by the high gain
antenna, the whole panel is blown out, almost from the base to the
engine.
CC: Copy that.
LMP: Yes, it looks like it got to the SPS bell, too, Houston.
CC: Think it zinged the SPS engine bell, huh?
LMP: That's the way it looks; unless that's just a dark brown streak.
It's really a mess.

Given the quality of the photograph(s? -- I've only seen one with a good
view of the damage), this is probably about as good a description of the
damage as we're going to get.

--
Reed