A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo 13 ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 30th 13, 01:34 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13 ?

On Jan 29, 2:35*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 25, 11:16*am, (marcus hall) wrote:


In article ,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:


In popular televised accounts the A13 3 astronauts had a problem
with cold, due to power conservation, but they aren't shown wearing
their space suits to keep warmer. Did they, if not why not?
Ken


Another issue is that the LM was only sized for two people in suits, so
fitting a third person in a suit may have been uncomfortably tight,
especially since they didn't want to take any chance with somebody accidently
kicking through the "hull" or breaking something else equally important.

  #13  
Old January 30th 13, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Apollo 13 ?


You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO
and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.

the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the
LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight
constraints


Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross
oversimplification.

Jeff
--

never the less it aptly described the paper thin walls of the LM done
that way to keep weight down
  #14  
Old January 30th 13, 11:02 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13 ?

On Jan 30, 5:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 88cd94a3-ee17-467b-8ac2-b2b489452627
@u1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...



On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


Body heat of 450 watts plus full sunlight always on half of the craft
in addition to the secondary influx of moon IR as well as the
unavoidable planetshine IR, is simply not going to provide any
freezing cold cabin environment unless their HVAC system was blasting
away with cold air.


You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO
and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.

the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the
LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight
constraints


Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross
oversimplification.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


At 1 AU the solar influx is the same, and the matter of getting rid of
surplus heat from any spacecraft that's not specifically configured
for such, is downright difficult. It's worse when there's 1220 w/m2
coming off the illuminated surface of our physically dark moon, in
addition to the planetshine influx contributing a bit more IR. All
three influx sources of energy added to the internal 450+ watts of
heat from three humans is going to make their cabin interior anything
but cold.
  #15  
Old January 31st 13, 02:19 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Apollo 13 ?

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:02:35 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 88cd94a3-ee17-467b-8ac2-b2b489452627


@u1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...








On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:




Body heat of 450 watts plus full sunlight always on half of the craft


in addition to the secondary influx of moon IR as well as the


unavoidable planetshine IR, is simply not going to provide any


freezing cold cabin environment unless their HVAC system was blasting


away with cold air.




You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO


and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.




the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the


LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight


constraints




Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross


oversimplification.




Jeff


--


"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would


magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper


than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in


and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer




At 1 AU the solar influx is the same, and the matter of getting rid of

surplus heat from any spacecraft that's not specifically configured

for such, is downright difficult. It's worse when there's 1220 w/m2

coming off the illuminated surface of our physically dark moon, in

addition to the planetshine influx contributing a bit more IR. All

three influx sources of energy added to the internal 450+ watts of

heat from three humans is going to make their cabin interior anything

but cold.


And there it is: Our resident conspirowhacko chimes in with his infamous "physically dark moon" catchphrase.
  #16  
Old February 1st 13, 02:23 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13 ?

On Jan 31, 5:19*am, Dean wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:02:35 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article 88cd94a3-ee17-467b-8ac2-b2b489452627


@u1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...


On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


Body heat of 450 watts plus full sunlight always on half of the craft


in addition to the secondary influx of moon IR as well as the


unavoidable planetshine IR, is simply not going to provide any


freezing cold cabin environment unless their HVAC system was blasting


away with cold air.


You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO


and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.


the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the


LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight


constraints


Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross


oversimplification.


Jeff


--


"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would


magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper


than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in


and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


At 1 AU the solar influx is the same, and the matter of getting rid of


surplus heat from any spacecraft that's not specifically configured


for such, is downright difficult. *It's worse when there's 1220 w/m2


coming off the illuminated surface of our physically dark moon, in


addition to the planetshine influx contributing a bit more IR. *All


three influx sources of energy added to the internal 450+ watts of


heat from three humans is going to make their cabin interior anything


but cold.


And there it is: *Our resident conspirowhacko chimes in with his infamous "physically dark moon" catchphrase.


What would you call a surface albedo that visibly averages 7%?

Are you saying there's no paramagnetic basalt, carbonado or any other
dark minerals or any raw carbon on the moon?
http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Albedo
"The overall albedo of the Moon is frequently quoted as being about
7%. This is actually the so-called Bond albedo at visible wavelengths,
which refers to the fraction of the total energy impinging on a
surface that is reflected in all directions. It is a concept which is
useful in studies of planetary enegy balance, but has little relevance
to perceived brightness, which depend entirely on the intensity
reflected in a specific direction."

Of course adding in the secondary/recoil of IR makes the moon a whole
lot more reflective, not to mention what secondary/recoils UV photons
have to offer, plus X-rays and gamma that always tend to brighten
things up.

Are you suggesting that captured meteors and whatever space dust isn't
physically dark?
  #17  
Old February 1st 13, 10:16 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Apollo 13 ?

On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:23:24 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:19*am, Dean wrote:

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:02:35 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:


On Jan 30, 5:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:




In article 88cd94a3-ee17-467b-8ac2-b2b489452627




@u1g2000yql.googlegroups.com, says...




On Jan 29, 4:55*pm, Brad Guth wrote:




Body heat of 450 watts plus full sunlight always on half of the craft




in addition to the secondary influx of moon IR as well as the




unavoidable planetshine IR, is simply not going to provide any




freezing cold cabin environment unless their HVAC system was blasting




away with cold air.




You're quite wrong. *"Space is cold", especially when you're beyond LEO




and don't have the heat of the earth aimed at half your ship.




the side of the vehicle in darness radiates the body heat fast. the




LMs walls were paper thin and not well insulated due to weight




constraints




Thermal design of the LEM is far more complicated than your gross




oversimplification.




Jeff




--




"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would




magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper




than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in




and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer




At 1 AU the solar influx is the same, and the matter of getting rid of




surplus heat from any spacecraft that's not specifically configured




for such, is downright difficult. *It's worse when there's 1220 w/m2




coming off the illuminated surface of our physically dark moon, in




addition to the planetshine influx contributing a bit more IR. *All




three influx sources of energy added to the internal 450+ watts of




heat from three humans is going to make their cabin interior anything




but cold.




And there it is: *Our resident conspirowhacko chimes in with his infamous "physically dark moon" catchphrase.




What would you call a surface albedo that visibly averages 7%?



Are you saying there's no paramagnetic basalt, carbonado or any other

dark minerals or any raw carbon on the moon?

http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Albedo

"The overall albedo of the Moon is frequently quoted as being about

7%. This is actually the so-called Bond albedo at visible wavelengths,

which refers to the fraction of the total energy impinging on a

surface that is reflected in all directions. It is a concept which is

useful in studies of planetary enegy balance, but has little relevance

to perceived brightness, which depend entirely on the intensity

reflected in a specific direction."



Of course adding in the secondary/recoil of IR makes the moon a whole

lot more reflective, not to mention what secondary/recoils UV photons

have to offer, plus X-rays and gamma that always tend to brighten

things up.



Are you suggesting that captured meteors and whatever space dust isn't

physically dark?


No, what I am suggesting is you are a conspirowhacko who manipulates words to suit yourself. Your statement about IR and X-rays brightening things up is complete nonsense.
  #18  
Old February 12th 13, 04:50 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13 ?

From Ken Tucker:
In popular televised accounts the A13 3 astronauts had a problem
with cold, due to power conservation, but they aren't shown wearing
their space suits to keep warmer. Did they, if not why not?



My A13 spacesuit question is why didn't they suit up and do an EVA to photograph and report on the damage?

Years back I asked key decision makers involved (Kraft, Kranz, Lunney, Griffin, etc) and I was told that they were simply focused on bringing the crew back alive. Considering how there were still six more missions on the schedule, this struck me as very short sighted. It certainly would have taken their mind off the cold for several hours. It also would have put them back into a strong sense of mission, and ideally it would have given great info on how to make sure this wouldn't happen again. If they opened the hatch, stepped outside and encountered anything that appeared that it might be a bad risk, then they always had the option of aborting the EVA.

Maybe Sy would like to let us know if he remembers any discussion about maybe doing an EVA. It seems to me that banking the remainder of the program - 75% of the landing missions - on photos the crew might get on a jettisoned SM through their tiny windows as it receded away from them was rolling the dice to a far greater extent than the risk a deep space EMU outing would have caused.

~ CT
  #19  
Old February 12th 13, 05:58 AM posted to sci.space.history
Chris Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default Apollo 13 ?

Stuf4 writes:

From Ken Tucker:
In popular televised accounts the A13 3 astronauts had a problem with cold,
due to power conservation, but they aren't shown wearing their space suits to
keep warmer. Did they, if not why not?



My A13 spacesuit question is why didn't they suit up and do an EVA to
photograph and report on the damage?


Given that they'd lost most of their on-board oxygen and there was a real
question if they had enough to get back, dumping a cabin-full overboard
to try to take some pictures seems like a suicide move.


Years back I asked key decision makers involved (Kraft, Kranz, Lunney, Griffin,
etc) and I was told that they were simply focused on bringing the crew back
alive. Considering how there were still six more missions on the schedule,
this struck me as very short sighted. It certainly would have taken their mind
off the cold for several hours. It also would have put them back into a strong
sense of mission, and ideally it would have given great info on how to make
sure this wouldn't happen again. If they opened the hatch, stepped outside and
encountered anything that appeared that it might be a bad risk, then they
always had the option of aborting the EVA.


Why bother, they'd have already signed their death warrants.
  #20  
Old February 12th 13, 06:51 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13 ?

From Chris Jones:
Stuf4 writes:


My A13 spacesuit question is why didn't they suit up and do an EVA to
photograph and report on the damage?


Given that they'd lost most of their on-board oxygen and there was a real
question if they had enough to get back, dumping a cabin-full overboard
to try to take some pictures seems like a suicide move.


I actually used to think exactly what you are saying. But it was the Flight Directors who were telling me that they were fat on O2. I was surprised to learn that, and that immediately raised the question as to why they didn't do this EVA.

Years back I asked key decision makers involved (Kraft, Kranz, Lunney, Griffin,
etc) and I was told that they were simply focused on bringing the crew back
alive. Considering how there were still six more missions on the schedule,
this struck me as very short sighted. It certainly would have taken their mind
off the cold for several hours. It also would have put them back into a strong
sense of mission, and ideally it would have given great info on how to make
sure this wouldn't happen again. If they opened the hatch, stepped outside and
encountered anything that appeared that it might be a bad risk, then they
always had the option of aborting the EVA.


Why bother, they'd have already signed their death warrants.


Sy can verify that this was not the case. I myself have a copy of Jim Lovell's consumables poster, but that lists O2 pressure, not quantity. If I find a specific chart, I'll post it here.

....which leads to a completely different question: What's up with the people behind the Lunar Flight Journal. The one moonflight that everyone wants to know about is one that they haven't prioritized to complete.

The one document I am salivating over the opportunity to read is the initial mishap investigation done by JSC, which for some reason none of the A13 authors have submitted an FOIA request for. The reason why the investigation that was made public was called a "review board" was because they were tasked with reviewing this internal JSC report. Of course, the A13 Review Board was internal itself, but that's separate issue.

One thing is certain to me: if we had close up photos taken in flight, then today we would be a lot smarter about this hugely popular notion that the incident was an explosion.

For that matter, if we had this original JSC report released, I expect people today would be a lot more clear about how NASA had assessed what had actually happened.

Sy, if you would scan your copy for us I would be forever grateful.

~ CT
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Less Apollo 11, more Thunderbird 11. Wires prove the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a set. [email protected] History 244 November 19th 07 12:33 AM
Less Apollo 11, more Thunderbird 11. Wires prove the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a set. Denis Loubet Astronomy Misc 0 October 9th 07 03:16 AM
Less Apollo 11, more Thunderbird 11. Wires prove the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a set. Denis Loubet Amateur Astronomy 0 October 9th 07 03:16 AM
Conversations with Apollo Podcast Episode 4 - Apollo Team Support, David A. Ballard [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 September 5th 07 08:29 PM
Conversations with Apollo Podcast Episode 4 - Apollo Team Support, David A. Ballard [email protected] Policy 0 September 5th 07 08:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.