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, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM had been onthe surface



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 1st 13, 10:34 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Feb 1, 4:11*pm, Dean wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:46:04 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:40*am, Dean wrote:


On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:27:53 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:


On Feb 1, 5:01*am, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:


On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article ,


says...


On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best


to not attempt recovery of their body?


the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the


coast......


but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long


ago in very deep water?


Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.


It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.


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


really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or


second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys


who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age....


Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?


well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,


should the crew be told?


say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry


if nasa was certain of their dying?


Should they have been told about the Boeing Phantom Works of TRW/


Raytheon testing out their nifty ABL capability of targeting an


incoming


LEO item, from an operationally cloaked altitude of 40,000+ feet?


*http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...itary/abl/pics...


*http://www.lb.boeing.com/defense-spa...s-clips/SMF071...


*http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-airborn...missile/12567/


*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread298256/pg1


*BP Deep Horizon helipad platform hole:


*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...explosion-on-t...


*http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/924...orm990x669.jpg


*The extra amount of thermal sensors incorporated within the underside


of Columbia, of which Boeing Phantom Works always had a direct


satellite link to, made for an ideal test target in order to fully


verify in real time, as to the effective heating caused by their ABL.


DoD contracts always require such demonstrated proof before moving on


with additional R&D funding. *These DoD contracts are worth billions,


and to pass up an opportunity of using Columbia as representing a


savings of at least 100 million to Boeing, should have been a wee bit


too tempting to pass up. *Of course If Columbia hadn’t been previously


damaged, the ABL test could have been relatively harmless.


No doubt whenever our DoD screws up, we don’t always get to see or


hear about it unless it was being live covered by some media group(s)


in charge of Pentagon and DoD hype, or as having been otherwise


leaked.


Can you please speak simply without the extraneous crap? *So you are claiming the ABL shot down Columbia now?


Not just now, but from the very get go, suggesting that the Phantom


Works team took full advantage of the opportunity, which probably


didn't go towards helping to prevent or moderate the demise of


Columbia.


Not one protective tile on Columbia was optional, meaning that each


and every one of those tiles was essential for a safe reentry. *Adding


even a minor pilot beam of ABL energy for obtaining those subsequent


thermal readings and confirming their tracking stability testing


probably didn't terminate Columbia, but it sure as hell wasn't helping.


Oh dear lord! How do you conspirowhackos come up with this stuff?


russia tried to blame the phobos grunt failure on that same alaska
radar setup.......

much later russia admitted the failure was caused by non space
certified electronic components
  #32  
Old February 2nd 13, 12:16 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Feb 1, 1:11*pm, Dean wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:46:04 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:40*am, Dean wrote:


On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:27:53 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:


On Feb 1, 5:01*am, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:


On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article ,


says...


On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best


to not attempt recovery of their body?


the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the


coast......


but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long


ago in very deep water?


Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.


It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.


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


really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or


second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys


who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age....


Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?


well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,


should the crew be told?


say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry


if nasa was certain of their dying?


Should they have been told about the Boeing Phantom Works of TRW/


Raytheon testing out their nifty ABL capability of targeting an


incoming


LEO item, from an operationally cloaked altitude of 40,000+ feet?


*http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...itary/abl/pics...


*http://www.lb.boeing.com/defense-spa...s-clips/SMF071...


*http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-airborn...missile/12567/


*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread298256/pg1


*BP Deep Horizon helipad platform hole:


*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...explosion-on-t...


*http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/924...orm990x669.jpg


*The extra amount of thermal sensors incorporated within the underside


of Columbia, of which Boeing Phantom Works always had a direct


satellite link to, made for an ideal test target in order to fully


verify in real time, as to the effective heating caused by their ABL.


DoD contracts always require such demonstrated proof before moving on


with additional R&D funding. *These DoD contracts are worth billions,


and to pass up an opportunity of using Columbia as representing a


savings of at least 100 million to Boeing, should have been a wee bit


too tempting to pass up. *Of course If Columbia hadn’t been previously


damaged, the ABL test could have been relatively harmless.


No doubt whenever our DoD screws up, we don’t always get to see or


hear about it unless it was being live covered by some media group(s)


in charge of Pentagon and DoD hype, or as having been otherwise


leaked.


Can you please speak simply without the extraneous crap? *So you are claiming the ABL shot down Columbia now?


Not just now, but from the very get go, suggesting that the Phantom


Works team took full advantage of the opportunity, which probably


didn't go towards helping to prevent or moderate the demise of


Columbia.


Not one protective tile on Columbia was optional, meaning that each


and every one of those tiles was essential for a safe reentry. *Adding


even a minor pilot beam of ABL energy for obtaining those subsequent


thermal readings and confirming their tracking stability testing


probably didn't terminate Columbia, but it sure as hell wasn't helping.


Oh dear lord! How do you conspirowhackos come up with this stuff?


The same way you mainstream status-quo FUD-masters, except we're stuck
with using the best available science that's independently replicated,
and otherwise restricted to those pesky laws of physics.

Are you suggesting that Boeing Phantom Works wasn't smart enough to
know about all those extra thermal sensors of the Columbia shuttle?

Do you have independent objective poof that ABLs were grounded at the
time?
  #33  
Old February 2nd 13, 03:14 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Feb 1, 1:34*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 1, 4:11*pm, Dean wrote:









On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:46:04 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:40*am, Dean wrote:


On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:27:53 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:


On Feb 1, 5:01*am, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:


On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:


In article ,


says...


On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:


ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best


to not attempt recovery of their body?


the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the


coast......


but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long


ago in very deep water?


Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.


It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.


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


really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or


second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys


who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age.....


Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?


well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,


should the crew be told?


say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry


if nasa was certain of their dying?


Should they have been told about the Boeing Phantom Works of TRW/


Raytheon testing out their nifty ABL capability of targeting an


incoming


LEO item, from an operationally cloaked altitude of 40,000+ feet?


*http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...itary/abl/pics...


*http://www.lb.boeing.com/defense-spa...s-clips/SMF071...


*http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-airborn...missile/12567/


*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread298256/pg1


*BP Deep Horizon helipad platform hole:


*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...explosion-on-t...


*http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/924...orm990x669.jpg


*The extra amount of thermal sensors incorporated within the underside


of Columbia, of which Boeing Phantom Works always had a direct


satellite link to, made for an ideal test target in order to fully


verify in real time, as to the effective heating caused by their ABL.


DoD contracts always require such demonstrated proof before moving on


with additional R&D funding. *These DoD contracts are worth billions,


and to pass up an opportunity of using Columbia as representing a


savings of at least 100 million to Boeing, should have been a wee bit


too tempting to pass up. *Of course If Columbia hadn’t been previously


damaged, the ABL test could have been relatively harmless.


No doubt whenever our DoD screws up, we don’t always get to see or


hear about it unless it was being live covered by some media group(s)


in charge of Pentagon and DoD hype, or as having been otherwise


leaked.


Can you please speak simply without the extraneous crap? *So you are claiming the ABL shot down Columbia now?


Not just now, but from the very get go, suggesting that the Phantom


Works team took full advantage of the opportunity, which probably


didn't go towards helping to prevent or moderate the demise of


Columbia.


Not one protective tile on Columbia was optional, meaning that each


and every one of those tiles was essential for a safe reentry. *Adding


even a minor pilot beam of ABL energy for obtaining those subsequent


thermal readings and confirming their tracking stability testing


probably didn't terminate Columbia, but it sure as hell wasn't helping.


Oh dear lord! How do you conspirowhackos come up with this stuff?


russia tried to blame the phobos grunt failure on that same alaska
radar setup.......

much later russia admitted the failure was caused by non space
certified electronic components


Exactly, there's too much bad sorts of radiation in space, just like
what zapped our Apollo missions and their sensitive Kodak film.
  #34  
Old February 2nd 13, 10:02 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 323
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Friday, February 1, 2013 6:16:40 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 1, 1:11*pm, Dean wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:46:04 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:


On Feb 1, 8:40*am, Dean wrote:




On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:27:53 AM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:




On Feb 1, 5:01*am, bob haller wrote:




On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:




On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:




On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:




In article ,




says...




On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:




ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best




to not attempt recovery of their body?




the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the




coast......




but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long




ago in very deep water?




Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.




It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.




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




really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or




second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys




who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age.....




Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?




well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,




should the crew be told?




say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry




if nasa was certain of their dying?




Should they have been told about the Boeing Phantom Works of TRW/




Raytheon testing out their nifty ABL capability of targeting an




incoming




LEO item, from an operationally cloaked altitude of 40,000+ feet?




*http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...itary/abl/pics...




*http://www.lb.boeing.com/defense-spa...s-clips/SMF071...




*http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-airborn...missile/12567/




*http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread298256/pg1




*BP Deep Horizon helipad platform hole:




*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...explosion-on-t...




*http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/924...orm990x669.jpg




*The extra amount of thermal sensors incorporated within the underside




of Columbia, of which Boeing Phantom Works always had a direct




satellite link to, made for an ideal test target in order to fully




verify in real time, as to the effective heating caused by their ABL.




DoD contracts always require such demonstrated proof before moving on




with additional R&D funding. *These DoD contracts are worth billions,




and to pass up an opportunity of using Columbia as representing a




savings of at least 100 million to Boeing, should have been a wee bit




too tempting to pass up. *Of course If Columbia hadn’t been previously




damaged, the ABL test could have been relatively harmless.




No doubt whenever our DoD screws up, we don’t always get to see or




hear about it unless it was being live covered by some media group(s)




in charge of Pentagon and DoD hype, or as having been otherwise




leaked.




Can you please speak simply without the extraneous crap? *So you are claiming the ABL shot down Columbia now?




Not just now, but from the very get go, suggesting that the Phantom




Works team took full advantage of the opportunity, which probably




didn't go towards helping to prevent or moderate the demise of




Columbia.




Not one protective tile on Columbia was optional, meaning that each




and every one of those tiles was essential for a safe reentry. *Adding




even a minor pilot beam of ABL energy for obtaining those subsequent




thermal readings and confirming their tracking stability testing




probably didn't terminate Columbia, but it sure as hell wasn't helping.




Oh dear lord! How do you conspirowhackos come up with this stuff?




The same way you mainstream status-quo FUD-masters, except we're stuck

with using the best available science that's independently replicated,

and otherwise restricted to those pesky laws of physics.



Are you suggesting that Boeing Phantom Works wasn't smart enough to

know about all those extra thermal sensors of the Columbia shuttle?



Do you have independent objective poof that ABLs were grounded at the

time?


Do you have formal training in science? Hmmm?
  #35  
Old February 3rd 13, 08:57 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Feb 2, 1:02*pm, Dean wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 6:16:40 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:

The same way you mainstream status-quo FUD-masters, except we're stuck
with using the best available science that's independently replicated,
and otherwise restricted to those pesky laws of physics.


Are you suggesting that Boeing Phantom Works wasn't smart enough to
know about all those extra thermal sensors of the Columbia shuttle?


Do you have independent objective poof that ABLs were grounded at the
time?


Do you have formal training in science? *Hmmm?


No formal science training, but I do know how to not repost so much
quoted context.

Are you still suggesting that Boeing Phantom Works and TRW/Raytheon
were not smart enough to know about all of those Columbia thermal
sensors?
  #36  
Old February 12th 13, 08:22 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

On Friday, February 1, 2013 7:01:31 AM UTC-6, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 31, 10:50*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:31:45 AM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:11:36 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
ok to make it clear you believe that if anyone dies in space its best
to not attempt recovery of their body?
the challenger bodies and crew compartment were in deep water off the
coast......
but its ok to recover gus grissoms mercury capsule that sunk so long
ago in very deep water?


Do you have problems with common sense? *Which is easier? *Recovering a body from the moon or one in water off the coast of FL? *Really, Bob, you need to think a bit deeper sometimes.


It's clear that Bob is out of his depth.

snip
really look at the efforts today to recover remains from korea or
second world war. why spend time and money the 2nd world war familys
who knew the victims have probably mostly died of old age....


Jesus, Bob! *You really are denser than osmium, aren't you?


well heres a connected issue, if nasa decides a crew is doomed to die,
should the crew be told?

say the columbia crew, should they have been informed before re entry
if nasa was certain of their dying?


Hi Bob. I find this very ironic for you to have asked that question on the very day of the 10th anniversary. I also find it odd that this anniversary went unacknowledged here (as far as I saw). But what I find most ironic about your question is that...

We already know the answer!

How can *anyone* look at that launch impact video and *not* think that there was a high probability that the vehicle was fatally wounded? Remember that we had a discussion here on this very forum 10 years ago just a few days after -107 had launched. Jim Oberg sent copies of the video to a bunch of us. We knew Columbia was in a world of hurt. NASA knew that Columbia was in a world of hurt.

Wayne Hale was *not* the hero. Yes, he got the awards and promotions, but he is the very same person who had chaired the AEFTP meeting where they analyzed the foam damage from STS-112 and announced that NASA was good to go, and that the foam threat was an "assumed risk". THAT is when he signed Rick & crew's death warrant. Worse yet, he leaves to KSC and out there kicks off this totally unauthorized scramble to get photos.

It was Linda Ham who made the tough call and decided to lay in the bed that NASA management had so thoroughly prepared. It was SHE who bit the bullet and turned off the photo request knowing full well that they had absolutely no plan of action if they were to get those photos and verify the damage.

Leroy Cain was not surprised in how that morning turned out. Charlie Hobaugh was not surprised. Everyone in that room who had seen the strike video must have been instantly aware. We can imagine that several of them had dreams about it the night before, or one of the several nights before. That goes for crew members as well.

So the answer to your question is 'yes'. NASA told the crew. They sent Rick the video. Rick knew exactly why his bird was falling apart around him. This is unlike John Glenn, who, if his capsule had fallen apart around him would not have had the pertinent facts.

We can guess that it is because of John Glenn that Rick was given the video.. People like Leroy Cain probably learned that story and told himself, "I'm never going to do that to any crew of mine."

The one question that I don't have the answer to is, "Who did Rick tell?" We can guess he would have told Willy immediately. Then I can imagine the two of them having a discussion between themselves about which other crew members they would share that info with, and when they would tell them.

The problem was that Steve Stich had done his best to sugar coat the news, making the situation sound as benign as possible. But again, who can look at that video and *not* think that they were in a world of hurt? Especially if you were riding on that bird and watching that video. Obviously Ilan could take it. But could someone like KC? Mike? Laurel? Dave? This was the tough call that Rick had to make. Who did he tell? I don't know. Here we are 10 years later and we may never know. If that had been communicated back to the ground, I did not see it reported by Gehman.

If you were commander, would you leave your crew, or certain members of your crew, in the dark? Or would you hold off on sharing that info for several days to ensure this would not affect their performance during their on-orbit tasks? We might guess that Rick held off for some days. We might guess that Rick put an extra layer of sugar coating on top of Stich's already thick coat. Can we imagine Rick gathering his entire crew and saying, "Here, watch this video"?

If that had happened, I think we would know about it - because it is very hard for me to imagine that the crew would have been directly informed straight away like this and that we would not have come to learn about it. Why?

....because that opens up the NEXT stage of should I or shouldn't I: Do you tell your family? *When* do you tell your family? If Rick had been direct with his entire crew, showing them all the video the same day he received it, then we can expect that several of them would have made the decision to share that with their families, and that those family members would have eventually told us.

And of course, even at the family level there are onion layers to peel. Steve tells Rick. Rick tells Willy. Willy tells his wife. And then his wife has to decide on if and when to tell the boys. Tell just the oldest? Or can the youngest handle it?

I don't know how far the info went beyond Rick. When bumping into kids of the crew I never asked, "Hey, did your dad ever let you know what was happening?"

Now here's the biggest irony I see in all of this, Bob...

I would actually expect an answer from one of the children to be something like, "Well, my mom told me, but I didn't really have any idea how dangerous it really was."

The reason why is because at EACH AND EVERY STAGE of peeling that onion, the truth got stretched a little bit - to the point that the information being passed along became USELESS.

And why is this ironic?

That is because it is the VERY SAME psychology that created the fatally struck orbiter situation in the first place. Long ago on this forum we had many conversations here about how this foam strike vulnerability was a totally manageable problem. NASA received funding to take care of it. There was an upgrade program intended to strengthen the Wing Leading Edges (WLE). Why did this upgrade never get implemented? Because at each stage of the risk assessment, prioritization and funding, the facts got stretched to the point where it ultimately became meaningless. The WLE upgrade got called the MMOD upgrade - meaning that it was intended to protect against Micro-Meteoroids/Orbital Debris - when EVERYONE KNEW that the biggest threat was the orange tank they were sitting on. The ET cam to watch this phenomenon got funded and implemented, but the upgrade that *mattered* got axed!

It got axed because the people reviewing the funding prioritization looked at this upgrade, now obfuscated into the alphabet soup of 'MMOD' and they correctly assessed, "we don't need to increase protection of the orbiter against micro-meteoroids and orbital debris - that is a very low threat".

Instead the sexy glass cockpit upgrade got funded. Glitz and glam, instead of safety. And who voted on this funding prioritization? People like Wayne Hale, Linda Ham, even the astronauts had their say. You know who one of the lead astronauts was for testing that cockpit upgrade? Willy McCool. Will any of his kids ever gain a realization of their dad's role in doing this to himself? Of how NASA did it to themselves? I doubt it.

But yes, we can imagine how their mother passed the word along to them in Jan '03 of how dad told her that Columbia had taken a little ding of foam during launch and how it probably meant nothing.

None of that will bring their dad back. You cannot unpeel an onion. But the cumulative distortions from each of those layers sure can make you cry.

~ CT
  #37  
Old February 12th 13, 09:04 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

From Greg Moo
"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 8:36 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 80c2ac95-558f-4a3a-842d-9b0e9efa2255
@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...
call it whatever you want. the military tries its best to return all
dead military members to their family.I recently had a realtive in
afghanistan see his best friend die. kevin had to kill the 13 year old
aghanistan kid who killed his buddy, then drag his buddys body back to
a safer place.

NASA was not, and is not, part of the military.

And more over there are plenty of places the military has made no attempt at
recovery because the logistics make it too hard (or for other reasons).


Bob did not say that NASA is part of the military. He was talking about the return of the bodies of dead military members. And guess what...

Of the three groups of seven astronauts that have been killed while operating NASA vehicles, guess how many of those were active duty military?

- 6 of 7 during Apollo (with the 7th being ex-military)
- 3 of 7 on Challenger (with one more ex-military)
- 6 of 7 on Columbia (incl 1 IAF)

That's 15 of 21 at a minimum, depending on how you want to count, and two members of this forum brush Bob's comment aside as though it was irrelevant.

Fred pointed out the USS Arizona is a memorial and a tomb to those who died
on that fateful day.

The USS Thresher is not a memorial, but no attempt was made to recover
bodies. It just wasn't possible.

Basically, it'll come to down "if it's reasonably feasible, they'll do what
they can, but not go nuts about it."


Well there is a major distinction that needs to be addressed here. If the Navy were to recover those bodies, guess where they would very likely end up putting them? Right back into the sea.

So it is not simply a matter of feasibility. There *is no precedent* for the situation Bob was asking about. People have died in space. Military people have died in space. But in all of those cases, the bodies came back to earth without added effort from the agencies that had sent them there.

Is it possible that some organization will "go nuts" trying to bring bodies back? We don't know, because we have not yet faced that. Now while there have been thousands of burials at sea, one might point out that there have been some "burials in space". But all such ceremonies to date have been distinctly different because they were remains that had been cremated, and only partial - as in a very small part - of those remains, as far as I've heard about.

So I see no Thresher analogy nor Arizona nor anything else. The precedents we have are from movies like Star Trek photon torpedo caskets. Works of pure fiction. Will that apply when the day finally comes? I don't know.

And what plans did NASA have, or do they have today? I don't know that either. In my own imagination, I can just as easily picture the US Congress funding a corpse deorbit mission as they might wave a wand to proclaim an official burial in space.

If anyone knows what the plans were or are, I would be interested in learning about it.

~ CT


so would nasa just leave the dead crew, but continue flying more
missions? or try to recover the bodies however they could.

Why would it matter? Dead is dead. Declare the site a memorial and let
the bodies rest in peace.

if a soyuz has a problem in transit to ISS and the crew dies are there
any plans to attempt recovering the bodies?

If it can be controlled from the ground, no doubt the Russians would try
to land as close as they can to the normal recovery zone. If not, then
orbital decay will take care of "recovery".

Your morbid curiosity is quite disturbing when combined with your
chicken little paranoia. You must think the whole world is out to get
you.



you know if manned flight continues, espiclly if mars becomes a
destination bad days can occur

and look how long challeger debris recovery continued with emphasis on
the crew compartment...


  #38  
Old February 12th 13, 09:34 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

From bob haller:
Obviously the crew had no way to get home. Would apollo continued to
possibly recover the astronauts bodies? was there any way to even get
the bodies home?

Were there any plans for such a sad event? Or one where the LM crew
gets stranded on the surface? leaving the CM pilot to come home alone?

yeah i know its a gruesome topic but do wonder if there were any plans
for such outcomes?

would the 13 SM defect had been found with a crew stuck in orbit?


Bob, I never saw anyone give you a direct complete answer, so I'll give you mine here...

You say, "Obviously the crew had no way to get home." Oh, really? The LM is not stuck. They just fly up for a normal rendezvous with the CSM. And why would the CSM/LM combination be stuck? There is absolutely no proof that the O2 tank rupture caused any damage whatsoever to the SPS.

Remember that Kranz's reason for not doing a Direct Abort was because of his "gut feeling" (imagine Stephen Colbert as a Flight Director making critical decisions, not letting his brain get in the way). And here's a video where Chris Kraft tells us emphatically that he wanted to do an SPS Direct Abort as soon as possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNY3xgyzNYA

They could have done this on April 14th during Trans-Lunar Coast, and if the tank rupture would have happened while Lovell & Haise were walking on the Moon, they could have fired the SPS engine while in lunar orbit.

The first problem I see in your asking the question is that you asked if the "tank had exploded" with the LM on the surface. Anyone who reads the key detailed info provided in the report, they will see that the investigation never arrived at any conclusion that the O2 tank exploded, or that there was any explosion whatsoever. Even Sy's report is posted as a pdf and his graph as a foldout is marked with the words indicating that the O2 tank ruptured, not exploded.

These are the facts that we were given in 1970. No matter what anyone may have called it in subsequent years, it does not change the best facts we have available of what happened during the mission.

If there was no explosion enroute to the Moon, we can expect that the same safety mechanisms of pressure relief, etc would have worked similarly while the CSM was orbiting around the Moon. This gives rise to the expectation that Chris Kraft maintains that the SPS was a usable engine, and this would have gotten the crew back to Earth in one piece.


As for what the plan was if some *other* event had happened where the crew would have been unable to have their bodies returned, I don't know what the plan was (as I've shared further down in this thread). An easy guess is that NASA would have just left everything as it was, or if they had some automatic ability to fire a thruster then there would have been some ceremonial way of doing that, bringing families into the Front Room, or whatever. Yes, a morbid topic. Maybe NASA's plan was to cross that bridge when they came to it. They sure had plenty enough on their plate without needing to walk very far down THAT contingency path in advance.

~ CT
  #39  
Old February 12th 13, 05:52 PM posted to sci.space.history
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

Approximately 15 minutes into the attack, a Japanese high-level bomber
dropped a 1,760-pound (800 kg) naval projectile, that had been
specially converted, onto the USS Arizona. The bomb penetrated the
forward deck of the ship about 40 feet in from the bow. The resulting
explosion ignited aviation fuel stores and the powder magazines for
the 14-inch guns, instantly separating most of the bow from the ship
and lifting the 33,000-ton vessel out of the water (there is no
physical evidence remotely suggesting the USS Arizona was hit by
torpedoes to dispel a popular myth). The explosion and subsequent
fires killed 1,177 sailors and marines instantly. In addition, the
entire front portion of the ship was left destroyed and the fires
burned everything in its path. The fires continued for 2½ days,
virtually cremating every man on board. Out of a crew of 1,511 only
334 survived. Due to the immense fire, only 107 crewmen were
positively identified. The remaining 1,070 casualties were placed into
three categories: (1) Bodies that were never found; (2) Some bodies
were removed from the ship during salvage operations. These remains
were severely dismembered or partially cremated, making identification
impossible (DNA testing was unheard of in 1941). These bodies were
placed in temporary mass graves, and later moved and reburied and
marked as unknowns, at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific
(Punchbowl) in 1949; (3) Bodies located in the aft (rear) portion of
the ship. These remains could have been recovered, but were left in
the ship due to their unidentifiable condition, indicating most crew
members died from the concussion from the massive explosion.


and parts of arizonia were removed for reuse on other ships, I believe
these were the gun turrets

so some bodies were recovered

  #40  
Old February 13th 13, 01:33 AM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Apollo 13, what if the SMs tank had exploded after the LM hadbeen on the surface

From bob haller:
Approximately 15 minutes into the attack, a Japanese high-level bomber
dropped a 1,760-pound (800 kg) naval projectile, that had been
specially converted, onto the USS Arizona. The bomb penetrated the
forward deck of the ship about 40 feet in from the bow. The resulting
explosion ignited aviation fuel stores and the powder magazines for
the 14-inch guns, instantly separating most of the bow from the ship
and lifting the 33,000-ton vessel out of the water (there is no
physical evidence remotely suggesting the USS Arizona was hit by
torpedoes to dispel a popular myth). The explosion and subsequent
fires killed 1,177 sailors and marines instantly. In addition, the
entire front portion of the ship was left destroyed and the fires
burned everything in its path. The fires continued for 2½ days,
virtually cremating every man on board. Out of a crew of 1,511 only
334 survived. Due to the immense fire, only 107 crewmen were
positively identified. The remaining 1,070 casualties were placed into
three categories: (1) Bodies that were never found; (2) Some bodies
were removed from the ship during salvage operations. These remains
were severely dismembered or partially cremated, making identification
impossible (DNA testing was unheard of in 1941). These bodies were
placed in temporary mass graves, and later moved and reburied and
marked as unknowns, at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific
(Punchbowl) in 1949; (3) Bodies located in the aft (rear) portion of
the ship. These remains could have been recovered, but were left in
the ship due to their unidentifiable condition, indicating most crew
members died from the concussion from the massive explosion.


and parts of arizonia were removed for reuse on other ships, I believe
these were the gun turrets

so some bodies were recovered


One of my great uncles was on-board the Arizona that Sunday morning. I've gone to visit the memorial several times. Very sobering, particularly to see the oil slick still rising out of the wreckage so many decades later.

Another good place to visit is the State Capitol Building in Phoenix, as they have on display there the fancy silverware from the ship. (At least it was on display when I last visited.) I don't recall the story of how the silverware got from the ship to the city. I imagine it was either salvaged, or it was somehow not on-board the ship on the 7th.

Another tidbit... My cat is named in honor of the attack. The day I got her was the 70th anniversary. She has these stripes that make her look like a little tiger, so I couldn't resist.

~ 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
Apollo Lunar Surface Communications Requirements Alan Erskine[_3_] History 8 May 11th 12 04:59 AM
your dicks will be exploded Quotation G. Humbles News 0 November 2nd 06 08:42 AM
your dicks will be exploded Cricketers F. Preshrank News 0 October 31st 06 06:13 PM
To the Seven Servants (Angels of the Apocalypse). Physics isWar. To the 144,000 of the Tribes of Israel. On the Final Judaic War. Onthe Fall of Babylon. On the nuclear Holocaust of the Egyptian cultists /Usuryists / Christians / Neo-Nazis. The Vi Steve Astronomy Misc 1 March 21st 05 04:28 PM
To the Seven Servants (Angels of the Apocalypse). Physics isWar. To the 144,000 of the Tribes of Israel. On the Final Judaic War. Onthe Fall of Babylon. On the nuclear Holocaust of the Egyptian cultists /Usuryists / Christians / Neo-Nazis. The Vi Steve UK Astronomy 1 March 21st 05 04:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 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.