|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
on the way back to earth the LM was detached left to burn up..... just
before CM re entry was there enough fuel in the upper stage to send the LMs upper stage into heliospheric orbt? obviiously this wasnt a good idea, the goal was to save the astronauts lives. more workload wouldnt be good I watched a show on apollo 13 today and jim lovell said they would of prefered to save the LM but it was impossible.. that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
On Feb 26, 11:54*pm, " wrote:
on the way back to earth the LM was detached left to burn up..... just before CM * re entry was there enough fuel in the upper stage to send the LMs upper stage into heliospheric orbt? obviiously this wasnt a good idea, the goal was to save the astronauts lives. more workload wouldnt be good I watched a show on apollo 13 today and jim lovell said they would of prefered to save the LM but it was impossible.. that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? bump. I would assume the LMs upper stage was fully fueled when it burned up at time of re entry? since the upper stage was still attached to the descent part. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
The Ascent Stage engine was a single use/burn design, with no throttle option - basically like a solid rocket motor. That engine was basically designed to be as simple and failure-proof as possible to insure the least liklihood of trouble getting the LM off the Moon and back to the CSM. NO - the engine actually was designed for multiple burns. The reliability approach was to make the engine itself as simple as possible and then build redundancies into the valving and tankage through quad redundant valve systems, multiple pressurant tanks etc. The choice of hypergolic fuels was partially driven by the fact that such an engine was restartable without having an igniter to start the reaction. Some abort rendezvous situations would have required up to 3 ascent engine burns. Val Kraut |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
On 03/08/2011 10:22 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
The Ascent Stage engine was a single use/burn design, with no throttle option - basically like a solid rocket motor. That engine was basically designed to be as simple and failure-proof as possible to insure the least liklihood of trouble getting the LM off the Moon and back to the CSM. NO - the engine actually was designed for multiple burns. The reliability approach was to make the engine itself as simple as possible and then build redundancies into the valving and tankage through quad redundant valve systems, multiple pressurant tanks etc. The choice of hypergolic fuels was partially driven by the fact that such an engine was restartable without having an igniter to start the reaction. Some abort rendezvous situations would have required up to 3 ascent engine burns. Val, after reading this a couple times I finally figured out that you only wrote the second paragraph and the first paragraph was from the post you were responding to... be more careful with your quoting! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
On Feb 26, 8:54*pm, " wrote:
on the way back to earth the LM was detached left to burn up..... just before CM * re entry was there enough fuel in the upper stage to send the LMs upper stage into heliospheric orbt? obviiously this wasnt a good idea, the goal was to save the astronauts lives. more workload wouldnt be good I watched a show on apollo 13 today and jim lovell said they would of prefered to save the LM but it was impossible.. that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? Perhaps they needed to further destroy evidence of their not having actually walked on our physically dark and naked moon, that which offered at least as much radiation dosage as the worse (22.8 rads/hr) of those Van Allen belt badlands, which they had to encounter at least twice. Of course, even if they had to spend a total of one hour within the Van Allen hot-seat going to/from our moon is still very survivable. Oddly, none of all that Kodak film ever recorded a single gamma or X- ray hit for each and every mission. (is that beginners dumb luck, or what?) http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
On Feb 27, 5:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:54*pm, " wrote: on the way back to earth the LM was detached left to burn up..... just before CM * re entry was there enough fuel in the upper stage to send the LMs upper stage into heliospheric orbt? obviiously this wasnt a good idea, the goal was to save the astronauts lives. more workload wouldnt be good I watched a show on apollo 13 today and jim lovell said they would of prefered to save the LM but it was impossible.. that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? Perhaps they needed to further destroy evidence of their not having actually walked on our physically dark and naked moon, that which offered at least as much radiation dosage as the worse (22.8 rads/hr) of those Van Allen belt badlands, which they had to encounter at least twice. Of course, even if they had to spend a total of one hour within the Van Allen hot-seat going to/from our moon is still very survivable. Oddly, none of all that Kodak film ever recorded a single gamma or X- ray hit for each and every mission. (is that beginners dumb luck, or what?) *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” You're an idiot. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
Brad Guth wrote:
that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? Perhaps they needed to further destroy evidence of their not having actually walked on our physically dark and naked moon, that which offered at least as much radiation dosage as the worse (22.8 rads/hr) of those Van Allen belt badlands, which they had to encounter at least twice. Of course, even if they had to spend a total of one hour within the Van Allen hot-seat going to/from our moon is still very survivable. Oddly, none of all that Kodak film ever recorded a single gamma or X- ray hit for each and every mission. (is that beginners dumb luck, or what?) http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” Increase the meds, buddy. Your current dosage ain't cutting it. T.B. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo 13 LM upper stage.
On Feb 26, 8:54 pm, " wrote:
on the way back to earth the LM was detached left to burn up..... just before CM re entry was there enough fuel in the upper stage to send the LMs upper stage into heliospheric orbt? obviiously this wasnt a good idea, the goal was to save the astronauts lives. more workload wouldnt be good I watched a show on apollo 13 today and jim lovell said they would of prefered to save the LM but it was impossible.. that got me wondering maybe it was possible but just not worth the effort? Duh...Who would you get to drive it? It was challenging enough to have the LM thrust the CSM load, something it was never designed for, or spec'd for, but Grumman put enough balls into the upper-LM stage to do it! Think about the different 'structural' load with that unit pushing the CSM. IOW's 'the warranty expired'. Lot's of fast genious in that misssion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~Ken |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The X-33 as the upper stage of a two-stage-to-orbit system. | Robert Clark | Policy | 4 | September 12th 09 03:51 AM |
Technically could the LM upper stage engines | [email protected] | History | 7 | July 29th 09 02:21 AM |
The ESC-A upper stage is readied for launch | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 1st 05 06:07 PM |
CEV combined with upper stage? | Pete Lynn | Policy | 5 | September 21st 04 11:55 PM |
Upper stage engines | Grrrbau | Technology | 4 | November 30th 03 10:56 PM |