The RCS: Voice Transcript

Scott, what evidence is there -- not your interpretation of the voice
transcript,
but engineering evidence -- that the RCS system was even fuelled at this
point,
or that any RCS firings actually occurred?

"Scott Grissom" wrote
uh, yes. that's why they knew they had an un-commanded roll
thruster firing. when did you come into this????? it's on the same
idr as the rcs safe lights. IYRC.

"JimO" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would
actually fire. Maybe?

As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
You ARE aware of how those thrusters work, don't you? Just because
the hypergolics are not loaded does NOT mean they won't fire. Now,
I'm not talking about the main engines here; those are designed to
fire once, burn, and that's it. But those RCS thrusters are designed
to fire repeatedly during the course of a mission.
Think of it like a gun: You pull the hammer back, pull the trigger,
and the hammer slams down every time unless there's something
mechanically wrong with it. Whether or not someone gets shot is only
determined by the presence of a bullet in the chamber. The mechanical
function of the gun itself remains the same regardless of whether it
is being dry-fired.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
I TOLD
you the "verifiable reference"--THE VOICE TRANSCRIPT!!!!!!!

No, you didn't. "Voice Transcript" is not a verifiable reference.

The thrusters DID actually fire

Let's see a verifiable reference from the technical reports on this.

"To train, of course." HOW ABSURD! They "trained" in simulators;
Apollo One was set for launch in three weeks. THEY WERE TESTING THEIR
SPACECRAFT!!!!!

Which was part of the training. As you would say, "Duh!" If it was not part
of crew training, then the crew would not have been in the capsule, some
technicians would have been.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Yes, but they WERE firing the thrusters

Where are the reports on the damage to the capsule and support structures
that actually firing thrusters while they were surrounded by the support
structures would have caused?

They had to open those valves and ensure everything in the
thruster was working properly.

Which wouldn't require the actual firing. Where are the reports showing that
the RCS tanks were loaded at the time of the test?

As I'm sure you realize, there's
really not much point to a Plugs-Out Test and/or CDDT if you do not
test the systems.

Which does not mean that a thruster needed to actually fire.

This is not a simulator

Which does not mean that *simulations* cannot occur within the spacecraft.

They
must (and DO) test the spacecraft--sans cryogenics--to ensure proper
operation.

And, in this case, unless and until you provide documentation to the
contrary, empty RCS tanks.

By the way, thank you for an intelligent reply.

You try the same next time.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Just because
the hypergolics are not loaded does NOT mean they won't fire.

How do they fire without fuel?

Maybe after another thousand messages or so we'll get around to her
trying to explain how a malfunction in the Service Module RCS could make
its way back to the CM to ignite a fire.

Maybe it will take 4 or 5 thousand messages. Just because she finally
clarifies what she thinks went on doesn't mean there's any evidence to
back up her theory.

If I wasn't so bored I'd put her in my killfile and be done with her.

Judging from the recent exchange regarding "died in the defense of the
country" we had, she suffers from Humpty-Dumpty syndrom, at least a mild
case. (For those who skipped over it, she considers anyone who dies in
uniform, or after having served in uniform, to have died in service to their
country.)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:10:25 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

Judging from the recent exchange regarding "died in the defense of the
country" we had, she suffers from Humpty-Dumpty syndrom, at least a mild
case.

....Careful, Ami. Stick to the facts about her lack of facts, or Derek
and Kevin will put you in their killfiles. We've got to keep this all
dry and serious from now on, or they'll get all ****y about it.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Ami Silberman wrote:
Judging from the recent exchange regarding "died in the defense of the
country" we had, she suffers from Humpty-Dumpty syndrom, at least a mild
case. (For those who skipped over it, she considers anyone who dies in
uniform, or after having served in uniform, to have died in service to their
^^^^^^^ ^^
ITYM "defense of"
country.)

The A-1 crew clearly died in service to their country, but not in the
defense
of it. The difference seems to escape LaDonna, but not the rest of us.

Sam

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Just because
the hypergolics are not loaded does NOT mean they won't fire.

How do they fire without fuel?

See other post.

1. "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire;
otherwise, what was the point of the test????

2. "JimO" wrote
Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC
(I
could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet
would
actually fire. Maybe?

3. "LaDonna Wyss" wrote i
As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired
without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired
three times without being commanded by the crew.
You ARE aware of how those thrusters work, don't you? Just because
the hypergolics are not loaded does NOT mean they won't fire. Now,
I'm not talking about the main engines here; those are designed to
fire once, burn, and that's it. But those RCS thrusters are designed
to fire repeatedly during the course of a mission.
Think of it like a gun: You pull the hammer back, pull the trigger,
and the hammer slams down every time unless there's something
mechanically wrong with it. Whether or not someone gets shot is only
determined by the presence of a bullet in the chamber. The mechanical
function of the gun itself remains the same regardless of whether it
is being dry-fired.


A. LaDonna, you don't know me, or you wouldn't try the smarmy
"You ARE aware of how those thrusters work, don't you?" put-down.
You have now expended your one free pass.

B. I am certified NASA Mission Control Flight Controller, with original
specialization in 1980 in the Shuttle OMS/RCS System, and a secondary
certification (these are equivalent in classroom and reading and lab and
drill hours
to a technical Masters graduate degree) in Rendezvous and Guidance
Procedures.

C. I know how hypergolic RCS engines work. Rest assured. Gene Kranz trusted
me to be on console for the very first Space Shuttle launch.

D. Without hypergolics (you admit they weren't loaded, I see), an RCS engine
will not fire. The only mechanical action of a fire command is for valves to
open
into the thrust chamber. There is no igniter, no pin that springs forward,
no
other activity.

E. A 'static firing' is when an engine ignites, and generates thrust and
combustion products
and heat and noise, etc. This is the traditional definition.

F. By the way, it's confusing when you say, "Now, I'm not talking about the
main engines
here; those are designed to fire once, burn, and that's it. But those RCS
thrusters are
designed to fire repeatedly during the course of a mission." I presume you
are talking about
the Apollo's main engine, called the SPS, at the base of the Service Module,
and it is
also designed for repeated firings. I would be surprised if you were
referring to the
engines of the Saturn-1b and its S-IV-b second stage, since they have never
been a
part of this discussion. Even if they were, you are wrong -- the J-2 engine
in the S-IV-B
is also designed for multiple firings, as any good Apollo history can tell
you.

G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several
respondents here
have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout of
the firing commands,
but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to
constitute verifiable
documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired.

H. Please restate your assertion and marshall the evidence needed to be
credible.

I. Then please explain the significance-if-true of the assertion.