A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Apollo: One gas environment?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 1st 04, 01:57 AM
Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apollo: One gas environment?

Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary
to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system.
Is this correct?
Ads
  #2  
Old May 1st 04, 03:18 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary
to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system.


That, plus the need to do spacewalks without lengthy prebreathing, plus
the much greater complexity of two-gas life-support systems.

Post-fire, Apollo used 60% oxygen 40% nitrogen as the *cabin* atmosphere
on the pad, but the crew always breathed pure oxygen, and the cabin
shifted to pure oxygen during ascent.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #3  
Old May 1st 04, 03:57 AM
Rocky Top
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary
to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system.
Is this correct?


Yes.


  #4  
Old May 1st 04, 04:03 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rocky Top" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary
to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system.
Is this correct?


Yes.


To detail a bit more. All took off with a mixed gas atmosphere (N2 and O2)
at I believe 1 atmosphere pressure.

The N2 was bled off until the they reached the partial pressure of the O2
was left.






  #5  
Old May 1st 04, 08:34 AM
Doug...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , says...
In article ,
Bill wrote:
Were all the Apollo flights made in a one-gas (pure oxygen)
environment? It seems that the thin skin of the LM made it necessary
to limit the cabin pressure to 3.5 psi and required a one-gas system.


That, plus the need to do spacewalks without lengthy prebreathing, plus
the much greater complexity of two-gas life-support systems.

Post-fire, Apollo used 60% oxygen 40% nitrogen as the *cabin* atmosphere
on the pad, but the crew always breathed pure oxygen, and the cabin
shifted to pure oxygen during ascent.


Pre-Fire, of course, the cabin was pressurized to roughly 17 psia of
pure oxygen. They also overpressurized the cabin at times during post-
Fire operations, but as Henry says, the air was 40% nitrogen.

The cabin pressure was maintained at roughly 5 psia in both the LM and
the CM. This was a little higher than the natural partial pressure of
oxygen in sea-level air. During EVAs (any time they were in hard
suits), the suit pressure was maintained at about 3.5 psia. You could
put more air pressure in the suits, but the higher the pressure the
"harder" the suit became... it would become very much harder to do
simple things like raise your arm to eye level in a suit pressurized to,
say 4.5 psia than in a suit at 3.5 psia. (Eric Jones discusses this in
several of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals, and most of the Apollo
moonwalkers confirmed that they had a harder time working in such
"harder" suits.)

Doug

  #7  
Old May 1st 04, 07:50 PM
Brett Buck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5/1/04 6:42 AM, in article , "Nicholas
Fitzpatrick" wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to look this up, not knowing
what a psi is equivalent to. I'm sure everyone knows that 1 atmosphere
= 101.3 kPA ... but many of us forget that this equals 14.7 psi


We do? Gee, *I* got through 4th grade science!

Brett

  #8  
Old May 2nd 04, 11:38 AM
Revision
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" So they pressurised to 1.16 atmospheres (117.2
kPa) and then dropped
to 0.24 atm (24.1 kPa).


Yeah well it makes just as much sense to say they kept about a 3.5 psi of
positive pressure.....


  #9  
Old May 2nd 04, 03:43 PM
Hans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree.

For a normal person it is almost impossible to understand all these
interesting topics when it is full of gallons, feets and psi's instead of
litres, meters and Pascals

I'm sure I'm not the only one who had to look this up, not knowing
what a psi is equivalent to. I'm sure everyone knows that 1 atmosphere
= 101.3 kPA ... but many of us forget that this equals 14.7 psi

So they pressurised to 1.16 atmospheres (117.2 kPa) and then dropped
to 0.24 atm (24.1 kPa).

Nick



  #10  
Old May 2nd 04, 05:42 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Hans" wrote:

I agree.

For a normal person it is almost impossible to understand all these
interesting topics when it is full of gallons, feets and psi's instead of
litres, meters and Pascals


"Normal person", huh? You mean, some sort of "units snob?"

Well, since a good part of these "interesting topics" all use Imperial
measurements (the American part, of course), wouldn't it behoove you to
learn a few simple conversions so you can understand the discussion?
After all, a good many of us did so and can work fairly easily in either
system.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
 




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
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones UK Astronomy 8 August 1st 04 09:08 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
Apollo Buzz alDredge Astronomy Misc 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
Apollo Buzz alDredge Misc 5 July 28th 04 10:05 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla UK Astronomy 11 July 25th 04 02:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.