|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 22, 2008 7:45:37 GMT -4
Interesting. I thought the docking port was directly over the APS engine housing.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 22, 2008 9:06:20 GMT -4
The docking port was at a slight angle. The relevant axes of the LM and the CSM do not line up.
|
|
|
Post by dinsmore on Apr 22, 2008 14:00:00 GMT -4
According to Gen. Phillips in Ch. 9 of NASA SP-350 "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon" www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/cover.html, the Apollo management team discussed Low's idea for Apollo 8 in a conference at Marshall Space Flight Center, then further in Washington, after which Phillips explained the plan to Acting Administrator Thomas Paine. Webb was away at the time attending a conference in Vienna along with Phillips' boss George Mueller. It must therefore have been something of a surprise to him to have this proposal broached by a telephone call. As it says in the book, "A telephone conversation with Mueller in Vienna found him skeptical and cool. Mr. Webb was clearly shaken by the abrupt proposal and by the consequences of possible failure".
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Apr 22, 2008 18:24:06 GMT -4
The whole problem was the wiring. Most of the wiring at this time particularly around 1968 and prior was plagued with cracking. It was too costly to replace. And these problems with the cracked wiring were never identified. This posed a great problem in the pure oxygen environment of the time. Especially in the LEM which was kept in pure O2 even during launch. The wiring needed to be Teflon coated in this pure 02 environment. Replacement of these harnesses was too costly.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 22, 2008 18:55:56 GMT -4
If a HB concedes that Apollo 8 left earth orbit or that the Lunar module went up with Apollo 9 and was successfully flown in the vacuum of space then most of their arguments against Nasa's capability to land on the moon are gone. Hence the ever more ridiculous propositions they must support. Obviously, having realised that they had miscalculated about the Van Allen belts and Grumman delivering a balsa wood model instead of a lunar lander, NASA was suddenly faced with the fact that Apollo 8 wasn't going anywhere. So they decided to fake it. Secretly launching an unmanned probe to bring back pictures of the far side of the moon, they then decided Apollo 8 could only go in LEO. As the hoax would be obvious to every tracking station not under direct American control they called in a few favours to keep quiet about it. The Russians were easy to buy off and a few crates of vodka was enough for them to eschew the greatest cold war propaganda opportunity. Obviously, every amateur astronomer had to be bought off or menaced by NASA death squads (was there a higher incidence of mortality amongst amateur astronomers at the time of Apollo 8? No statistics? How convenient!). The fact that of Apollo 8 remaining in earth orbit for 6 days made it visible to most of the population of the earth was countered by all the bribed/intimidated astronomers who told anyone who asked that it was a comet but were under strict instructions not to record the appearance of this celestial event. Honestly, you PANs have no imagination.... I almost find it believable except for this part: The Russians were easy to buy off and a few crates of vodka was enough for themThat would have keep them quiet for a few days, but not forty years! I can see memos arriving at NASA Headquarters, oh about once a week saying: "Three more cases of Vodka due by Friday - don't forget!"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 22, 2008 19:15:12 GMT -4
The whole problem was the wiring.
Why is that relevant to Apollo 8? In fact, why is that relevant to any spacecraft except Apollo 1?
This posed a great problem in the pure oxygen environment of the time.
No. The Block II command module wiring was qualified at both 5 psi cruise cabin pressure and at launch. The Block II command module was not launched with a pure oxygen environment. It was launched with an atmosphere that included a diluent gas.
Especially in the LEM which was kept in pure O2 even during launch.
No. The LM wasn't even powered up at launch. The wires could be bare conductors, for all it would matter.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Apr 22, 2008 23:02:44 GMT -4
It was an issue that was never resolved but the risk was seen as acceptable.
What do you mean by power up? Were the LEMs batteries not connected to the wiring until after launch?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 22, 2008 23:50:37 GMT -4
It was an issue that was never resolved but the risk was seen as acceptable. What do you mean by power up? Were the LEMs batteries not connected to the wiring until after launch? The atmosphere in the CM and LM once in space and pressurised was pure oxygen, but only at the partial pressure you have at sea level. In other words there was no more oxygen in the air onboard than there is at sealevel, just at sealevel there is Nitfrogen, Carbon Dioxide and a heap of other minor gases in the atmosphere as well. Wiring won't burn or cause issues to any greater degree in the Apollo capsules at their space pressurisation than they would if the capsule was ope to the air on the pad. The issue with Apollo 1 was that the capsule was pressurised up to a greater degree than Atmospheric pressure with pure oxygen, they were in a high pressure oxygen enviroment, the later missions weren't, they were in a very low pressure oxygen enviroment. I'd also note here that Mercury and Gemini as well as Apollo 7 and 9 all had this system in place, were they all faked as well? The LM was not pressurise at launch, but was open to the air as far as not being in an air tight container. During launch the air would leak out of the Saturn IV and so the LM was in vaccum when it got into space. The CM was not pressurised on the launch pad either, a lesson learned from Apollo 1. Rather they used air and kept the cabin open to the outside via a valve that automatically closed at reaching 5 PSI. The Astronauts were in their suits, pressurised to 3 PSI and once the valve shut, the systems worked on purging the remain air and replacing it with 5 PSI oxygen. Once the astronauts removed their helmets, the pressure difference pushed the mixture from their suits and into the CM scrubber units. The LM was only pressurised after docking was completed and the crew was ready to go over to do their first checks. The wiring wasn't an issue in the CM and LM enviroment. ETA: Forgot the Power Up bit. The LM required power being supplied from the CM's fuel cells to power up. This proved to be almost catastrophic on Apollo 13 when they lost the power from the cells after the accident. The startup procedure had to be rewritten so that the switches that started up the Descent Module could be powered by the batteries in the Ascent Module rather then relying on the umbilical cable that would usually have supplied the start-up power to the LM.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 23, 2008 0:04:38 GMT -4
It was an issue that was never resolved but the risk was seen as acceptable.
Are you claiming no changes in wiring practices and provisions were made between Apollo 1 and Apollo 8?
What do you mean by power up? Were the LEMs batteries not connected to the wiring until after launch?
"The wiring" is woefully naive. The busses were unpowered until well into the flight.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 23, 2008 4:00:34 GMT -4
Inconceivable, are you claiming the wiring problems are the reason missions were faked? If so, why only lunar missions and not any others, and why was the wiring not a problem in unmanned craft? If not, why bring it up?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 23, 2008 10:00:44 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 23, 2008 10:01:39 GMT -4
But really, I'm more interested in turbonium defending his claim: 1. What exactly prevented Apollo 8 from going to the Moon? 2. Exactly when and how was this problem or set of problems discovered to be insurmountable? 3. What specific evidence does turbonium have for the existence of this problem? Not quotes mined from 1958 articles. Not recent articles which talk about the hazards of long-duration missions. Not handwaving claims about other launch vehicles. What specifically was discovered, and when, that kept Apollo 8 from leaving Earth orbit, and what is the specific evidence for it? And we might as well point out that Apollo 8 was tracked on its translunar trajectory by observers in Hawaii, the continental United States, the UK, France, and Spain, as well as by the Soviet Union (thanks, PhantomWolf).
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Apr 23, 2008 10:17:10 GMT -4
Wiring harnesses back then were basically wound on huge boards manually. There are a lot of variables that could affect it's quality in this process. Not to mention the installation with crimping, and installing wire ties.
I was just giving a hypothetical in lue of the thread title. If I was to find any reason for a hoax I would have gone with the cracked wiring being a grave issue. The LEM seemed too risky and untested and compounded with wiring issues. I would have sent miltary personnel in their places as the original astronauts were of celebrity status. That way if anything went wrong the Nasa astronauts would still be alive. If then any missing pieces of footage and photos could be reshot and edited. During the earlier Apollo missions the cracking of the wiring insulation was noted.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 23, 2008 10:38:32 GMT -4
Wiring harnesses back then were basically wound on huge boards manually.
I know; I've done that personally using the 1960s standards (many of which are still practiced). I've done manual cabling using cabling twine. My master's thesis included the behavior of wiring harnesses in electromechanical assemblies. As late as 2005 I was designing wiring jigs for hand-cabling the harnesses in supercomputers.
There are a lot of variables that could affect it's quality in this process.
Such as?
Not to mention the installation with crimping, and installing wire ties.
Have you actually done wire termination in aerospace? Do you know that the "wire ties" in Apollo-era construction were actually soft lengths of waxy twine, not the hard plastic "Zip" ties we use commonly today? They cause far less damage to the insulation than earlier methods.
The causes of Apollo 1 wiring damage were identified as stretching, overbending and mechanical, chemical, and thermal damage subsequent to installation. The stretching and overbending were caused by trying to fit already-manufactured harnesses to new packaging layouts, something that doesn't occur very often. Block II wire harnesses fit properly. The subsequent damage was caused by exposure of the ill-fitting harnesses in the spacecraft to abrasion etc. -- again, something not occuring on later constructions.
Trying to say that 1960s wiring methods are inherently less safe than modern methods is handwaving.
I was just giving a hypothetical in lue of the thread title.
It wasn't clear you were being hypothetical.
If I was to find any reason for a hoax I would have gone with the cracked wiring being a grave issue.
Well fine, but it would be better to pick something with a shred of evidence.
The LEM seemed too risky and untested...
Compared to what? By what method and standard of aerospace test programs?
...and compounded with wiring issues.
Do you mean the LM also had wiring issues? Or do you mean the LM had unworthiness issues that were separate from the wiring issues?
I would have sent miltary personnel in their places as the original astronauts were of celebrity status.
The original astronauts were some of the most qualified pilots the military could supply. Their celebrity status was accidental, and as a result of their assignments as astronauts. They became famous because of the missions they were going to fly; they were not famous people who were chosen to fly them.
During the earlier Apollo missions the cracking of the wiring insulation was noted.
Exactly which missions? To what extent? From what cause?
|
|
|
Post by dinsmore on Apr 23, 2008 10:59:23 GMT -4
Presumably there had been other sealed vehicles with a lot of wiring in before Apollo, for example submarines?
|
|