|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 20, 2006 21:13:08 GMT -4
Okay I'm working on the Apollo 13 page for my site. (yeah I like doing things out of order.  ) In it I'll be dealing with all the Apollo incidents and accidents that occured, but I probably don't know them all. Obviuos ones are Apoloo 11's long landing, 12's lightning strikes and TV camera, 15's airlock leak, 16's SME troubles that delayed the landing. Can anyone think of others I am missing here, I'm sure that I am. Feel free to add them to this thread.  |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 20, 2006 22:55:12 GMT -4
Apollo 14's problem with the docking mechanism and the LM's abort switch problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 21, 2006 9:02:20 GMT -4
Apollo 5 had an early problem when it became apparent that the onboard computer control had not been programmed correctly to take account of the time taken to build to full thrust after DPS ignition. The first burn was aborted, so the ground crew had to rearrange the flight test program on the fly.
Apollo 6 suffered problems in all three stages of the Satrun V with pogo in the first stage, failure of one engine and erroneous shutdown of another in the second stage and failure of the third stage to restart after orbital insertion.
Apollo 10 had a LM stabilisation problem at staging, resulting in Gene Cernan's famous expletive that caused NASA no end of PR trouble.
Apollo 11's program alrms (1201 and 1202) due to the rendezvous radar being on when it should have been off, and communications difficulties during powered descent.
Apollo 15 had rover steering troubles.
Not related to the lunar program, but the ASTP nearly lost the crew when toxic thruster fuel was incorrectly vented into the cabin after re-entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 24, 2006 2:12:04 GMT -4
Apollo 13 page up here. Comments and suggestions always appreciated. |
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 24, 2006 7:57:36 GMT -4
An excellent, concise and informative article ;D
One minor niggle: I think the sentence "but the thermostat switches that would have to turn off the heater, were designed for the 65V being used, but rather the old specifications of 23V." needs a "not" before "designed"
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 24, 2006 16:22:18 GMT -4
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall the old specification being for 28V. I believe 28V was the normal operating voltage of the spacecraft's electrical system. The reason they needed to increase the spec to 65V was that when the spacecraft was powered by generators on the ground, the voltage could sometimes spike up to 65V. It was therefore necessary to make all the components capable of handling the higher voltage even though that was not the operating norm. Unfortunately the thermostats slipped through and never got changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 24, 2006 17:45:33 GMT -4
As I've said, I'm perfectly willing to proof the whole thing, but I'm not sure you want me rolling out all of your spelling/grammatical errors in public. Some people, even some with awful grammar (far worse than yours!) are; some aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 25, 2006 6:30:38 GMT -4
As I've said, I'm perfectly willing to proof the whole thing, but I'm not sure you want me rolling out all of your spelling/grammatical errors in public. Some people, even some with awful grammar (far worse than yours!) are; some aren't. Good of you to offer, Gillianren. We Kiwis are pretty thick-skinned, so I don't think fellow Kiwi PhantomWolf will mind. After all, he has mis-spelt your name and many other things publicly! See apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1127641271&page=4#1127842053I'm an amateur historian and have often complained about the difficulty of finding good proof-readers. Properly-trained ones are probably okay, but I've never met any. Too many laypeople nowadays are too soft and politically correct to do a good, crtitical job. I've recently been helping an acquaintance with his book and have really got stuck into the smallest points and even mocked him a bit when he has been too negative or too PC. As I'll explain when I send him the results, I've only done for him what I hope someone will do for me one day, including mocking me if I deserve it. A great difficulty for writers is their knowledge of the subject versus the lack of knowledge of their readers. It is very difficult for writers to know whether they have adequately described or explained something for the layperson, especially with complex or technical matters. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 25, 2006 18:24:39 GMT -4
Well, as you all know, I'm very much a layperson about the science of Apollo, so I'm no help with that. But I do know both the rules of grammar and when it's okay to break them. I used to do copy editing for money, when I was in college. I'm good enough at what I do that I used to argue with our editor-in-chief when she was in favor of letting things go. (She also made it very clear that she was on my side when our sports editor tried arguing grammar with me!)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 25, 2006 18:35:22 GMT -4
As I've said, I'm perfectly willing to proof the whole thing, but I'm not sure you want me rolling out all of your spelling/grammatical errors in public. Some people, even some with awful grammar (far worse than yours!) are; some aren't. PhantomWolf has already received many suggests in a thread at BAUT. You might want to give PW a chance to update the page with what he already has before proof reading it. That might make your work a little easier and save the time of repeating what others have already pointed out. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 26, 2006 3:53:09 GMT -4
True enough; I've seen that thread.
Let me know, PW. Or, better yet, PM me your e-mail address, and I'll send you my corrections that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2006 5:14:38 GMT -4
I've been busy with a training course at work all week, so I'm going to deal with it this weekend. I'll post when it's done. You're welcome to shred the rest of the site while waiting, |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 30, 2006 2:32:32 GMT -4
Right, the new version is up. Lets Gillianren loose, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 12, 2006 9:46:43 GMT -4
Well, the Apollo 16 Mission Report spoke of three solar flares, one of them "blanketed the detector panels with low energy tracks". Basically it more or less messed up the data of the cosmic ray detector experiment. I don't know if that's important enough to put on your site, though. |
|
) In it I'll be dealing with all the Apollo incidents and accidents that occured, but I probably don't know them all. Obviuos ones are Apoloo 11's long landing, 12's lightning strikes and TV camera, 15's airlock leak, 16's SME troubles that delayed the landing. Can anyone think of others I am missing here, I'm sure that I am. Feel free to add them to this thread. 
