|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 25, 2010 10:56:34 GMT -4
Read the accounts given by Stafford, Cernan and (possibly Slayton and Kraft) to see how the different personalities dealt with a potentially distasteful situation!
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 25, 2010 8:40:18 GMT -4
But they [NASA] are a government agency.So is the Forestry Service. There was an Apollo astronaut who worked for both of those government agencies in his lifetime, you know.  Stu Roosa who was reportedly hand-picked by Alan Shepard to be part of his crew. Apollo 14: total crew space flight time at launch...15min! ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 25, 2010 6:20:20 GMT -4
Not trying to be morbid but death in space was discussed at least once; pre-launch Gemini 9 Slayton told Stafford what to do if Cernan died during EVA.  |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 24, 2010 20:48:06 GMT -4
I was discussing James Irwin's cardiac arrhythmia during EVA; one of my staff members asked what Scott would do if Irwin had died or become totally incapacitated on the surface. I couldn't recall reading about that scenario; I surmised that he would have to be left behind. Even if the healthy astro could get the other to the LM, up the ladder and onto the "porch", I doubt that he could be gotten through the hatch and into a safe position for flight (to say nothing about keeping the body for 3 days!).
Has anyone ever read about plans for this scenario?
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 23, 2010 11:00:54 GMT -4
From Moon Lander: Thomas Kelly. Smithsonian Institution Press 2001 (p69)
"...detonator cartridges...were components required to effect ascent/descent stage separation during launch from the Moon's surface: explosive nuts and bolts that secured the stages together, and the umbilical cutter and circuit interruptor that severed and inerted the interstage umbilical wire and tubing bundle."
Of interest: Kelly states that, since the functioning of the devices was critical, both nuts and bolts were severed, dual igniters were used and dual cutter blades were used to sever the bundles.
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Aug 2, 2010 7:40:43 GMT -4
Very nice; different!
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 27, 2010 19:34:52 GMT -4
I speculate that air/gas was trapped under the coating and expanded in vacuum; but, then again, I'm just guessing!  |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 23, 2010 22:37:02 GMT -4
I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it! Yup, no doubt you're right. They'd claim that "everybody knows" nothing can possibly change on the moon without air or water erosion, so the degradation of the Apollo materials had to have been caused by weathering right here on earth, proving they're just showing the original moon sets out in the desert in Area 51... Shhh; don't give them a head start!  ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 23, 2010 9:32:51 GMT -4
... And it would be fun to watch the smoke come out of the conspiracists' ears as we watch the astronauts examine the artifacts at an Apollo landing site, showing the effects of nearly a human lifetime of unfiltered solar UV and extreme temperature cycling. I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it! |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 22, 2010 6:20:24 GMT -4
Has anyone read my note? Just a friendly ping... Affirmative ;D |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 20, 2010 5:48:47 GMT -4
Haise and Lovell, at least, certainly had the ability to do a 0g EVA. All Apollo lunar crews trained for a contingency EVA back to the CSM in the event of a failed LM/CSM redocking after ascent and rendezvous. That's why each crew carried the OPS and LEVAs back to lunar orbit. Missions 15-17 would later make use of one of each during the CMP deep space EVA. But 13 had two perfectly good PLSSes and OPS available, so they wouldn't have been in a hurry as in a contingency transfer using OPS alone... Great stuff. Keep "thinking out loud", guys! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 19, 2010 6:24:27 GMT -4
Doh! (the other choice would be to take the chance that the SPS engine would work properly) Die if you don't, possibly if you do!
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 9, 2010 21:41:44 GMT -4
Metropolis: Fritz Lang
|
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jun 30, 2010 23:32:30 GMT -4
"The two-tank design gave the LM ascent stage an unusual asymmetric appearance because, to maintain the center of gravity on the centerline of the rocket engine, the distance between the fuel and oxidizer tanks had to be in inverse ratio to their weights when fully loaded. (This ratio is the product of the oxidizer/fuel [O/F] density ratio times the O/F ratio required for proper combustion.) The result, Dandridge admitted, looked like the LM had the mumps-on one side only." Moon Lander; Thomas Kelly 2001 p60 Sorry I couldn't find mention of the tank size.  |
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jun 30, 2010 17:46:52 GMT -4
Sorry for the nitpicking, Bob! Your explanation for the asymmetric LM is correct (explained in Tom Kelly's book.) Ever since I read that book, I get chills when I think of the LM crew standing next to a firing rocket engine! |
|
;D 
