Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[tarkus]

Hello, I do not speak English, so why I write is what the translator of Google translate in my place, I do not think this means an insurmountable disadvantage because I can read to you without drawbacks, however Anador think my message in language Original (Spanish) case.

The first thing I want to point out is that it is too coincidental that the only mission went wrong, the only one with such bad luck has been the No. 13 ... which could be a coincidence but it also decided that NASA took off at exactly 13 hours and 13 minutes ...  WOW !!! one would think the script for this movie had been previously written.

The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?


AS13-62-8909


AS13-61-8727


The third question comes from this video, and section runs from 19:23 to 20.11 minutes, we see Fred Haise being filmed and then the camera goes to LM where the other two atronautas appear ... who filmed this scene if only were three on board?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA

Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS. And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.

Original message:
Hola, no hablo inglés, por lo tanto esto que escribo será lo que el translator de Google traduzca en mi lugar, no creo que esto signifique un inconveniente insalvable pues yo puedo leerles a ustedes sin inconvenientes, de todos modos pienso añador mi mensaje en idioma original (español) por si acaso.

Lo primero que quiero señalar es que me resulta demasiada casualidad el hecho de que la única misión que anduvo mal, la única con tan mala suerte haya sido la Nº 13... lo cual podría ser una mera coincidencia pero resulta que además NASA dispuso que despegase exactamente a las 13 horas y 13 minutos... WOW!!! uno pensaría que el guión de esta película ya había sido previamente escrito.

Lo segundo que me ha llamado la atención es estas extrañas imágenes donde vemos al módulo de comando separado del módulo de servicio en la órbita lunar (?) ¿porqué se harían esa maniobra si NASA asegura que el CSM regresó completo hasta la Tierra?

La tercer cuestión proviene de este video, y la sección va del minuto 19:23 al 20.11, vemos a Fred Haise siendo filmado y luego la cámara se dirige al LM donde aparecen los otros dos atronautas... ¿quién filmó esta escena si sólo iban tres a bordo?


En cuarto lugar tengo profundas dudas respecto al plan de vuelo dispuesto, según NASA los tripulantes usaron el módulo de descenso como bote salvavidas, y aquí hay dos cuestiones para resolver, la primera es cómo pudo el pequeño motor del LM para conseguir el empuje y la autonomía necesarios si (según la propia NASA) a Armstrong apenas le sobraron 6 segundos de combustible para conseguir alunizar la Apollo 11, con el agravante de que ahora tenían que cargar con el peso muerto de las casi 30 tn de peso del CS inútil. Y aquí es donde nos encontramos con el pretexto esgrimido por NASA: lo hicieron así para proteger el escudo térmico de la cápsula (?) y esto sí que suena a disparate, ¿por qué razón habría que cuidar tanto la parte más resistente de todo el cohete Saturno? si la frágil construcción del LM no tuvo ningún inconveniente para viajar por el vacío espacial, no se comprende entonces tantos cuidados para un escudo diseñado para sobrevivir a las terribles exigencias que impone la reentrada a la atmósfera.

[onebigmonkey]

Hello, I do not speak English, so why I write is what the translator of Google translate in my place, I do not think this means an insurmountable disadvantage because I can read to you without drawbacks, however Anador think my message in language Original (Spanish) case.

The first thing I want to point out is that it is too coincidental that the only mission went wrong, the only one with such bad luck has been the No. 13 ... which could be a coincidence but it also decided that NASA took off at exactly 13 hours and 13 minutes ...  WOW !!! one would think the script for this movie had been previously written.

Depends where you are. Most mission timings refer to GMT, which was 19:13. Not such a wow.

The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?

You may need to explain this better - it isn't clear what you think is the problem.

The third question comes from this video, and section runs from 19:23 to 20.11 minutes, we see Fred Haise being filmed and then the camera goes to LM where the other two atronautas appear ... who filmed this scene if only were three on board?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA

Haise is holding the camera. Think 'video selfie'

Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.

By the time Armstrong arrived at the surface they had already performed burns to slow it down sufficiently to take them out of orbit as well as burn fuel to land further than they anticipated.

The CSM/LM craft was already moving at speed thanks to the TLI burn - it had momentum. Quite a bit of the CSM's mass had disappeared thanks to the explosion.

And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.

Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.

[smartcooky]

Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CSM.

The velocity of the whole spacecraft (combined CSM/LM) came from its slingshot orbit around the moon, called a "free return trajectory".



The very reason that this maneuvre was undertaken was because the LM descent motor was not powerful enough and the LM did not carry enough fuel for an abort/return scenario. The LM motor was used only to make orbital corrections, and that did not require more than a few tens of seconds burn time (IIRC they made two corrections)

ETA: I don't know if they carried out a TEI burn as well as two orbital corrections. Someone here will know.

And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.

The LM only had to be strong enough to operate in 1/6th gravity and zero gravity. Consequently, its construction was very much more lightweight that it would have been had it needed to operate in Earth gravity


And if you think it is some type of fluke that Apollo 13 was the only Apollo mission that had trouble, think again. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning just after launch, and they were very lucky it didn't blow up and put an end to the Apollo program right there! There were also a lot of other things that did not go according to plan.

[Echnaton]

Welcome to the forum, tarkus.  I appreciate your including the original language post, but I can't read it myself so we'll have to play Question and Answer for a while  until we fully understand what you mean. 

Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.

The LM motor had variable thrust,  It was designed to quickly slow the fully fueled LM in orbit, then throttle down to gently land the greatly reduced mass of the nearly fuel depleted craft on the moon.   And no, it didn't have to "carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons," just change the velocity to an already moving spacecraft.  I think you can see how the is what a rocket engine would do in both circumstances.  (landing and as a rescue craft)  If you think it wan't strong enough, then there are calculations that you can perform that will show whether the LM descent stage motor was sufficient or not for both its designed purpose and rescue uses.

[Echnaton]

The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?

What window in the LM were these photos taken from?

[ka9q]

The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?

The CSM and LM are not separated in these pictures. They are still docked. The CM was photographed through the LM's overhead rendezvous window.

Although you see the moon in the background, the CSM/LM were not in lunar orbit at the time. They did not fire an engine to brake into lunar orbit as originally planned, so they simply passed around the far side and returned to earth.

[ka9q]

Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.

The Apollo 13 LM did re-enter the atmosphere; it burned up and surviving debris fell into the Pacific Ocean.

I think he's asking why the heavy and useless Service Module was left attached to the Command Module after the explosion. NASA says that was done to protect the heat shield, but he's wondering how a heat shield designed to withstand extremely high temperatures could be damaged by exposure to the low temperatures in space.

Well, that's the answer right there. The heat shield was designed for high temperatures, not low temperatures.

[ka9q]

the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.

On Apollo 13, the LM engine was required to make only small adjustments to the flight path given to it by the very large Saturn V rocket that launched it toward the moon. Without the LM engine, the spacecraft would still have gone around the moon and headed back toward earth, but it would have missed it. The astronauts would have been stranded in space.

The LM engine was used several times: first, to adjust the path so Apollo 13 would actually hit the earth on its return, and later to speed up that return. It was also used to make very small final adjustments to its path shortly before arriving back at the earth.

[Kiwi]

Tarkus, do you know about "Apollo by the Numbers"?  It was originally a book, but if you go to the website
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/contents.htm
you can look up a great deal of highly-detailed information about all the Apollo missions.

Click on APOLLO 13 - The Seventh Mission: The Third Lunar Landing Attempt
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13a_Summary.htm

and you get pages of the story of the mission, then at the bottom click on NEXT on each page and you get data sheets:

Apollo 13 Objectives
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13b_Objectives.htm
Apollo 13 Spacecraft History
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13c_Spacecraft_History.htm
Apollo 13 Ascent Phase
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13d_Ascent_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Earth Orbit Phase
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13e_Earth_Orbit_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Translunar Phase
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13f_Translunar_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Transearth Phase
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13g_Transearth_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Timeline - many pages of information
 – http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13h_Timeline.htm

The translunar phase includes data on burns by the command/service module and the lunar module, and the transearth phase includes data on the one transearth injection burn and the two mid-course correction burns by the LM, one by the ascent engine of 14.00 seconds and one by the thrusters of 21.50 seconds, 3.2 ft/sec velocity change.

Then there are many more data sheets about all the missions.

[onebigmonkey]

Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.

The Apollo 13 LM did re-enter the atmosphere; it burned up and surviving debris fell into the Pacific Ocean.

I know you know what I mean, so

I think he's asking why the heavy and useless Service Module was left attached to the Command Module after the explosion. NASA says that was done to protect the heat shield, but he's wondering how a heat shield designed to withstand extremely high temperatures could be damaged by exposure to the low temperatures in space.

Well, that's the answer right there. The heat shield was designed for high temperatures, not low temperatures.

Aah I get it now.

Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?

[BazBear]

The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?


AS13-62-8909


AS13-61-8727

In those photos, the astronaut is photographing the top of the CM, as seen from the LM window, while the LM and CSM are docked. From this angle, it is obviously impossible to see the SM, which as you should know, is attached to the bottom of the CM.

ETA- ninja'ed dang it 

[ka9q]

Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?

Not that I'm aware of. The oxygen tanks were certainly empty, and without them the hydrogen tanks and fuel cells were useless. The Service Propulsion System had full propellant tanks, but it was suspected to be damaged by the explosion. Batteries were not added to the SM until Apollo 14.

The high gain antenna was also damaged (it was hit by the separating panel). I don't know if it was still usable; I'd have to check the record to see if was still in use at the time of the explosion or if they'd restarted the BBQ roll and gone back to omni antennas after the TV transmission. In any event, without power for the CM communications equipment, it didn't much matter.

So the SM was basically just a massively heavy thermal cover for the CM heat shield.

[DD Brock]

Just spit-balling, but is it possible they left the SM in place to protect the heat shield from any of the surrounding debris impacting it, too?

[Echnaton]

It seems to have been a mostly conservative decision.   Yes they would have been able to add more speed on the return leg, but they didn't need more speed, they needed fewer unknowns.

[carpediem]

Seagull?