clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (12/12/90)
In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu>, TACON019@ysub (Fred Ullom) writes: >I just saw a documentary on the apollo 13 disaster (or success depending >on how you look at it). They used the LEM for habitation on the return >trip to earth when the command module was crippled and then jettisoned >it in earth orbit before re-entry. > >I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit >decay? > The LM was jettisoned, but not into earth orbit. It destructively reentered the earth's atmosphere (burned up). There was some concern about where it was aimed since there was a radioactive package which would have been used to power the lunar experiments left on the moon. This package was designed to survive a launch explosion or a reentry. I recall reading that the LM jettison was designed to cause this package to impact somewhere in the deep Pacific, and just before the jettison it was noticed that the crew (operating with almost no sleep) had aligned the spacecraft exactly 90 degrees (I think) off what was desired. Rather than have them try to do it right, the ground cranked through some calculations which told them this orientation was still OK, so they went ahead and dumped it. After the LM entered the atmosphere, contact was lost with it, then briefly regained, and then lost forever. The crew was sorry to see it go. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) (12/12/90)
I just saw a documentary on the apollo 13 disaster (or success depending on how you look at it). They used the LEM for habitation on the return trip to earth when the command module was crippled and then jettisoned it in earth orbit before re-entry. I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit decay? Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tacon019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred S. Ullom) Youngstown State University ------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/13/90)
In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu> TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) writes: >... They used the LEM for habitation on the return >trip to earth when the command module was crippled and then jettisoned >it in earth orbit before re-entry. > >I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit >decay? Neither. They didn't jettison it into orbit, they jettisoned it into an impact trajectory. Its remains ended up in the Pacific. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/13/90)
In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu> TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) writes: >I just saw a documentary on the apollo 13 disaster (or success depending >on how you look at it). They used the LEM for habitation on the return >trip to earth when the command module was crippled and then jettisoned >it in earth orbit before re-entry. >I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit >decay? The LEM along with the Service Module were jettisoned just before re-entry. They did not go into orbit. They burned up. The LEM (Aquarius) gave 1 final burst of data before burning up as if to say "good-bye". :-) Peter Jarvis.........
stanfiel@testeng1.misemi (Chris Stanfield) (12/14/90)
In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu> TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) writes: >I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit >decay? It re-entered, as did the CSM, burning up in the process (or at least burning up a lot - I think that there was enough debris expected that they aimed them into the Pacific, for safety). I seem to remember a photograph taken at the time, I think by a high-altitude camera on a NASA or USAF aircraft, that showed the three re-entry trails all in the same frame (i.e. the CSM, the LEM and the capsule - the first two burning up, and the latter having its heat shield ablated). The picture was not unlike three meteorites in line-astern. Anyone remember this, or am I out to lunch? Rumour has that I'm out to lunch anyway. Chris Stanfield, Mitel Corporation: E-mail to:- uunet!mitel!testeng1!stanfiel (613) 592 2122 Ext.4960 We do not inherit the world from our parents - we borrow it from our children.
gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) (12/14/90)
In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu> TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) writes: >I just saw a documentary on the apollo 13 disaster (or success depending >on how you look at it). They used the LEM for habitation on the return >trip to earth when the command module was crippled and then jettisoned >it in earth orbit before re-entry. > >I was just curious, is the LEM still orbiting the earth or did the orbit >decay? The CSM/LEM never went into earth orbit after return from the moon. They were targeted for a direct reentry from translunar flight. The SM and LEM separated and went straight into the atmosphere and burned up. The CM skimmed the upper atmosphere on a tangental trajectory and then pulled up back out of the upper atmosphere to shed some of the heat from the heat shield. It then fell back into the atmosphere at a steeper angle due to the lost velocity from the first encounter. It was able to pull up through a combination of it's trajectory and a certain amount of aerodynamic lift provided by it's shape. It is sort of an aerobraking manuever. I *think* all the returning Apollo moon flights used this method of reentry. I don't believe there was a need to first attain earth orbit on return from translunar flight. >Thanks, >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >tacon019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred S. Ullom) >Youngstown State University >------------------------------------------------------------------------ gregc@cimage.com
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (12/16/90)
gregc@cimage.com (Greg Cronau) writes: >In article <90346.083237TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu> TACON019@ysub.ysu.edu (Fred Ullom) writes: [Discussing Apollo 13 return] >The CSM/LEM never went into earth orbit after return from the moon. They were >targeted for a direct reentry from translunar flight. The SM and LEM separated >and went straight into the atmosphere and burned up. The CM skimmed the upper >atmosphere on a tangental trajectory and then pulled up back out of the upper >atmosphere to shed some of the heat from the heat shield. It then fell back >into the atmosphere at a steeper angle due to the lost velocity from the first >encounter. It was able to pull up through a combination of it's trajectory and >a certain amount of aerodynamic lift provided by it's shape. It is sort of an >aerobraking manuever. I *think* all the returning Apollo moon flights used this >method of reentry. I don't believe there was a need to first attain earth orbit >on return from translunar flight. You are correct. You just plunge right in. Bit of trivia: Apollo 10 had the fastest re-entry; I don't recall what the speed was, but it was the fastest man has ever gone. Another note: Apollo 13 did use the skip or 'lift vector up' re-entry; they were also very near the edge of the corridor where this was safe; if they had been approaching the atmosphere at a slightly shallower angle, they would have had to change to a 'lift vector down' re-entry, which means they would have entered to 'bite' into the atmosphere rather than skip. There was some debate in Mission Control just prior to re-entry over whether the profile should have been changed; fortunately, the correct decision was made. The above information is from memory from reading "13: The Flight that Failed." -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie
andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) (12/18/90)
From article <1990Dec16.053427.23566@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, by jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop): > Another note: Apollo 13 did use the skip or 'lift vector up' re-entry; > they were also very near the edge of the corridor where this was safe; The radio blackout during re-entry was the longest too, about a minute and a half longer than usual, which I'm sure got a few people worried at the time. Henry Cooper's "Moonwreck" is a fascinating read about the Apollo 13 mission. I had great admiration for the courage of the crew and the way everyone involved pulled together to get them safely home. Must have been hard to keep morale up when shivering, sick and dehydrated in a cold spacecraft. I get miserable if my feet are cold for more than a few minutes! Well done again, lads, and R.I.P. Jack Swigert. -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
pstinson@pbs.org (12/20/90)
In article <4059@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: > (DELETED) > Well done again, lads, and R.I.P. Jack Swigert. > I believe Jack Swigert died from a rare form of bone marrow cancer. Could this illness have been a result of his ordeal aboard Apollo 13? Because things were not working right, did the crew have a greater risk of exposure to cosmic radiation?
smithwik@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (R. Michael Smithwick -- FSN) (12/20/90)
In article <1393@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: <> <The LM was jettisoned, but not into earth orbit. It destructively reentered <the earth's atmosphere (burned up). [deleted some stuff] <Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj Actually part of it did survive. The crew brought back Jim Lovell's armrest which is on display at the KSC museum. mike >> mike smithwick << Any opinions are my own since nobody else would ever want them. "Colonize Cyberspace!"
andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) (12/21/90)
From article <1990Dec19.110638.11073@pbs.org>, by pstinson@pbs.org: > I believe Jack Swigert died from a rare form of bone marrow cancer. Could > this illness have been a result of his ordeal aboard Apollo 13? Because > things were not working right, did the crew have a greater risk of exposure > to cosmic radiation? I often wonder whether Jack became ill as an indirect result of the stress of being in such a life-threatening situation. I'm not sure about the cosmic radiation thing. Jim Lovell and Fred Haise certainly don't seem to have been affected, by either stress-related illness or radiation. They spent a lot longer in the LEM than planned (obviously), and I don't think the LEM had such effective shielding against cosmic radiation. Any experts care to comment? -- Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England JANET: andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: andy%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
rnm8s@helga4.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rory Neil Mcleod) (03/13/91)
I got my facts messed up in that last post. Here's the real story (from The Illustrated History of NASA: Anniversary Edition): Apollo 13 was to be the second lunar misson. The Saturn V was launched on 11 April 1970 and the first 55 hours and 55 minutes proceeded without problems. The spacecraft was 320,000 km from the earth and still accelerating towards the moon. Having just finished a telecast to Earth, the crew - John Swigert, Fred Haise, and James Lovell - were clearing [sic] up. Suddenly there was a loud bang, the spacecraft vibrated and within seconds the master alarm sounded. A liquid oxygen tank in the service module had exploded, and had destroyed the fuel cells which supplied power to the spacecraft. Also, the oxygen supply was cut off. The service module, including its propulsion motor was dead. The command module had a backup battery pack, but that would be need for reentry. In any case it had a life of only 10 hours, and Apollo 13 was 87 hours from home. The crews salvation reste with the lunar module Aquarius. For the next three days they had to rely on its limited power supply, its oxygen, and its engines to get them back home. They fired the LM's decent engine to change Apollo's trajectory into one that would swing them around the Moon and direct them back to Earth. During the return journey, the temperature in the crippled spacecraft continued to fall. During the final part of the journey, the crew got a look at the service module after it had been cut loose. A whole side had been blased away. Afterwords, then President Nixon said "You did not reach the Moon, but you reached the hearts of millons of people on Earth." I stand by my previous statements though. Manned space missions are high profile undertakings. The US government, not just NASA would be held accountable if ever they tried to leave anyone in space, just for the *possible* retrevial of a spacecraft. Rory McLeod Dept of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering (stress the latter) Univerisity of Virginia
friedman@mbcl.rutgers.edu (03/18/91)
In a recent article Rory McLeod Dept of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering (stress the latter) Univerisity of Virginia worte: > Apollo 13 was to be the second lunar misson. The Saturn V > was launched on 11 April 1970 and the first 55 hours and > 55 minutes proceeded without problems. The spacecraft was > 320,000 km from the earth and still accelerating towards Apollo 13 was to be the third mission to the moon. Let us not forget Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 -Rich friedman@mbcl.rutgers.edu
hoepfner@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner) (03/18/91)
In <3355@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes: >. Savetz Esq.) writes: >>Hello. I need to know when STS-37 will fly. >>Any help and info is appreciated!! >> >The schedule I have is April 8th with Atlantis carrying the Gamma Ray >Observatory. Unless there has been some slip in the official schedule since March 14th Atlantis (STS-37) will fly April 4th. I work at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and some of the people working on BATSE (Burst Analysis Transient Spectrometer Experiment) an experiment to analyse Gamma Ray Burst spectrum, will be flying to Florida to watch the launch. The GRO newsletter states that although the launch is officially scheduled for April 4th, they think that the 5th, 6th, or 7th is much more likely. If anyone in interested in receiving this newsletter, please e-mail me at "hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov" and I will see just what I can do. My office mates work on GRO. -- +--------------------------+---------------------------------------+ / Patrick Hoepfner | NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center \ / America Online: PatrickH9 | Internet: hoepfner@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov \ +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
M.W.Hey@newcastle.ac.uk (William Hey) (03/20/91)
rnm8s@helga4.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rory Neil Mcleod) writes: > I got my facts messed up in that last post. Here's the >real story (from The Illustrated History of NASA: Anniversary >Edition): > Apollo 13 was to be the second lunar misson. The Saturn V >.............. Oh dear, still messed-up I'm afraid. If Apollo 11 was the first lunar landing mission, and Apollo 12 the second, that would make Apollo 13 the er....let me work this one out..... ;-) Cheers, Bill -----------------------+-----------------------------+ | William Hey M.W.Hey@newcastle.uk.ac | | Astrophysics : Newcastle University, England. | -----------------------+-----------------------------+
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/22/91)
In article <346.27e39282@mbcl.rutgers.edu> friedman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes: > > Apollo 13 was to be the second lunar misson. The Saturn V > > was launched on 11 April 1970 and the first 55 hours and > > 55 minutes proceeded without problems. The spacecraft was > > 320,000 km from the earth and still accelerating towards > Apollo 13 was to be the third mission to the moon. Let us not forget > Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 This depends on what you mean by "lunar mission". Apollo 13 was to be the third manned lunar landing mission, but the 5th manned lunar mission. Apollo 8 showed that NASA was willing to "go for it", and the LEM on Apollo 10 came within 50,000 feet of the moon. -john- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
erics@sco.COM (eric smith) (03/27/91)
friedman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes: >In a recent article >Rory McLeod >Dept of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering (stress the latter) >Univerisity of Virginia > >worte: >> Apollo 13 was to be the second lunar misson. The Saturn V >> was launched on 11 April 1970 and the first 55 hours and >> 55 minutes proceeded without problems. The spacecraft was >> 320,000 km from the earth and still accelerating towards >Apollo 13 was to be the third mission to the moon. Let us not forget Apollo 11 >and Apollo 12 Yes, and let us also not forget Apollos 8 and 10, which might also be considered "lunar" missions, although they did not feature a landing. I may be wrong, but I believe that, at 320,000 km, Apollo 13 had not yet reached the point where the moon's gravity was stronger than the Earth's, and thus was still decelerating, not "still accelerating". The original posting has expired so I apologize if I have this wrong, but I think it said that the LM's descent engine was fired when Apollo 13 was behind the moon to put it back on course toward the Earth. Actually, the burn to put it back on course to Earth was made before Apollo 13 reached the moon. The burn on the far side of the moon changed the landing zone from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Eric Steven Smith | "And there was no smith in all the land of Israel: | | erics@sco.com | for the Philistines said, Lest they make them | | uunet!sco!erics | swords or spears." - 1 Samuel 13:19-20 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------