arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) (09/07/90)
This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember any incident related to that flight. No need to flood the net with Apollo 13 details.
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (09/07/90)
In article <ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com>, arnaud@schizo (Alain Arnaud) writes: > James Beggs, former NASA > administrator > said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. Apollo 12 was launched into a thunderstorm, and the Saturn V caused a lightning discharge (maybe two) to hit the stack. Almost all of the CSM's power was knocked for a loop, and only the quick thinking of a mission controller, who had seen similar data in one of the simulations and realized how to reset the system, allowed the flight to continue without aborting. Even so, pretty much everyone thought that continuing to the moon was out of the question. When they got to earth orbit and couldn't find anything wrong, however, they decided to go on. There was an amusing vignette on the four part PBS series (called "Space Flight", I think) aired about five years ago. Apollo 12 had an all-navy crew, with Pete Conrad as its commander. As they were trying to decide whether or not to launch into the clouds, Conrad radioed "Sure, the Navy is always willing to do your all weather testing for you." As he recalled to the interviewer "I had immediate cause to regret that statement." -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
clyde@emx.utexas.edu (Clyde W. Hoover) (09/07/90)
In article <ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com>, arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: |> |> This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA |> administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), |> and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost |> lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. |> What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember |> any incident related to that flight. |> No need to flood the net with Apollo 13 details. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning at least 3 times within the first 30 seconds of flight. A 365-foot metal spike with a nice ground "wire" of ionized gas makes a great lightning rod. Most of the breakers in the Command Module tripped, and there was fear that the guidance system was fried. No damage was done to the vechile, but NASA tightened their launch rules after that. Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas clyde@emx.utexas.edu; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde Tip #268: Don't feel insecure or inferior! Remember, you're ORGANIC!! You could win an argument with almost any rock!
hwg@uswat.uswest.com (Howard Gluckman) (09/07/90)
ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com writes: > This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA > administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), > and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. > No need to flood the net with Apollo 13 details. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning shortly after launch. Fortunately, the Apollo/Saturn V stack was resilient enough to keep flying. I believe that the crew (Conrad, Bean and Gordon) flew an additional orbit before trans-lunar injection. BTW, I recently had the opportunity to see Alan Bean give an slide lecture here in Denver for Spaceweek, and it had to be the best astronaut talk that I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot!). Howard Gluckman hwg@uswest.com
jabishop@uokmax.uucp (Jonathan A Bishop) (09/07/90)
arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: > This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA > administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), > and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. > No need to flood the net with Apollo 13 details. Apollo 12 was launched during a thunderstorm at night. About 30 sec. after liftoff, it was hit by lightning. Just about everything was affected by the power surge. (I'm not sure if its true or not, but I've heard that the ions in the exhaust trail grounded the stack, enhancing the damage.) Pete Conrad had his hand on the abort handle but was understandably reluctant to abort the mission. Earlier, he had made a comment about the Navy being glad to do the all-weather testing on the vehicle. He probably regretted it. Fortunately, as we know, the mission was continued successfully. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu "I'm President of the United States and I'm NOT going to eat any more broccoli!" -- George Bush
DRH4@psuvm.psu.edu (Daryl R. Hoffman) (09/08/90)
If memory serves me right, Apollo 12 was the mission where they lost power to the capsule and had to have the computer figure out the path to get them back down as soon as they could get the power back on. The astronauts nearly died from lack of oxygen and lack of cooling from the intense heat. ------------------ Daryl R. Hoffman Applications Programmer/Analyst Userid: DRH4@PSUVM Computer Accounts, Software Group Bitnet: DRH4@PSUVM.BITNET Center for Academic Computing, PSU Office: (814) 865-0845 Fax: (814) 863-7049
johnson@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Phil Johnson) (09/08/90)
In sci.space.shuttle arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: > This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA > administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), > and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. I seem to recall that Apollo 12 was hit by lightning a few seconds after launch. Could that be what he was talking about? Phil
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (09/09/90)
In article <794@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >... Almost all of the CSM's power was >knocked for a loop, and only the quick thinking of a mission controller, who >had seen similar data in one of the simulations and realized how to reset the >system, allowed the flight to continue without aborting... Actually, they didn't really sort out most of the CSM's problems until they reached orbit. The main reason why the flight could continue was that the CSM systems had nothing to do with controlling the Saturn V. The Saturn's own computers, buried under the LM, were less vulnerable to lightning hits and were unaffected. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (09/10/90)
In article <1990Sep8.231127.22737@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <794@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >>... Almost all of the CSM's power was >>knocked for a loop, and only the quick thinking of a mission controller, who >>had seen similar data in one of the simulations and realized how to reset the >>system, allowed the flight to continue without aborting. [Even so, pretty much everyone thought that continuing to the moon was out of the question. When they got to earth orbit and couldn't find anything wrong, however, they decided to go on.] > >Actually, they didn't really sort out most of the CSM's problems until >they reached orbit. (Stuff in brackets is stuff I added back in after your editing.) That's what I meant by the last sentence above. It is the case that if the CSM power system hadn't been reset, the crew would have almost certainly aborted. What they couldn't be sure of whas that getting the power back would be enough; there was concern about damage to electrical components. I don't have it in front of me now, but the book _Apollo_ goes into this event in some detail. Written as it was in the very recent past, the participants in the event look back and comment on how difficult it would be to make the same decision (to go to the moon after a lightning strike) after what has subsequently happened to Apollo 13 and Challenger. On one hand I mourn that loss of daring, and on the other I recognize that the belief that having nothing go wrong when the rules are bent increases the desire to bend the rules further next time. Carried too far, the only check on that kind of behavior is a disaster. > The main reason why the flight could continue was >that the CSM systems had nothing to do with controlling the Saturn V. >The Saturn's own computers, buried under the LM, were less vulnerable >to lightning hits and were unaffected. True, losing the Saturn's electronics during launch would have been bad. I bet that the crew would have elected to abort even with a probably good booster under them if Apollo itself was haywire (I'm assuming the abort system is separate and simple enough that it would be much less likely to be affected by the kinds of things that would entail an abort). -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (09/10/90)
In article <ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com> arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes: > > This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA > administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), > and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning within about 10 seconds after launch. Peter Jarvis...
george@flight.UUCP (George Rachor ) (09/11/90)
References: <ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com> Distribution: sci.space.shuttle From article <ARNAUD.90Sep7090637@schizo.imposter.samsung.com>, by arnaud@schizo.imposter.samsung.com (Alain Arnaud): > > This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, James Beggs, former NASA > administrator was talking about the latest shuttle problems (H leaks), > and compared the shuttle program to Apollo. He said that they almost > lost Apollo 12, and then the explosion on Apollo 13. > What did he mean by almost lost Apollo 12, I don't seem to remember > any incident related to that flight. > No need to flood the net with Apollo 13 details. > Apollo 12 was struck by lightning shortly after launch. I remember the astronaut talking about having the abort handle in his hand and making the decison not to pull the handle which would have fired the escape rocket and command module away from what might have been a completly dead spacecraft. (Didn't want to be stranded in orbit with no way to get home) > -- George Rachor Jr. Intel Corporation Hillsboro, OR 97124 george@flight.hf.intel.com
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (09/11/90)
In article <796@ksr.com>, clj@ksr (that's me) writes: > the book _Apollo_ goes into this event in some detail. The book is by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox. Apollo 12 is discussed in Chapter 26, "I think we need to do a little more all-weather testing". This launch was the launch director's first launch since replacing the previous director. President Nixon was in the VIP room at the launch room. Right on schedule, the Saturn lifted off from Pad 39A. Thirty-six seconds into the mission, static drowned out all communications with the CSM (the Saturn continued to return data), and it wasn't until twenty-six seconds later that communication was restored. "Then came Conrad's next message: 'I got three fuel cell lights, an A.C. bus light, a fuel cell disconnect, A.C. bus overload, 1 and 2, main bus A and B out.' Conrad's voice was calm but strained. He was reporting that, for all practical purposes, the spacecraft was inoperative: all electrical power was down except for the emergency batteries ordinarily were used only for entry." The launch director asked John Aaron, his EECOM (electrical, environmental, and communication controller) what to do. "He fully expected Aaron to come back with a recommendation to abort. ... He [Aaron] turned quickly to his screens. The screens hadn't gone blank, nor had the numbers turned to zeros.... The hundred-odd parameters on the two screens still showed values, but values that didn't make any sense.... Aaron saw a pattern in the numbers, and the pattern was somehow familiar.... About a year earlier ... the test was proceeding normally when the parameters on Aaron's screens suddenly changed to a strange pattern ... then the numbers returned to normal. The morning after the test ... the Cape ... disclosed ... that a test conductor had accidentally dropped the power system on the C.S.M to unusually low voltages. Aaron went looking for one of the instrumentation specialist at M.S.C., trying to find out why the screen had reacted in such a peculiar way under low voltage. They spend hours on it. ... 'You know,' the insturmentation guy told Aaron, 'that signal-conditioning equipment had tripped off because you were in primary. Now, if you'd gone to auxiliary, you would have wiped this circuit out and you would have got your readings back.' Aaron thought that was interesting. ... Aaron ... punched up the Flight loop. 'Flight, EECOM. Try S.C.E to Aux.' ... 'Say again. S.C.E. to "Off"?' ... 'Aux' ... 'S.C.E. to Aux.' ... 'Auxiliary, Flight.' ... Pete Conrad, riding on top of a Saturn V in a spacecraft whose alarm panel was lit up like a pinball machine, seemed as mystified by the instruction as Carr and Griffin [CAPCOM and flight director] had been. ... Al Bean, the lunar module pilot, knew where the S.C.E. switch was, and clicked it to the position labeled 'Auxiliary.' ... 'We got it back, Flight,' Aaron said laconically... A minute and fifty seconds had passed since launch; thirty seconds since Conrad had first reported his status. ...The onboard tapes reveal that Conrad, Gordon, and Bean laughed the rest of the way into orbit, making jokes about the way every alarm in the spacecraft had gone off at once." The crew then had to bring the fuel cells back on line and realign the guidance platform, and check out the spacecraft. From there, it was next stop, moon. It was later determined that the CSM had been twice hit by lightning, 36.5 and 52 seconds after launch. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (09/12/90)
In article <90250.144330DRH4@psuvm.psu.edu>, DRH4@psuvm (Daryl R. Hoffman) writes: > > If memory serves me right, Apollo 12 was the mission where they lost >power to the capsule and had to have the computer figure out the path >to get them back down as soon as they could get the power back on. The >astronauts nearly died from lack of oxygen and lack of cooling from the >intense heat. > Memory serves you ill. You might be talking about Apollo 12, or Apollo 13, or some cinematic fiction I don't recall, but no real Apollo flight matches your description. I don't think anyone flying in space has ever died (or even nearly) from lack of cooling. The Soyuz 11 cosmonauts died from decompression, and the Apollo 13 astronauts had a real big problem when an oxygen tank in their service module exploded, but the consumables that were dicey in that case were electrical power and water. As has been related in gory detail, Apollo 12 had a lightning strike or two, and after the launch phase the astronauts never appeared to be in dire straits. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj
tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (09/13/90)
I'm curious to know why an aircraft can take a lightning strike with no damage due to the Faraday Cage effect and Apollo 12 nearly had to be aborted. Is this where the trail of ionised gas is significant? Tony p.s. Sorry if this is obvious but anything dealing directly with electrons is beyond me. Microcode is my limit :-) -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk If a man among you has no sin upon his hand Let him throw a stone at me for playing in the band.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (09/15/90)
In article <6331@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > I'm curious to know why an aircraft can take a lightning strike >with no damage due to the Faraday Cage effect and Apollo 12 nearly had >to be aborted. Is this where the trail of ionised gas is significant? Faraday cages are not magic; having a zillion amps flowing along the outside of your vehicle can wreak havoc on internal electronics even if it doesn't get inside. Aircraft don't always survive lightning strikes. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
stanfiel@testeng1.misemi (Chris Stanfield) (09/18/90)
In article <1990Sep14.170238.1944@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <6331@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: >> I'm curious to know why an aircraft can take a lightning strike >>with no damage due to the Faraday Cage effect and Apollo 12 nearly had >>to be aborted. Is this where the trail of ionised gas is significant? > >Faraday cages are not magic; having a zillion amps flowing along the >outside of your vehicle can wreak havoc on internal electronics even >if it doesn't get inside. Aircraft don't always survive lightning >strikes. To add to this problem, almost all of an aircraft's cabling runs just under the aircraft's skin, so it is exposed to all of the eddy currents induced in the aircraft skin by the lightning strike. NASA (I think) has been flying a couple of experimental aircraft (sorry - can't remember the type) to observe lightning strike effects. The mods include removing all of the paint and taking extra care to ensure that the aircraft skin is electrically contiguous at all seams, etc. The latter is not the normal case, although all components *are* bonded together electrically. NASA then get the test pilots to fly these aircraft through lightning storms and observe and record the effects on the aircraft and its systems - must be a fun job! Actually, it may have been that the prime job of the flights was to observe lightning, but I can't remember now, and I can't find the article. I will try and look again, if anyone is interested. 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.