|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo CM: heatshield damage and thermal loss
|
Obviousman
Member Posts: 438
From: NSW, Australia
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 08-15-2009 06:17 PM
   
I was re-reading about Apollo 13 and the discussion regarding using the 'fast burn' to bring them home sooner, or the 'slow burn' which would take about 4 days.One of the reasons for choosing the slow burn was that the fast burn would have required jettisoning the SM, and the effects of 4 days exposure to open space on the heatshield / thermal effects on the CM was unknown. Did later studies ever come up with some facts / conclusions? What affect would prolonged exposure to open space have on the heatshield? What were the longer term thermal effects on the CM?
|
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-15-2009 07:09 PM
There was extensive thermal vacuum testing performed on the Apollo TPS to replicate the effects of the space environment on the ablator which included use of carbon-arc heaters and liquid nitrogen for deep space cold simulation. The heatshield substructure was designed to compensate for expansion/contraction of the gaps between the heatshield compartments using Slip Stringers (an example from my collection is shown in the below images along with diagram). The AVCOAT was also cold soaked to assess distortion. In flight Kapton Polymide tape applied to the exterior and thermal cycle rolling of the flight vehicle also were used to keep the temps within limits. The CM's used to support the longer duration Skylab missions had a high emissivity coating applied for this purpose.Click for higher resolution image:  
------------------
Scott Schneeweis http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
