|
Author
|
Topic: Time to repressurize the lunar module?
|
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-09-2010 09:02 PM
   
What an awesome site! I just found this and I am amazed at the amount if info here... you guys are great!Does anyone know how long it took to repressurize the LM after an EVA? Never saw that mentioned anywhere and I was curious? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-09-2010 09:37 PM
Two minutes - source ECS Quick Reference Data |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-09-2010 09:41 PM
Thank you! I always wondered how long the crew had to wait before they could take off their helmets. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-10-2010 01:43 PM
Of course depressurizing took a lot longer. Anyone old enough to remember the Apollo 11 landing and EVA will certainly remember the painfully slow depressurizing of "Eagle." The waiting was interminable as they tried to bleed off the last wisps of air, but the astronauts exhaling into the cabin caused further delay. I remember squirming in frustration as the long minutes ticked by... |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-10-2010 04:43 PM
I was 6 years old with 11... my father said that he woke up all of his kids to watch the broadcast (all 6 of them!) but I just don't remember the landing sadly. I can recall the later missions though... and have never lost the feeling of awe. I can also recall complaining to my father when 17 splashed down and asking him why NASA was ending the program... I have to say this site is just fantastic. I have lots of books and DVDs but I never found anywhere that said just how long it took to depress the LM and I had an answer here in less than an hour... just amazing group of people here! |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-11-2010 08:06 PM
Blackarrow [or anyone else], correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read somewhere they tried to 'peel' back a corner of the LEM door, open it just enough to fully de-pressurize. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 12-13-2010 05:51 AM
I don't know if 'peel back' is the correct term. I do know they had some trouble opening the hatch. On Apollo 11 they had to wait a very long time for the cabin pressure to drop to absolutely zero. Even than the had to 'manhandle' the door to get it open. What exactly the did, I don't know. I never asked them. |
hoonte
New Member Posts: 8
From: Tervuren, Belgium
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-13-2010 07:24 AM
You can read about it in the ALSJ: |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 12-13-2010 08:30 AM
hoonte, thanks for the transcript. So it was Alan Bean who peeled back the hatch on Apollo 12. It was a good read. |
compass
Member Posts: 42
From: uk
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 12-18-2010 08:27 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong: the LM was so lightweight (flimsy) in its construction that only when fully pressurised from the space vacuum it obtained a full rigidity and has been described by Charlie Duke as going 'bloop' like a gas can would do when inflated/ pressurised. Also, when pressurised a slight concave bulge (in respect of the interior) existed on the windows as a result of the pressurised artificial atmosphere within. |
jasonelam
Member Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-18-2010 08:51 AM
I believe you are correct. In "A Man on the Moon", the Apollo 10 segment talks about the flimsiness on the LM, that the hatch bulged out when pressurized. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-18-2010 09:30 AM
The Ascent stage was inherently an elastic structure (primarily because it was designed to be a light as possible, using a thin skinned semi-monocoque architecture). For the two forward facing triangular windows, the inner pane was actually "floating" on a seal to adjust to pressure changes and structural loads. The smaller overhead docking window inner pane was not floating and instead accommodated loads/differential pressure by functioning as a membrane - it also had integrated curvature to conform with the cabin skin radius. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 12-18-2010 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by compass:
Please correct me if I'm wrong: the LM was so lightweight (flimsy) in its construction that only when fully pressurised from the space vacuum it obtained a full rigidity...
This is discussed in the thread about the necessity for LM ascent stage pressurisation. |
advertisement