Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Which Apollo astronaut initiated TLI?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Which Apollo astronaut initiated TLI?
stsmithva
Member

Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-18-2018 06:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for stsmithva   Click Here to Email stsmithva     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On each lunar mission, a TLI engine burn caused the spacecraft to leave Earth orbit (usually over the Pacific). I've done some research but apparently not well, because I can't find which astronaut (CDR, CMP, or LMP) was responsible for "flipping the switch" to initiate that burn.

Specifically, on Apollo 11, was it CMP Michael Collins?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-18-2018 07:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Going by how Robert Kurson describes TLI in "Apollo 8," the burn was triggered by the onboard computers, not by the crew.
About ninety seconds before the engine was to fire, a light came on in the command module indicating the final countdown to ignition...

Just sixty seconds remained, but the crew could still cancel the burn by throwing the Inhibit switch if things didn't look right. At eighteen seconds, they would have no choice but to allow the engine to light.

On Apollo 8, it was Frank Borman who read out the countdown in the final seconds and Jim Lovell who announced "Ignition!"

Headshot
Member

Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-18-2018 10:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From the description given on pages 128-129 of "How Apollo Flew To The Moon," TLI was pre-programmed into the CM's computer. It would have been up to the crew to stop the program, by activating a certain switch, if there was something amiss.

Otherwise all the crew had to do was sit back, watch the velocity readout increase, and enjoy the ride.

Space Cadet Carl
Member

Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-18-2018 11:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Space Cadet Carl   Click Here to Email Space Cadet Carl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks, Robert. I figured ignition was performed to the split-second by automatic sequence. But isn't it also true that a crew member always kept their finger on the engine shutdown switch, just in case the engine didn't shut down exactly on time?

I remember reading that Lovell had his finger on the shutdown switch on the back side of the Moon, just in case the engine kept firing during LOI.

stsmithva
Member

Posts: 1940
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 04-18-2018 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stsmithva   Click Here to Email stsmithva     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting! Thank you for the answers.

David C
Member

Posts: 1039
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012

posted 04-18-2018 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think perhaps there's some confusion here between an SPS burn controlled by the CMC and a launch vehicle burn under IU control.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-19-2018 08:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
TLI was pre-programmed into the CM's computer.
The S-IVB burns were controlled by the IU and not the CMC.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 04-22-2018 08:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good question Steve. I always thought it was the CMP.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-26-2018 12:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David C:
...a launch vehicle burn under IU control.
What happened when the launch was late? For instance on Apollo 14 when there was a delay of around 40 minutes? Or on Apollo 17, when there was a delay of around 2 hours, 40 minutes? Or even on Apollo 13, when the spacecraft was slightly late getting into orbit because of an early J2 cut-off?

Did Houston send an update to the Instrument Unit to adjust the timing of the TLI burn?

indy91
Member

Posts: 15
From: Germany
Registered: Feb 2016

posted 04-26-2018 03:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for indy91     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The LVDC (the computer in the IU) had targeting data for the whole daily launch window. So if the launch was late like on Apollo 14 and 17, it would use a slightly different set of targets for TLI.

And for the Apollo 13 issue with the late orbital insertion, the LVDC solved a geometrical problem to find the time of ignition for TLI. So it didn't have a preset time for TLI, but instead a set of targeting parameters and an earliest possible time for the TLI and from that it checked every second while in Earth orbit, if the conditions for TLI are satisfied. So the late insertion didn't make much of a difference.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-26-2018 08:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
What happened when the launch was late?
No different than existing vehicles for interplanetary missions. The guidance system can account for it.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-28-2018 06:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pretty clever for a 50-year-old computer system.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-29-2018 09:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not really. It is just simple programming. Atlas Centaur did the same thing earlier.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-29-2018 05:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is if you don't know how computers work, which probably accounts for at least 99% of the world's population, including me.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-29-2018 09:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do know how they work and it was the programming that allowed for launch delays. Guidance computers didn't have to be very powerful since they were basically single task computers.

Space Cadet Carl
Member

Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-01-2018 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Space Cadet Carl   Click Here to Email Space Cadet Carl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Besides the computer programming, I'm equally fascinated by the star sightings by optical sextant that made those firings not only on time, but correctly aligned. Again, Jim Lovell supposedly was a standout at it.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-02-2018 05:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
I do know how they work and it was the programming that allowed for launch delays. Guidance computers didn't have to be very powerful since they were basically single task computers.

And yet, whether 50 years ago or today, how computers do what they do is beyond almost everybody. That the Saturn V computers could do what they did 50 years ago was very impressive then, and is still very impressive to almost everybody. I get it that you are one of the very few people who know how computers actually work, but most of us don't.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement