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
  Steps to fix Apollo 13 before the launch

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

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Steps to fix Apollo 13 before the launch
carmelo
Member

Posts: 1062
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 10-01-2020 09:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that before the launch of Apollo 13, NASA (in some way) had discovered the problem in the service module of the Apollo capsule. So the launch is deleted, but what would be the procedure?

Saturn V would have been bring back in the VAB and the Apollo capsule disassembled by launch vehicle. Then? The investigations would have been done in the factory or in VAB? Which changes were required?

Which the next launch window for the mission (November 1970)?

And i imagine that Mattingly would be back in his role as command module pilot.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1685
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 10-01-2020 10:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My non-engineering guess is that once the problem was discovered to make sure that the other service modules didn’t have the same issue. It might have been easier to substitute the SM for Apollo 14 than to fix the Apollo 13 SM at the Cape or to send it back to California. The problem is the wiring in the O2 tank. There is one launch window per month so we can’t be sure of the next launch attempt.

Your post assumes the problem has been discovered after Swigert has been assigned to the crew. If the launch has been postponed, no reason to keep Mattingly grounded.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 948
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-01-2020 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Apollo 13 was originally scheduled for launch on 12 March 1970. Launching to Fra Mauro on that date would have required a night launch, which NASA did not want to do that early in the program, so the launch was slipped to April 1970.

Had that launch not occurred, there were three dates in May 1970 that would have worked, the 9th, 10th or 11th. I have never seen other launch dates beyond that.

carmelo
Member

Posts: 1062
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 10-01-2020 05:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, May could be too soon for fix the service module problem, or for replace in full.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 948
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-01-2020 06:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, then things might have gotten a bit dicey as Apollo 14 was originally scheduled for launch to the Littrow Area on 8 July 1970. Apollo 15 (the H-4 mission) was set to launch on 30 October 1970, but that probably would not have happened after the 2 Sept 1970 cancellation and shuffling of flights.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3488
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 10-01-2020 10:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Modified oxygen tanks were installed in the Apollo 14 service module at Pad 39A in November 1970, so perhaps an Apollo 13 rollback (in the hypothetical scenario) would not have been necessary.

Spacepsycho
Member

Posts: 837
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 10-05-2020 01:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacepsycho   Click Here to Email Spacepsycho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
The problem is the wiring in the O2 tank.
From what I've read and been told by NAA engineers who built the CSM, the O2 tank explosion was caused by Beechcraft's failure to upgrade the internal thermostat from 28v to 65v. As soon as the CSM was powered up on the pad, the 28v thermostat fused closed, the internal tank temp was estimated at 1,000f at liftoff. The spacecraft and mission control temp sensors maxed out at 80f, so nobody realized the issue until after the investigation discovered the screw up by Beechcraft.

oly
Member

Posts: 1104
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 10-06-2020 01:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for oly   Click Here to Email oly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
...the O2 tank explosion was caused by Beechcraft's failure to upgrade the internal thermostat from 28v to 65v.
This is a somewhat over-simplified description of the issue and may be an unfair judgement against the people working for Beech at the time.

Referencing the accident investigation, Beech manufactured the tanks to the design specifications. The investigation determined that several flammable materials had been specified for use in an oxygen-rich environment, including the aluminum tank and Teflon insulation on the electrical wiring.

The O2 tank had been removed from the Apollo 10 SM (as a part of the shelf assembly) to incorporate design improvements to fix a potential electromagnetic interference problem and also incorporate changes for the upgrade 65 volt ground electrical system (incorporated to facilitate faster tank pressurization at the launchpad). During removal, the shelf was accidentally dropped at least 5 centimeters, reported to be because a retaining bolt had not been removed. Damage to the bottom of the tank was identified but considered acceptable continued for use (there was no specification to fill the tank with oxygen as a part of the post maintenance tests).

The tank was returned from the contractor and installed within the Apollo 13 SM (as a part of the shelf assembly). There was a string of inspections, documentation checks, ground testing, and the countdown demonstration test which began 16th March 1970, none of which identified any issue with the O2 tank. All tests of the system passed, however, the Oxygen Tank 2 could not be emptied through the normal drain line.

After a discussion between NASA and the contractors (both Lovell and Mattingly were aware of, and included in the technical discussions), attempts to empty the tank resumed on 27th March. When it could not be empty normally, a decision was made to use the heaters in the tank to boil off the oxygen. The heaters in the tanks were normally designed for very short periods of use, to heat the interior slightly, increasing the pressure to keep the oxygen flowing. It was decided to use the heater to "boil off" the excess oxygen, requiring 8 hours of 65 volt DC power.

The investigation deduced that this probably damaged the thermostatically controlled switches on the heater, designed for only 28 volts. It is believed the switches welded shut, allowing the temperature within the tank to rise to over 1000 degrees F. The gauges measuring the temperature inside the tank were designed to measure only to 80 F, so the extreme heating was not noticed. The high temperature emptied the tank but also resulted in serious damage to the Teflon insulation on the electrical wires to the power fans within the tank.

This anomaly and the subsequent procedures were investigated by NASA and the associated contractors and deemed to be acceptable, the question over how Beech did not upgrade the tank electrical system to the 65 volt specification was considered during the investigation, however, it was impossible to determine if this alone was the reason behind the Apollo 13 accident. (Had the heaters not been used to boil off the excess oxygen for such a long time, would the wire insulation ever have been damaged?)

I believe that the cryogenic stir carried out when the O2 tank ruptured was the third such stir for that mission.

As with all other serious accidents that NASA have experienced with manned spaceflight, there was a chain of events that led up to the accident.

It should be noted that the cryogenic fuel cells were rated to produce between 400 and 1420 watts and between 27 and 31 volts DC (for the 28 volt DC batteries and electrical system) and inverted into 115/200 or 400Volts three phase AC where required. The O2 fan motors used "Two parallel d-c heaters in each tank supply the heat necessary to maintain design pressures. Two parallel 3-phase circulating fans circulate the fluid over the heating elements to maintain uniform density and descries the probability of stratification” (SM2A-03-Block II-(I) Apollo Operations Handbook).

The introduced 65 volt DC electrical system was provided during ground operations from ground support equipment. 65 volts DC was not provided to the O2 tank electrical system during spaceflight operation (as far as I am aware).

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