A13 O2 Tank "Explosion" vs "Expulsion"

>>From Greg Moore:
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblock-@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1115004518.079611.85820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > In this case, my argument might actually be described as an
> > *anti*conspiracy theory. I have been persistent in suggesting that
we
> > all go back and listen to what the official review board said.
> >
>
> Why? What's your point? What difference does it make?

Ok, these questions are heading toward a much more substantial topic...

It is part of EECOM's job to know the possible failure modes for
systems they are responsible for. They are thoroughly trained in the
design of, and use of, the O2 tank's overpressure "Relief valve". See
page 4-3, figure 4-1 titled "Oxygen tank no. 2 internal components":

http://history.nasa.gov/ap13rb/ch4pt.1.pdf

This diagram shows how the tank was designed with a "Blowout disc" (at
top). The tank was engineered to not explode. The Relief valve was
the safety. The Blowout disc was the safety to the safety, to protect
for a case of operators not catching the overpressure condition in
time.

An O2 tank actually exploding would easily have catastrophic results.
Designers knew this so they redundantly protected against it.

The reason to protect against it is so that your other critical systems
will still be useable in the case of a blowout disc expulsion. I would
expect this information to be known by the systems experts, and if not
then I would expect this info to have been volunteered in a simple
phone call from Downey (North American).

The critical trajectory decision to be made was whether to turn around
and go directly home, or continue out to the Moon and swing around
before heading home.

Several thrusters were available to provide delta-v to do a direct
abort. Gene Kranz takes responsibility for making the decision to keep
the crew flying on the long way.

Was this smart? If this decision was made as a result of incomplete
systems knowledge and a (perhaps inaccurate) belief that the O2 tank
exploded, then I would say that it is quite possible that having
Lovell&Co go around the Moon was a decision that introduced more risk
than it mitigated.

This leads to the nagging question...

WWBD?

(What Would Balok Do?) This guy ran his own spaceship all by his
lonesome. No mission control to help him out. He must have had to
know his systems. He must have had to know how best to deal with a
failure. The whole Corbomite issue revolved around putting up a
smokescreen so that the actual situation would be assessed
inaccurately. Balok had to see through that smokescreen.

So let's imagine that Balok is flying Apollo 13 as a one-alien crew.
No one at home to help him out. When he hears the Bang! ...there's no
Houston to call back to. His first step is to chastise himself for not
monitoring his systems more closely. His next step is to check the
gauges to try to figure out what is happening to his ship. When he
finds a moment to breath, he pulls out some manuals to refresh his
understanding of the affected systems. After consigning himself to the
conclusion that the Moon landing is not going to happen, he is faced
with the decision of how best to get back to the home planet.

Did the tank explode? Or did it purge it's contents in a less
destructive way (per design). Will the SPS engine be useable? Can I
use the LM Descent and Ascent engines to get home more quickly?

A heck of a lot to take into consideration.

Back to the real world... Lovell, Swigert and Haise had plenty of
help. Lots of people trying to figure out what happened and what to do
about it.

Historians can canonize the members of mission control who succeeded in
bringing them home, but I don't particularly see this as the most
beneficial method of documentation. If we humans are going to venture
back to the Moon, I suggest we take a critical look at what Kranz et al
did right, and what they could have done differently.

Consider Ron Howard's version of the story as a vignette. From the
Hollywood movie 'Apollo 13', let's examine the list of mistakes that
were highlighted...

It strikes me as an awe-fully short list.

Is Kranz's list any longer? How about Kraft's? Take all the
first-hand accounts that have been published about this mission. Can
we accept that as a complete and thorough accounting of mistakes and
triumphs?

I see some critical holes in that story. I consider it a space
historian's job to get to the bottom of those holes. I consider it
NASA's job. The Review Board did an extremely detailed investigation.
But were their conclusions thorough? Do we today even remember what
their conclusions were? And how thorough a job can we expect from an
investigation panel that is lacking independence? Assign Neil
Armstrong to investigate the actions of Jim Lovell, and you might get
an interview conducted over a game of poker (/Corbomite).

And get this...

Edgar Cortright is said to be the former college roommate of the NASA
Administrator!

(In a future post I can provide exact quotes from the official report
that read to me as being heavily biased.)


~ CT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Feedback from the Front
    ... This ran into the ability to actually design and then ... the Panther tank was 50% heavier than the Panzer IV ... even transport aircraft. ... The air forces pre war had the WWI experience which told them to ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Soviet engineering
    ... key USSR weapons that definitely were the apt design at the right ... The T-34 tank discussed above already but it had several innovation ... IL 2/10 ground attack plane with armor as part of its structure - ... The T34 did NOT have curved armor. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Heuschrecke And Such, Whats The Point?
    ... of vehicles was a real consideration given the limits on steel production. ... However, I would like to point out that the main US tank destroyers, the M10 and the M36, were actually not that lightly armored at all. ... That definition was useful for gun era capital ship designs, but a bit too restrictive and not very practical for tank designs. ... As I wrote earlier, in my opinion a balanced design should be able to provide a fairly good, but not necessarily a complete frontal protection against the main enemy anti-tank and tank guns at "battle ranges". ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: OT: US BLEW IT IN IRAQ- Wall Street Journal Reporter Finds
    ... > You couldn't even hack that much- so what are you talking? ... > I'm mostly looking into measuring oil level in a tank of glasfiber. ... first design a solution then go into the field and do beta testing. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Back to the moon? When?
    ... States was actually on the moon. ... duration spacesuit executing a touch-down with a rocket belt. ... that's 2.86 kg of propellant to execute a ... I was off by a factor of one propellant tank - we'll need 3 not 2. ...
    (sci.space.policy)