Re: Q: For Sy Liebergot (Yeah, it's new safe CT-free topic fodder!)

I also find this statement as curious:

"The g-force was so great that the reactant feed valves
feeding Fuel cells 1 & 3 were shocked closed, causing both to fail
within about a minute."

Was it g-force that caused the valve closure? My understanding is that
the hardware was thoroughly ground tested to withstand more g's than
even that experienced during launch vibration, to include harmonic
resonance analysis.

My expectation is that it was the pressure wave within the fluid flow
that was a prime contributer to the valve shock closures. While I'm
sure that the fuel cell hardware had been thoroughly vibe tested, I
doubt that it had been tested with a concurrent O2 tank burst.


~ CT



Sy Liebergot wrote:
> Henry Spencer Wrote:
> > In article nqcd71h0nakffh3dlnj3ao7oood32ru33r@xxxxxxx,
> > Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) reunite.gondwana@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:--
> > OK, so we can add Jack Swigert to the list of people calling it an
> > explosion.-
> >
> > As I understand the technical definitions, not the ordinary English
> > definitions[1], an explosion has to have a flame front that moves
at
> > or above than Mach 1. Anything slower is a deflagration (?), not
an
> > explosion.-
> >
> > Anything faster is a detonation. They're all explosions.
> >
> > Even in technical literature, "explosion" is routinely used to
cover
> > most
> > anything that goes boom and produces flying debris. Boiler
> > explosions,
> > thermal explosions (aka flameless explosions -- runaway bulk
> > vaporization
> > of a superheated cryogenic liquid), transformer explosions are all
> > called
> > explosions in technical literature, but none involve a flame front
of
> > any
> > kind.
> > --
> > "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry
> > Spencer
> > -- George Herbert | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I grow weary of this person CT's unending, unproductive, pedantic
> bloviating on the subject of the Apollo 13 cryo O2 tank explosion. It
> is these people who obviously have no life of their own that inhabit
> forums like this and drive intelligent, curious people away,
destroying
> an otherwise friendly cyber environment. I have no doubt that this
> person would love to spend endless hours debating that the Apollo 1
pad
> fire was the result of deliberate sabotage by NASA and that the lunar
> landings were all an elaborate hoax easily proven with his faux
science
> 'knowledge.
>
> So in finality, let me offer as a witness and an actual participant
in
> the Apollo 13 near-catastrophic event, the following: An ill-advised
> pad test procedure to empty a balky cryogenic oxygen tank 2 damaged
the
> tank fan Teflon insulated wiring to the point that a spark occurred
with
> a resulting fire in the tank. The near instantaneous increase in
> pressure blew the top off the tank, overwhelming the tank relief
valve
> and impacted the shelf above where the three fuel cell power plants
> were mounted. The g-force was so great that the reactant feed valves
> feeding Fuel cells 1 & 3 were shocked closed, causing both to fail
> within about a minute. The pressure that developed was tested to be
> 60,000 psi (4,000 time normal atmospheric pressure) and blew the
> Service Module panel away that covered that SM sector. Experts have
> told me that the energy released was equivalent to 7 pounds of TNT,
> enough to level a 3,000 sq. ft. house. Now, I don't believe that
what
> occurred was merely an orderly phase change and release of gas, but
> instead it was a horrendous explosion that damaged the CSM to the
point
> of total uselessness with a concomitant death of three astronauts.
>
> So, with that said, see you down the road...
>
> Sy Liebergot
> "Apollo EECOM: Journey Of A Lifetime"
> www.apolloeecom.com
>
>
> --
> Sy Liebergot

.

Quantcast