I remember either in the movie or in the interviews that it was said that the angle of attack of the capsule was a little steeper than it should have been thus accounting for the delay. <br /><br />P.S. Maybe I reversed the angle, It may be a shallower angle of attack to the horizontal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
The blackout was slightly longer than normal, but not really out of family. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
Talk about coincidence! I just bought the Apollo 13 DVD and just finished listening to Jim Lovell's commentary track about 10 minutes ago. He stated that they came in at the shallow end of the acceptable corridor (5.5 to 7.5 degrees rings a bell... so I'm guessing they were closer to the 5.5 degrees) and this led to a longer blackout. The trajectory issue was due to their venting cooling water throughout the flight. In the movie they talk about an issue with not having the weight of moon rocks affecting the trajectory but Jim said that issue related to loading the CM for the proper c of g. They took equipment from the LM and stuffed it in the appropriate lockers in the CM to compensate (he kept the lunar module commanders reticle as a souvenir, for instance). Thanks to the fact that the Apollo capsule could generate lift, they were able to correct their trajectory and arrive at a 'pin point' splashdown.
"The trajectory issue was due to their venting cooling water throughout the flight."<br /><br />Actually, it was the dominant venting was not water, but gas from the exploded oxygen tanks. This provided an anomylous thrust that kept messing up the course.<br /><br />It also complicated things like establishing a thermal roll for the vehicle, and made star sightings hugely difficult / impossible most of the time<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
That may well be, but Lovell claimed it was venting cooling water.<br /><br />For my own curiosity, however, wouldn't the oxygen have been completely vented in the first few hours due to the size of the rupture (ie: tank and common plumbing destroyed)? <br /><br /><br /><br />Edit: I just took a look at Astronautix and couldn't find confirmation there. I did find this interesting tidbit, however. I think the word 'YIKES!!' applies.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm<br />"When the Apollo 13 Command Module was examined after its return, it was found that the crew had tried to wire up a manual deployment switch for the recovery parachutes. However - they had in fact wired the switch to the parachute jettison control. If they had decided to use their jury-rigged manual override they would have in reality released the parachutes from the command module and plunged to their deaths in the ocean below. "
As I recall, the tank that exploded of course went to zero quite quickly, the other much more slowly. But I am getting older these days. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
><i>However - they had in fact wired the switch to the parachute jettison control.</i><p>Am I the only one who had to think for a while why there would even <b>be</b> a parachute jettison button? And why would they even be on the same panel?!?!</p>
No, you are not alone. I guess it was for safety after splashing to prevent the chutes from possibly tipping over the capsule. It would be interesting to know if post-landing chute eject was part of normal mission.
>>"Am I the only one who had to think for a while why there would even be a parachute jettison button? And why would they even be on the same panel?!?!"<br /><br />Sounds like one of the design engineers was a sadist. NASA's lucky it wasnt a really sensitive pushbutton switch.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dragging, not tipping, would have been a bigger concern, (at least before hatch opening,), and letting all that fabric and cordage drift far enough away to not endanger divers or helos. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There was a Soyuz mission (I've got a very short posting window, so I can't look it up -- sorry) that had a near fatal disaster due to the parachutes not separating after touchdown. They landed offtarget on a frozen lake. The chutes were inflated by the wind, pulling the spacecraft violently across the lake. While awaiting the search and recovery teams, the crew got another nasty shock -- the ice was breaking. The chutes became waterlogged. As they were still holding the capsule on its side, it started taking on water (presumably through a pressure equalization valve). They very nearly drowned and almost certainly wound up with hypothermia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>