If Apollo 8 had Apollow 13's faulty oxygen tank

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcs_seattle

Guest
I was just watching a History channel presentation of "Failure is Not an Option". If Apollo 8 had the bad oxygen tank and since it had no LM to act as a lifeboat, the astronauts would have been lost. I wonder, if that had happened at that stage of the Apollo missions, if we ever would have landed on the moon? I think we would have, but it would have taken a long time. But what if the astronauts had been left in kind of a semi-permanent orbit? That would have been tough for the public to have continued.
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
I think it would have crippled the program, unfortunately. Can you imagine if the SRB's had a burn-through or some foam hit the leading edge on STS-1? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rocketwatcher2001

Guest
STS-1 had plenty of interest. I have nothing to compare it to, since Apollo 8 happened before I was born, but everyone I know watched STS-1 on TV, and my dad drove us from Virginia to Florida to watch it live, but it scrubbed, so we didn't see it. Lost tiles was the biggie, and after they opened the payload bay doors and actually saw tile damage, a lot of people got scared. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
STS-1 far more iffy in hindsight than appreciated at the time.<br /><br />They did notice the body flap nearly snapped off when the solids lit, though.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
It wouldn't have been as bad as what did happen, the loss of the Apollo 1 crew in a training mishap.<br /><br />Back then we knew space exploration was risky, and we accepted that risk.<br />
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">They did notice the body flap nearly snapped off when the solids lit, though. <br /><br /><font color="white">&%$#@! me I didn't know that <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /></font></font>
 
B

bpcooper

Guest
"Press coverage was far less extensive by STS-1. "<br /><br />NASA badged more members of the media for STS-1 than any other launch or other space event in history (possibly exceded in recent years by STS-95, but NASA's press document still states STS-1 as the biggesT). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Actually, I believe the oxygen shelf to which you refer (the two tanks, associated wiring stuff, and the shelf itself) were originally scheduled for (and installed) in Apollo 10.<br /><br />It was removed from that vehicle for some changes, and in the process were accidentally dropped 2 or 3 inches.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"The crew of Apollo 13 would have been lost if the tank hab ruptured after the LM had landed 2 days later."<br /><br />Which would have been VERY traumatic, given that they would be in the process of dying for several days, and nothing could be done for them, or by them to save their lives.<br /><br />I don't know what the reaction would have been, though I feel fairly certain that no more landings would have happened.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
In less than a year we lost the crew of Gemini 9 in a plane crash a couple of months before lift off, damn near lost the crew of Gemini 8 in space, and lost the crew of Apollo 1.<br /><br />The loss of the Apollo 1 crew looked even worse when all the problems NASA had with North American came to light and did so after North American got the contract to build Apollo in a deal that NASA still hasn't explained.<br /><br />All in all I can't think of how a loss in space could have been any worse than that, other than comming on top of all that happened between Febuary of 1966 and January of 1967.<br />
 
A

ace5

Guest
The thread remembers me an "injustice" very common in the media.<br />Watching "Red Space" a series documentary in NatGeo, the text says that<br /><br />"If NASA was aware of the Bondarenko incident -- fire in a oxygen-rich test chamber in wich the candidate cosmonaut dropped a alchool-filled cotton onto a heated plate, leading to a incontrollable fire inside the chamber-- the Americans would not allow Apollo 1 to use an all-oxygen atmosphere."<br /><br />So I can assume that NASA didn´t know that an all-oxygen atmosphere could put the crew in danger if a fire sparked?, "If the Bondarenko´s death could have reached the media news, NASA would learn that an all-oxygen atmosphere is potentially dangerous."<br /><br />And the documentary states the Soyuz T-10A launch abort was hidden to the West media!!!!, leading to the Challenger disaster in 1986! (because NASA became too confident about the shuttle´s safety).<br />Who are the *researchers* who are writting these kind of trash?
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Gemini 8 is a good point. Some of the worst tumbling occurred when the craft was out of radio and telemetry contact with the ground, so it is entirely possible that a "mystery" loss could have occurred.<br /><br />All the ground would have known was that they vehicle were docked and everything was cool when they left contact, and then ... whatever.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Space travel is a risky venture, we knew that in the 1960s. Now for some reason people expect space travel to be safer than airline travel. A 737 crashed in Nigeria yesterday but we haven't seen all Boeing Jets grounded. We aren't facing a 2 to 3 year period where no 737 will fly like we saw with the Shuttle after Challenger and Columbia.<br /><br />Right now we are closer to the Wright Brothers than to even a DC3, let alone a modern jet, in how safe space travel is. That is the reality of our present technology. The rewards are just as much worth the risks as they were when men first went aloft in flimsy fabric and wood aircraft. We need to remember what Gus Grissom, one of the astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire, had to say on the subject.<br /><br />"If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."<br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
One analogy I would like to draw here. As an example of a modern aircraft development program, consider Have Blue (the F-117 prototype program). Before the test program ended, all prototype aircraft had crashed and were destroyed.<br /><br />I can see people (Congress perhaps) looking at suchn a program and saying:<br /><br />"Why should we fund this program, when all the planes crash?"<br /><br />or<br /><br />"This plane is too dangerous - its fundamentally flawed. What sort of idiot designs a plane that look like that and needs a computer to keep it from crashing to the ground"<br /><br />Its...interesting how we think about some things, and the perspective we have frames some strange...attitudes.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Prototype is the key word here, NASA never should have considered the vehicles it's flown as anything other than prototypes. This is how they looked at Mercury and Gemini, and to a lesser extent Apollo. The Shuttle has been treated as if it was a fully operational system since the first few test flights.<br /><br />Even better would have been developing a small prototype Shuttle for a dozen or so test flights before attempting something as radical as trying to create an entirely new system that would be an operational spacecraft. The lessons learned in a test program could have avoided some of the mistakes that are now locked into the Shuttle design. This is one of the advantages of the CEV approach, at least it's based on a proven design that has been flight tested.<br />
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
That is true.... Start with a basically sound design and make incremental changes and improvements.<br /><br />You can change things much faster with an expendable vehicle than you can with a re-usable vehicle.<br /><br />It is easier to upgrade a production line than to retrofit an existing device. And you learn a lot more by retrofitting the production line.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Very thought provoking comments.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
There is one point that I want to make clear, I'm not opposed to the idea of NASA working on new technology like trying a lifting body. My objection is to an unbalanced space program.<br /><br />We need a working replacement for the shuttle and the surest way to get one is with a capsule. If we don't have a working replacement and have one soon then we won't have a maned program at all. There is nothing wrong with working on some other design as the possible future replacement for the CEV, but right now we need something that works and don't have the luxury of spending time on some new unproven design that is highly likely to turn out to be no more than another paper space plane.<br /><br />I do not want a space program that is just about maned flight and which ignores science and developing new technology any more than I want one that is dominated by science or new technology and which ignores or treats everything else like a red headed stepchild.<br /><br />My objection to SOME science buffs is they want to kill off every other aspect of the space program or to treat the astronauts in the maned program as nothing more than a bunch of flunkies for scientists. My objection to SOME technology buffs is they are more interested in having the latest gadget than they are in if the gadget works at all or as good as an earlier design. My objection to SOME maned space buffs is they are ready to scrap the rest of the program just to get a man somewhere in space.<br /><br />The space program will not flourish without a broad base of public support and an unbalanced space program will not have that broad base.<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts