What did NASA Change After the Apollo 13 Disaster?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- NASA didn't have time to develop a new spacecraft after Apollo 13, but it did fix the old one. The near disaster (or successful failure) on Apollo 13 was chalked up to a bad combination of human error and poor design. To avoid a second translunar crippling explosion, the agency revisited the oxygen tank inside the service module before launching Apollo 14 to the Moon.
I have more on the Apollo 13 disaster in on old blog post at Popular Scieence: www.popsci.com/...
And are you an Apollo 14 fan? Or just an Apollo fan in general? Do you kind of love Twitter and pretending it's 1971? I'm going to be live tweeting Apollo 14 (with a 45 year time delay) starting with launch on January 31 at 4:03pm EST! Be sure to follow me on Twitter -- @astVintageSpace -- for all the updates!
There's loads of other olde timey space to dig into on Vintage Space, too! www.popsci.com/...
Breaking the Chains of Gravity, is available now in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and India! You can order your copy on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
I'm also selling signed hardcover editions of my book on my website! Get your copy here: amyshirateitel....
Connect on Facebook, Google+, Instagram, and Twitter as @astVintageSpace
Like Vintage Space in all its incarnations? Consider becoming a patron! I've set up a Patreon account so I can raise money for things to make better content, like better software for editing, and even hiring professionals! / amyshirateitel
In addition to reworking the electronics, the tanks were placed on 3 different levels of shelving; top, middle, bottom. They were also oriented at 120 degree intervals in the circular service module so that no two tanks were on top of each other. Finally, a layer of Kevlar armor was placed on the sides, top and bottom of each assembly to prevent fragments of an exploded tank from damaging other components of the spacecraft. Grandpa worked at North American and told me that one.
Cool, your grandpa music been an amazing, talented engeneer, like all the others. It's amazing how we can build and design these things. It's only because we have smart people like that. Amazing men and women.
I'm just glad it wasn't Kevin Bacon's fault. Such a nice bloke.
Good at playing creep villains!
It was his turn to stir the tanks so he stirred the tanks. It could have just as easily have been Tom Hanks turn.
They're lucky it wasn't Bill Paxton's turn. If he stirred them it would have been "Game Over, Man! Game Over!"
Fake drama. That didn't happen on the real flight.
@@ChristopherUSSmith I think everyone knows that by now.
Very fortunate that the Apollo 13 defect was not on the Apollo 8 command module since they did not have the lunar module life boat.
Good point.
Or, even on the return journey, as they also wouldn't have had the lunar module.
Wow, I never considered that.
@@xyz.ijk. One of the first things my father thought about after the flight, being that Jim Lovell was on both flights. I was thinking the same thing.
I just saw how Lovell hit the wrong computer code p01 that reset everything and really screwed up APOLLO 8 for a while
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would hit the 'thumb down' button on these videos. They're great, and Teitel is brilliant! As someone who's been a Apollo Programme nut since 5th grade(I'm 30 now, I'm old LOL) I love watching these. Thank you, Amy :-)
Excellent presentation. Just a couple of notes. When the shelf was dropped 2 inches in October 1968, the drain tube, which was difficult to tighten due to it's position became dislodged, preventing de-tanking after the CDDT ( countdown demonstration test). Heating the tank vented the O2 out the vent tube as well as causing the relay to be fused closed by the electrical overload.
Apollo 10 was the first apollo flight to experience a fuel cell failure. It occurred on the way home so it did not affect the mission. If it had occurred outbound to the moon, the mission would have be scrubbed.
Jack Swigert actually volunteered early to be a command module specialist as did Ken Mattingly. He was on the support crew for Apollo 7. Just prior to launch, Wally Schirra, who had a very perfectionistic and overbearing presence in the planning of the flight and manufacture of the CM did something that proved a great asset. He personally asked Jack Swigert to come up with an emergency power down checklist just in case there was an explosion in the service module.
God moves in mysterious ways.
Jim Lovell's biography "Lost Moon" outlines a slightly different sequence of design and procedural failures leading up to the infamous O2 tank explosion (my apologies for the wordy explanation):
(1) The O2 tank heaters were originally specified to operate on 28V power; NASA asked their contractors to change their electrical systems to 60V (which was used on the launch pad systems). Beech Aircraft complied on the heater, but the heater relay was overlooked and designed for 28V (first design mistake). The electrical heaters were only to be used during ground tests to thaw out the O2 tank after draining (to prevent condensation of moisture in the air). A dip tube allow the tank to emptied out through the top of the tank.
(2) Test procedures dictated no higher than 80 Degree C inside of the O2 tank whenever the heater was active and there was a thermocouple installed inside to measure temperature. Unfortunately, this temperature sensor was connected to a dial readout which topped out at 80 Degree C (second design mistake).
(3) When the tank was accidentally dropped, as mentioned in Amy Shira Teite's videol, the dip tube broke off but nobody knew of this damage (not sure if X-Raying the tank would have picked up the problem).
(4) Two weeks before the launch, a full pad test was conducted with both H2 and O2 tanks in the Service Module fully loaded with their cryogenics. At the end of the test, engineers discovered they could not fully empty one of the O2 tanks (which in the post-flight investigation was attribute to the broken dip tube). In an early morning meeting with the astronauts, engineers and managers, was decided to boil-off the liquid O2 using the tank heater. As a safety measure, an engineer was assigned to monitor the tank temperature during the boil-off.
(5) When the heater was turned on, the 28V relay contacted fused shut on the 60V heater power, thereby letting the temperature to reach 1000 Degrees C. The test engineer only saw the needle on the undersized air reaching 80 Degree C. The kiln-like temperature boiled off all of the liquid O2, but also frayed all of the teflon insulation around the heater elements and cryo stir fan motors, exposing bare electrical wires.
(6) During the flight, two O2 tank cryo stirs were done without incident. On the third cryo stir, sparks jumped between the bare fan motor wires and the tank wall which ignited the teflon debris; in the pure liquid O2 environment, the insulation exploded like a bomb.
No one design or procedural mistake would have been fatal, but the combination resulted in a catastrophic explosion. Fortunately, the failure occurred at a point in the mission where it was survivable.
Wow! Good comment, it's very informative.
Fascinating; how 'lucky' the explosion happened before the astronauts jettisoned the lunar module. Tremendous videos, Amy, and some very interesting and learned comments added to many of them. Thanks very much, all.
Exactly. When a movie is based on a book, the credibility goes to the book.
That i unserstand but how could they examine this as thé csm never returned to earth
This conslusion is based upon assuming what could have been thé root cause
@Fireball XL5 I agree,and let there be no misunderstanding,i am a Truly believer in NASA and its ideas
Human error and flawed design = 100% human error
It is always attributable to human error.
Great seeing someone so young with such a passion for space history - I enjoy your channel
From Jim Lovells’ book. Before launch In a meeting they described the venting problem to him. They discussed the work around they came up with. But offered to Jim to delay the launch and change out the shelf and tank. Of course no one could fully understood the consequences at the time and they all agreed to press on.
Yesterday I toured Johnson space center in Houston and toured the historic mission control room. While I was disappointed that the room was incomplete at this time I was thrilled to be in such a historic place and cannot wait until next summer when restoration is complete in honor of the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 landing on the moon!
"Sink or..." Sink or what?! I need to know! this could be important someday.
+Ace Goat "Sink or Source". It's an electronics thing.
+Godfrey Poon yup!
Ace Goat it's just a design for the shirt
I'm guessing it suggests "Sink or Die"
Still watching this 8 years later.
I believe the issue was the ground crew had not got the updated schematics of the valve. As NASA changed the voltage from 85 to 28 volts. So when they tested the tanks at the factory they used the 85 volts and the contacts welded shut and burn the wiring to where it was exposed. When they refilled the tank after the test fight prep they used the voltage to bleed off what remained.
It's a damn miracle they made it back. As that tank was in the outside position in the rack and it blew the panel cover off without destroying the CSM inside. They also had extra oxygen for the longer lunar mission duration onboard. They also shut down the CM with only 2 mins left before the AGC went down for good. Just few of the 40 they had to have go right.
the thing that gets me is that no one previously saw an issue with using 60+ volts when the spacecraft only had 28 volts...its like plugging a 12volt hairdryer into a 120 volt wall outlet....its gonna burn and everyone knows you do Not do that.
Even from a testing standpoint of making sure things will work in the proper conditions, I don't get how so many PHDs and Engineers / testers, astronauts or even Janitors didnt say something about that.
Apollo 14 had it share of problems. The command module had trouble docking with the lunar module. After separation in lunar orbit a false reading threatened to auto abort the landing until a program was written by M.I.T. to instruct the LM computer to ignore the auto abort command. During the main lunar excursion the small cart used would not roll in the dust and had to be carried. During that excursion the crew became disorientated and failed to reach their ultimate goal the rim of Cone crater. Some said they failed because Shepard and Mitchell were less than fully dedicated to pre-mission training.
Can't blame it on dedication ,especially those two ! Blame it on stone age equipment (IE: Push cart)= EXHAUSTION ! No good way to judge distance . ETC.....................
Was in New England last week and went to Derry NH where Alan Shepard was born. Was shocked to learn there is nothing there as a memorial to him. A statue of Shepard has been approved to build but now the argument is where to put it. Unbelievable, first American in space and 1 of 12 to have walked on the moon not to mention his service in the navy and test pilot. The statue should have gone up 50 years ago! I will return next year (2017) hope they will have the statue up!
It was not a disaster. It was a victory. Using pencils, paper, slide rules, and a lot of determination NASA brought the crew back home safely. I had the honour of hearing Gene Kranz speak about the mission many years ago when our company invited him to tell the story about how the team work saved the lives of the astronauts. It was a tremendous endeavour and the NASA team is to be commended for their actions.
Garfield Smith
Gene Kranz was the flight director during the Apollo 11 landing, but when he makes appearances representing Project Apollo, he wears his Apollo 13 vest. He's more proud of that mission.
Thank you. I never knew that. He and his team deserve all the praise they get for saving those astronauts.
He was also the director on duty when the fit hit the shan on 13. He was just about to go off shift when it all went down. The first person he called was Kris Craft, lead director.
Isn't Kris Craft a boat?
My mum took me to this movie in the afternoon after school, when I was ten years old.
20 years later I am an engineer and develop technology every day, with pride and joy.
I would like to thank NASA, Science, everybody who contributed to it and the makers of this movie for the inspiration of a lifetime. And my mum, for her incredibly cheeky way to get her boy motivated for a STEM career - in one afternoon. Not to mention the sentence "I can add".. with a proud smile.. kept me motivated for all the math learning.
Great show, as always. Apollo never gets boring..
Oh shi... it was aired THAT long ago?
That is the coolest Apollo visual aid I've ever seen :)
from what I've read, the coil was supposed to have been changed to a 68V coil prior to launch, but it never was. It was simply overlooked....and nearly killed 3 people
I'm an avionics technician in the US Army. It's relatively easier for a damaged helicopter to make an emergency landing if anything fails. It's people like myself that are called in to assess the situation and if possible make the necessary repairs. Astronauts on Apollo clearly didn't have that luxury. What measures did NASA provide in the way making repairs? Any simple tools like screwdrivers or wrenches? I know these are potentially heavy items but I'm curious what was provided. Assuming the movie Apollo 13 was accurate. The crew had duct tape. It's apparently endless usefulness was recognized.
Watching this video again. Thank you, Amy, for the very complete information given concisely and well presented. I have found many narrators speak so slowly I have to watch their videos at 1.5 to 2X speed. Hope you're doing well. I finaly have copies of all your books!
Question, did they ever standardize the CO2 filters between the various modules?
No (but I'd honestly have to double check). At that point hardware was being made and systems were set. Making that kind of change could have killed remaining missions.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the answer!
Possibly an adapter for the filters was made to use between the LEM and CM . IMHO that would of been the easiest and cheapest solution.
Even cheaper would be taking more spare ones inside LM instead of packing them into descend stage. Those things was really not taking much space.
At any rate they now had a way to fashon an adapter, Nasa no doubt held onto those plans.
As I recall one of the books I read said that Beechcraft (who the heating elements) had failed to put in an upgraded heating element that could handle high voltages. It may have been missed while the unit was being repaired following being dropped. There were also errors made in the test equipment that was supposed to monitor the internal temperature durint tests which allowed it to repeatedly overheat.
Wait wait hang on a second. So you're telling me that:
1: The oxygen shelf piece was used, and not new.
2: They'd tested the system with a wildly-higher power supply (65V) than the 25V that the spacecraft gave.
3: So it was already damaged BEFORE launch day.
This was exactly the kind of thing that Werner VB had talked about years before, and on TV no less: that most rocket failures are not caused by things that break in flight, but rather by parts that launch pre-broken, right from the beginning.
Interestingly - all Apollo 14 astronauts have pass away, yet all of the " original" crew of Apollo 13 are still with us. Jack Swigart died in Dec 1982, but he was only substituted in at the last moment.
They also moved some services to the opposite side of the Command Module and they changed their Engineering Management standards as well. These were very important points and needed to be included in all future design and production considerations. They are worth addressing in your video because they were the overarching themes that led to the details that you described.
Could we have vid on the development of spacesuits?
Especially the role of Playtex in designing the joints of the suits.
Your best segment! Love the model used and the technical details/pictures!
+bhurley2001 Cheers! Thank you!
+Amy Shira Teitel (Vintage Space) But what about the lithium hydroxide cannisters? Square in one space craft, round in the other. How did that get past the design review folks?
That does seen to be a Homer Simpson Doh! moment! Guess it was probably the result of Grumman making the LM and North American Aviation making the Command/Service module. The principal concern would most likely have been the docking mechanism.
+David Discenza Extra cannisters were carried on future missions.
+Eric Bryce Still, what an oversight to make them two different shapes. Oh well, live and learn.
My father was a Bellcom engineer and specialized in pressure vessels. He was part of the Apollo 13 investigation and told me exactly what you said. Nice job. 🙂
Can you do a video on some of the differences between the movie and the mission?
They also changed filters so that the Command Module and the LM filters were the same
The temperature gauges used during testing did not go high enough for the technicians to notice the very hot temperatures reached (nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html). These were also changed. This is a really interesting example of poor user interface design - optimising for the common case, but not allowing for the extreme badness of the exceptional case.
+Mike Lawther Good call. I'm considering a blog post going through the extent of changes made post-Apollo 13 since it's sort of a lot of detail for a video. Maybe I should put it together!
+Amy Shira Teitel (Vintage Space) That would be great. This particular gauge example reminds me very much of what Frank Borman said about the Apollo 1 accident in his testimony to Congress - that it was 'a failure of imagination'.
+Amy Shira Teitel (Vintage Space) A blog on changes after Apollo 1 and 13 with your flair for interesting details would be great.
Reminds me of the gauges at the Chernobyl plant which barely read anything above normal operation
Interesting about the thumbnail is that the Apollo 13 CSM configuration pictured never really happened. The spacecraft were around 35K nautical miles away when the CSM-LM stack was finally detached, and it was the service module that was popped off first, leaving the bell-shaped CM connected to the larger LM for a while before it was also jettisoned.
As someone sitting on the edge of his seat for any of the news reports during the Apollo 13 mission I thank you for reminding me of the failure analysis and the changes made. I could not recall any but the difference in voltage used for the testing.
A piece of that assembly was removed from the Apollo 13 Service Module...and installed into the Apollo 12.
The part was later replaced in Apollo 13. Somewhere in the transfer...the wiring may have been damaged/frayed.
I've still got the scrapbook with the news article for Apollo 12.
What I read at the time, NASA had upgraded, for matter of efficiency, the line voltage in the SM from 28 V to 65 V. All electrical components were replaced with others rated for 65 Volt.
The oxigen tank had a thermostat to control the heating element in the tank. A thermostat is a bimetallic switch that opens at a given temperature, so when temperature is reached, it stops electricity flowing in the heater. This thermostat was rated at 28 V on a 65 Volt circuit, so at one point it weld shut and temperature became very high, and damaged wires inside. When the agitator fan was activated, the tank - over temperature and over pression - exploded.
I repeat, this is knowledge from 40 years ago, and the technical magazine where I read it, has long been lost; but I'm sure I recall it correctly...
Thanks for the great video...
I have heard that one other thing that changed after Apollo 13 was how the training of the crew and controller was conducted and how they thought about the simulated emergencies that they were called upon to deal with.
Prior to Apollo 13, there were apparently complaints about "unrealistic" emergencies - who ever heard of complete in-flight loss of power or life support, etc. One or two fuel cells going dead, fine. But losing ALL three fuel cells? Never happened. One cryo tank going bad, okay, but we got other tanks.
After Apollo 13, given the demonstration of how real-life events can make a mockery of "what we know is so", the crews and controllers going through simulator training did not complain any more about "unrealistic" emergencies.
I also understand that NASA redesigned the system for one cryo tank, by itself, would be sufficient for the entire mission if that should be necessary. Obviously redundancy calls for having more than one cryo tank.
The LEM lifeboat mode was envisioned and put in the contingency procedures for Apollo 9. Little did they know 4 missions later they'd be called into mission use. ;)
I understood that there was few changes made for Apollo 14, but that for Apollo 15 they did make the changes you mentioned. Any word on that?
The movie (Apollo 13) is excellent !
+Alex Abadi Yes, while not entirely accurate (although it does do well for a Hollywood summer blockbuster), Apollo 13 was a very entertaining and well-made film. There are some people that tear into the film because of its inaccuracies, but it was a dramatization, not a documentary.
+Justin Franks
Agreed. Anyone interested in the actual story is encouraged to read "Lost Moon". I read it prior to seeing the movie and was disappointed in a few parts but I understand how hard it is to present the drama while finding a way to explain what the hell is going on to 99% of the audience that doesn't understand space travel. The recreation of mission control though was epic. They got that part right :)
It's a story that didn't need dramatization.
@@bissonFamily Totally agree. Read it numerous times and am always amazed by the whole story. The Ground Control staff was as great of story as the flight crew! Gene Kranz was amazing/
@@rickhibdon11 Nearly half way through Gene Kranz's Failure is not an option, great book and highly recommended! Picked it up during my last trip to the cape. My NASA library keeps increasing by one or two books with each trip but I'm not complaining :) Great story and a great example of team spirit, courage and determination.
One thing I would've looked at was changing the CO2 scrubber in the LM to be compatible with the capsule (or vice versa, but the LM was only meant to support 2 people). Would seem like a good idea to have the scrubbers be interchangable, "just in case".
From what I recall, LM scrubbers were made to be compatible with the spacesuits.
For further info, dig up a copy of 13: The Flight That Failed by Henry S.F. Cooper Jr. (Dial Press, New York 1973). They throw acronyms at you right and left, but a good read nonetheless.
RUclipss algorithm wins again. I was watching all things Apollo 13 and I asked myself then, "I wonder what they did to remedy the problems with Apollo 13. Then a week later, this video popped up. Thanks.
I love the fact that you're putting in the effort to explain some of these issues via the wonderful world of You Tube - and i love your passion for it, but please, please, please SLOW DOWN!! We gotta have some pauses and a slower pace so that we can take it all in without constantly rewinding to work out what was said!! Or maybe it's just my slow Britishness :-D!!
Good work nonetheless and thank you ;-)
markovilla1 Just change the video speed settings
Or hit pause...
May I suggest doing one or two videos about the NERVA program in the future? The Russian Federation announced the other day that they were working on a nuclear engine for interplanetary travel so that might spark the interest of Vintage Space viewers. And hopefully NASA would restart the project again as it seems like a waste to have stopped midway as this technology has such potential.
"You push the switch."
"No, you push the switch."
"Darn it guys, I'll push the switch."
Yeah, but how nervous was the crew of Apollo 14 when they had to stir the O2 Tanks?...
One upgrade you forgot: all of the (known to be) single-mode (28V) PSUs connected to ground-testable equipment were replaced with dual-mode (28/65V) units
I am a big fan of the astronauts of Apollo 13 for 50 years I have been making cartoon movies on them. You did a wonderful job on your video thanks.
What about standardizing the CO2 scrubbers between the CM and LM?
+Vlad Tchompalov Both spacecraft were built independently by different companies, and changing the system after Apollo 13 probably would have taken long enough to destroy the space program, sadly!
I watched Apollo 12-17 missions live on TV in the UK - we had great coverage, all missions were incredible but no other had the drama of Apollo 13 and the massive relief at splashdown (which was normally a bit of a downer because the mission was over) it was sad they didn't make a Moon landing but the emotion of the return mission was indescribable, even for a 7 year old the thinking on their feet and determination the Crew and Huston had on this mission was awesome.
Did the changes make the CSM heavier? If so did it effect fuel usage on Apollo 14 through 17?
The changes were all in the SM section of the CSM, so the biggest effect would have been at launch, with the extra fuel for the Saturn V's first and second stages to get it into orbit.
My dad specialized in pressure vessels at Bellcomm. He was very busy after Apollo 13. 🙂
What is most astonishing is that even with the total failure of life support, there was enough forethought in the design of the spacecraft, the quality and training of the people, the mission planning, everything,,, in overcoming the explosion. I still can't fathom how calm and cool everyone stayed, had I been there I would have been scared useless.
Admittedly, there would have likely been a much more tragic outcome had the failure happened after the landing with the LEM gone. But, sometimes good old fashion luck is just as good, if not better than all the engineering in the world! I have often thought that the direction of the blast was fortunate as well. I have been to The Kennedy Space Center and seen for myself how the system(s) is constructed... Its not 'made' of much and any over-pressure or shrapnel in the wrong spot would have been catastrophic. Wow, just wow.
Tom Hanks seems highly qualified. He can say, "Houston, we have a problem" with so much gravitas. Also he seems like the type of guy that would help you move.
i've always wondered about what it was really like on apollo 13 as far as conditions were concerned. i've heard about the water rationing and having to store their own wastes, but it seemed like the cold was brought up more often than not from various documentaries.
then i got to thinking. those nice, thick, very well insulated space suits they went aboard apollo 13 with; why didn't they just cozy up in them during the coast back to earth? similarly, i've always wondered where those suits got stored when they weren't being used.
keep doing what you're doing Miss Teitel! big fan of your work.
I've thought that, too. Ok, the suits were too bulky to move about in, but when it was time for one of them to sleep, move to the command module and put on their launch suit, with the gloves and boots, but leave the helmet off (no power to circulate O2). The head is a very good radiator. Too hot, still? Take the boots off or the gloves. Then they could have gotten better sleep.
Storage was under the couches. Check out David Woods' How Apollo Flew to the Moon. (no he and I aren't related.)
Great show as always!! This story was the first thing I found as soon as had access to the Internet (1995?) !!! I never heard anything so accurate (and so lovely said) till now!! Congratulations! (not english native...)
Maybe too technical a question -- why does liquid oxygen in a tank stratify? Does it settle out in different layers as it warms because colder lox is denser? But even if that were true under earth gravity, would that be true in micro-gravity? I'd think that you wouldn't have layers of differing densities separating out due to differing weights--so there wouldn't be any reason to stir the tanks while in orbit or in flight.
Or does it stratify for some other reason?
NMS
Hello Amy, you stated in this video that more batteries were added subsequent to the Apollo 13 mission. Two questions: 1) what type, battery chemistry was used, and 2) on Apollo 13, after the closing of the react valves, was battery the only source of power, or did the lifeboat also have fuel cells?
I wonder if there was any thought to keeping the ascent module attached to the command/service module during the return to earth. Was there enough fuel for the extra mass? Most of the consumables would be used while on the moon, but there would be some left. My thought basically is better to have a depleted module than nothing at all in the event of an emergency on the return.
Joseph Nichols - Edit. Nevermind. This would indicate that I'm wrong. (Thought they did hold on to it for later missions)
space.stackexchange.com/questions/2496/where-were-the-various-apollo-lunar-modules-lms-discarded
Poor Jim Lovell. He was scheduled to command Apollo 14 and thought his luck was in when his crew took over Apollo 13, because Alan Shepard developed an ear infection. So just like Apollo 8, Apollo 13 only orbited the moon and Lovell missed his chance to walk on the lunar service.
Ironically, Alan Shepard walked on the moon on Apollo 14.
Minor, but worthwhile, point: At least some Apollo *engineers* opposed the redesign of the oxygen tank that was performed. Why? Because the redesign created what amounted to a totally new design for the oxygen tank, eliminating the flight experience that had been gained with the old design (on Apollo 4 - 12). Much more sensible, in their opinion, was to simply implement the Engineering Change Notice that had been posted way back when to update the thermostat in the heater to support ground voltages.
The managers overrode them: given the nature of the close call that had been experienced, they felt (with reason) that neither the public nor the politicians would accept such a trivial change as the resolution to such a nearly catastrophic accident.
To be clear, the new design was certified -- on the ground. But the first time it flew into space, it was on Apollo 14, a lunar landing mission. Had something gone wrong in the redesign, it would have been a very bad day all around (and would have almost certainly resulted in the cancellation of the rest of the Apollo missions).
Something similar, but much more expensive, occurred after the Challenger accident: the obvious engineering fix in that case was "Don't launch when the temperature is below 50 degrees Fahrenheit", possibly combined with "Place [external tape] heaters on the SRB joints to ensure that they remain warm pre-launch". The actual redesign that was performed totally redesigned all the joints in the SRB, providing loads of redundancy for the seal (for starters, while the O-Rings that caused the problem were still present, and a third was added, the actual joint design was designed to ensure that no gas hit even the *first* of three O-Rings). Again, while a through ground qualification process was performed on the new SRB design, most of the flight experience was no longer relevant to the new design, creating a significant risk of an unreleated failure mode being discovered the hard way.
Frankly, I'm not certain that the the politicians / managers don't have it right in these sorts of cases, but the engineer's argument is persuasive.
What was the problem on Apollo 14 docking with the LM after TLI?
The automatic docking clamp wasn't working, no matter how they tried to punch it in. So what they did was have the CMP fly it in and the CDR manually activated the clamp. IIRC
Where can I get that plastic CSM model?
Very fine report, once again! However, and I need to retrieve a couple of documents to check actual dates and voltages, you missed (unless I missed) the fact that Beechcraft simply over-engineered a part. (My buddy's words, not mine, and he worked as a Producibility Engineer at Beech for over 40 years.)
As he related to me, Beechcraft was an Apollo subcontractor, and (one of?) their component(s) was the cryo stirring fan inside the LO2 and LH dewars. Beechcraft, always on the cutting edge of putting more effort into customer satisfaction than absolutely essential, designed a tiny heater to ensure the fan wouldn't freeze up and fail at a critical moment and incorporated this into the unit.
The problem was, the fan and heater were designed for an earlier design spec for the CSM electrical system, which was a much lower voltage (I can't recall the specific numbers and don't have David Baker's "History of Manned Space Flight" close to hand, but it started out with something odd like 17 or 27 volts and was upgraded to something weirder but many times more powerful, like 65 or something) than the original (Block-2?) flight specification.
Somehow, that very important change in voltage didn't get to everyone it should have.
Dropping the tank (what, an inch or so?) was eliminated as a major contributing factor pretty quickly after it was suggested, though it was the prime suspect for a while. The overloaded heater on the cryo fan, however, was also responsible for the slow release of pressure in that tank (an anomaly that should have raised alarm bells even in NASA's overconfident atmosphere) and eventually led to the crucial spark.
I love your channel! 99.44%pure, IT FLOATS! Sorry I don't have the actual numbers here.
0:52 Amy, the LM didn't fly on Apollo 7 nor on 8 due to Quality Control delays between NASA and Grumman. The Earth orbit LM test was on Apollo 9. If what happened to 13 had happened on 8, no lifeboat and three dead astronauts.
What was the problem with the Abort switch on Antares (Apollo 14’s LM)? And how did the crew overcome it? Could you make a video about it?
Just curious..one of the main reasons fuel cells were chosen over batteries was due to weight limitations(batteries are heavy) So how did they manage putting a battery in the service module? Did they eliminate weight elsewhere?
Now, I also have to ask, did they change up training? On the mission, they had to learn how to fly the LEM with the CSM still attached, something nobody had ever done before. Did they train future astronauts in flying the whole thing from the LEM, and also, emergency power ups/downs?
Another interesting note about Apollo 14 is that for most of us, it was the first time we saw transmissions of men walking on the moon in 18 months (since Apollo 11 in July of '69). Why? Well, one reason of course is because Apollo 13 had to abort their landing, canceling the moon walk. But on Apollo 12, unless you got up early enough in the morning to see that moon walk, you missed it. After only about 20 minutes the first transmission of color pictures on the moon ended when they accidentally pointed the camera into the sun, burning it out! By the time I got up that morning (I was 10 years old) it was too late. CBS and the other stations had actors in the studio walking around on a simulated moon set while we heard the real astronaut's voices on the moon. So after Apollo 11, most of us never saw a moon walk again until Apollo 14.
I should hope they also changed their procedures when it comes to testing and installation so that things like using incorrect voltage, or failing to notice damaged components wouldn't happen in the future.
Does anybody have a link to that sweet CSM model kit that was used in the video?
+LonelyStranger24 Looks like this might be very close: www.amazon.com/Revell-Rocket-Hero-Apollo-Spacecraft/dp/B0024FA8FQ
You are amazing. I am glad I found your page and can't wait to read your book. Keep up the great work. Love seeing your new segments and when Pete makes his entrances.
Could you do a full commentary on the movie Apollo 13? Just start a livestream, put the movie on, and talk about all the little details you know about the movie and the mission. I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well.
I think that every high school physics class should feature one of your presentations each day! Great work Amy!
Amy, excellent re-cap. A suspenders & belt approach to problem solving.
Or as we say in the UK: a belt, braces and jock strap solution.
Can you imagine if this had happened on Apollo 8?
Some of the details you've given differ from details I've gleaned elsewhere. The thermostat was rated for 28v because that was the original spec, but when the spec was raised to 65v, Beechcraft (thermostat supplier) for some reason didn't get the memo, and never upgraded the 'stat. I also thought the tank was depressurized because they wanted to do an internal visual inspection after it had been dropped - to be "safe"! - and turned on the heaters to boil off the contents, leaving it on overnight. The thermostat was supposed to open when the internal temp got up to about 100 F, but as soon as it got hit with 65v it welded shut, so the heaters never cycled on & off - just stayed on. It got up to near 1000F, & fried the wiring insulation, and the rest, as they say, is history. Am I full of crap? Can I never trust Wikipedia again? You da man, Amy, I will humbly accept any rebuke I am due.
+lesnyk255 I've heard that too..
Isn't "you da woman" more appropriate? lol
+lesnyk255 I would argue that "depressurized" is the wrong word. Amy should have used the terms "filled" and "drained" since the LOX was in liquid form
During prelaunch tests, technicians filled the tanks and then attempted to drain them afterward. When tank 2's drain valve was opened, it would not drain due to a dislodged drain tube thanks to the earlier dropping of the shelf. (Any gas pressure that had built up from evaporation/boil-off was instantly relieved so the tank was no longer pressurized.) Since they needed to have the tank empty, the only alternative was to wait for the LOX to boil off, which would take a very long time because the tank was so well insulated. (It was designed to keep the LOX cold for 2 weeks in space.) The solution was to turn on the heater to accelerate boil-off.
Visual inspection after tanking was not necessary because it had already been done after the shelf was dropped and removed. Engineers knew the drain tube was dislodge but also knew it wasn't needed for flight, and the heater could be used to empty the tank after ground tests. If the correct thermostat had been installed in the tank, everything would have been fine.
+lesnyk255 :I was thinking the voltage on the spacecraft was 28 VDC because that seemed to be industry standard at the time. I worked on Titan II ICBMs which had 28 VDC systems on board. I also worked as a NASA tech and QA on Spacelab and ISS although I don't recall what the overall voltage was. Been away from it too long I guess.
Thanks for this informative video
Keep up the good work ! :D
I have always wondered about the different CO2 filters: one square, one cylindrical. Did they change those to a uniform filter?
Where did you get the fantastic model that opens for the cutaway view? I can't find anything like it.
Did they make the co2 filters interchangeable to avoid the square peg in a round hole near disaster?
I went to Barnes and Noble with my son. He wanted a science book. As he was looking for a book I stumbled upon your book. So I ended up buying the science book, and he got some Manga.
Since your on a Apollo 14 trip, look up the name of the Dr who fixed Alan Shepard's ear so he could fly again.
What happened to the Apollo 13 Lunar Module that was jettisoned on their way back to Earth? Is it still orbiting or did it fall to Earth?
Hi Amy,
Older video, I know, but I find it amazing looking back with today's attention to detail on most things that they decided to send a craft with issues on the flight in the first place. Surely at least someone was curious as to why the oxygen tank was mis behaving on the ground in the lead up to the flight. 😊
You had me at NASA
Did the unify the design of the CO2 scrubbers between the command module and the LEM?
How and where were the connections located on the Satern V, from 1st stage to the capsule,wiring
Great presentation. Here's a question. I used to get the mission reports from the Government Printing Office in Pueblo Colorado. There was quite a bit on Apollo 13. The description of the malfunction was simpler, and somewhat different. Basically it said insulation had been burned off the wire heater/stirrer. That happened because the launch pad power unit that supplied power to the CSM when it wasn't on internal power was accidentally wired incorrectly during a replacement, causing it to deliver 24 volts instead of 12 (a series/parallel issue). According to that document, the replacement had taken place prior to Apollo 12, and the Apollo 12 mission was actually flown with the same issue.
Your explanation is more complex, and I don't doubt it for a minute. I was just wondering if you had run across the earlier explanation while researching this.
I have a question. How did they diagnose and correct the issue so quickly? In the Apollo 1fire, it took an awful long time to sort it out.
I was wondering if they made any changes to the lunar module to make it a more effective Lifeboat such as the CO2 filters that they had to jerry-rig from the different shapes CO2 filters from the command and lunar modules or what other changes they made
interesting that among your listed corrections there was no "added a regulator to limit the 28 volt bus to 28 volts". assuming there was nothing limiting current, the heaters would have been dissipating well over 2x their rated thermal energy. I suppose it's a testament to "over engineering" that they simply didn't open (burn out).
Did they fix the air filter problem and standardized filters between the two ships?
there was actually one other error that played a role in the failure. there was a revision during the design phase in which the system was upgraded to accept the 65V ground power, but the thermostatic switch was overlooked in the revision. it was still only rated for 28V, not 65. so when the switch tried to open, the arcing caused the contacts to weld themselves closed.
+Amy Shira Teitel (Vintage Space) Possible topic to cover if you haven't... why were the 3 stages of the Saturn V rocket called I, II, and IV, skipping III?
I'm guessing they didn't change the scrubbers shape so they could be interchangeable between the service module and the LEM.
I liked the command module you used to better explain what you were talking about. You should do that more often like with that Saturn V in the back there.
*Pete's probably snoozing somewhere :)
+Marcelo Jorge I think I need more models to be able to illustrate everything that I talk about then! Glad it helped. I'm super visual so actually building that model really helped me understand how the SM works.
What was Ken Mattinglys role in helping Apollo 13 land safety?
How many bars did the tanks have to content with and what material where they made of.
Are any pieces of Apollo hardware still in space?
+Gram Nylen Apollo 12's third stage was intended to hit the moon but missed and went into heliocentric orbit for a number of years and eventually entered earth orbit again and was originally mistaken for an asteroid. I can't remember all the details. Google J002E3
Except for the experiment packages and LM descent stages on luna firma, all Apollo hardware other than the CM either burned up in the Sun, impacted the Moon, or burned up on reentry to Earth.
Christopher - No, the SIV-B's that didn't hit the moon are still out there. It takes an enormous amount of energy to get something from the Earth to the Sun, which no rocket we've ever built has been capable of. They might possibly hit Jupiter in a few hundred millennia, but that's the only real risk of their destruction. Of course, we can't (yet) go out and get them back...
Tevildo Thanks for the info.
Were there any changes made to the LEM as it was used a life boat before?