Author Topic: Apollo 6 SLA Damage  (Read 15972 times)

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 875
  • Likes Given: 966
Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« on: 05/22/2012 09:45 am »
In Chariots for Apollo http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch10-6.html#source43 it's mentioned that during boost a panel from the LM adapter was lost, and it references confirmation from images.
Quote
"Another item noticed by the flight control monitors during the boosted flight of Apollo 6 (and later confirmed by photographs) was that a panel section of the adapter that housed the lander had fallen away just after the Saturn V started bouncing. The controllers had been amazed that the structural integrity was sufficient to carry the payload into orbit. "


Have those images ever been released?

TIA
« Last Edit: 05/22/2012 09:45 am by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7979
  • Earth
  • Liked: 6533
  • Likes Given: 157

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 875
  • Likes Given: 966
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #2 on: 05/22/2012 04:57 pm »
Thanks.
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #3 on: 05/22/2012 06:21 pm »
from the pdf


Offline TJL

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #5 on: 05/22/2012 10:19 pm »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

Offline Skylon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #6 on: 05/23/2012 12:06 am »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

If not that, the loss of the two S-II engines would have. Even though the two failed engines "balanced" out, resulting in a safe, but lower orbit for the Apollo/S-IVB combination.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #7 on: 05/23/2012 01:40 am »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

There was nothing to trigger an abort.  No indicators that would have been monitored

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #8 on: 05/23/2012 01:55 am »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

If not that, the loss of the two S-II engines would have. Even though the two failed engines "balanced" out, resulting in a safe, but lower orbit for the Apollo/S-IVB combination.

Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.
JRF

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #9 on: 05/23/2012 04:19 am »
And if an abort had been desired, it wouldn't have been executed with the LES, as it had been jettisoned by the time the J-2 engines failed.

Apollo 13, BtW, had a pogo problem during the second-stage burn, and its center engine was shut down quite early.

EDIT:  "had be" -> "had been"
« Last Edit: 05/16/2019 01:33 pm by Proponent »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #10 on: 05/23/2012 04:24 am »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

If not that, the loss of the two S-II engines would have. Even though the two failed engines "balanced" out, resulting in a safe, but lower orbit for the Apollo/S-IVB combination.

Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.

Jorge, I believe the S-II burn had some unusual attitudes that might have gave the crew some concern

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #11 on: 05/23/2012 04:39 am »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

If not that, the loss of the two S-II engines would have. Even though the two failed engines "balanced" out, resulting in a safe, but lower orbit for the Apollo/S-IVB combination.

Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.

Jorge, I believe the S-II burn had some unusual attitudes that might have gave the crew some concern

I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning the "lower orbit", which is indisputably wrong. And Proponent also caught the bit about the LES being jettisoned before the S-II engine failures.
JRF

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #12 on: 05/23/2012 04:48 am »
Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.

If I recall Murray and Cox's "Apollo" correctly, Apollo 6 should have been an abort, but since there wasn't a crew onboard, Houston didn't abort. That left the guidance/control system in a condition/velocity/altitude it didn't know how to handle, and the S-IVB went a little berserk. It was actually firing into the velocity vector by the time it was shut down.
« Last Edit: 05/23/2012 04:48 am by Thorny »

Offline TJL

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #13 on: 05/23/2012 09:31 pm »
Based on photo analysis above, what type of damage would a Lunar Module sustain had one been on board Apollo 6?
« Last Edit: 05/23/2012 09:32 pm by TJL »

Offline Skylon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #14 on: 05/24/2012 09:54 am »


Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.

You are correct, The S-II engines burned longer to make its target, like it would later when Apollo 13's center engine cut out. I misremembered my details there.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #15 on: 05/24/2012 04:59 pm »
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?

If not that, the loss of the two S-II engines would have. Even though the two failed engines "balanced" out, resulting in a safe, but lower orbit for the Apollo/S-IVB combination.

Huh? The S-IVB/CSM inserted into a nominal LEO since the first S-IVB burn was lengthened to accommodate the S-II dual engine failure. The CSM subsequently inserted into a lower *mission* orbit due to the failure of the S-IVB to *re-ignite*. But that didn't have anything to do with the S-II failures.

The parking orbit itself was "off-nominal" too.  S-IVB cutoff put itself and Apollo 6 into a 360 x 173 km x 32.57 deg orbit, versus a planned 188 x 185 km x 32.56 deg.  The S-II stage ended up flying higher than planned to make up for its lack of thrust, then diving to gain speed, etc., and the S-IVB couldn't round out all of the errors, apparently.

And then, of course, the S-IVB failed to restart.

 - Ed Kyle


Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #16 on: 05/24/2012 09:34 pm »
Damn.

And tell me again who had the cajones to suggest that the next Saturn V be manned?!?

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #17 on: 05/24/2012 09:46 pm »
That's a pretty good photograph considering that Apollo 6 was at 152,000 feet moving at over Mach 5.  Is the same type of airborne camera still used today to monitor launches?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #18 on: 05/24/2012 09:56 pm »
Damn.

And tell me again who had the cajones to suggest that the next Saturn V be manned?!?

A committee made the decision, but the driving force behind putting people on SA-503 was this man, emphasis on man, and on fearless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mueller_%28NASA%29

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Apollo 6 SLA Damage
« Reply #19 on: 05/24/2012 10:17 pm »
A short excerpt leading to that decision…

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch11-1.html

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1