"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. "
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740078908_1974078908.pdf
If this event happened on a manned mission, would it have triggered an abort using the LES?
Quote from: TJL on 05/22/2012 10:19 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Skylon on 05/23/2012 12:06 amQuote from: TJL on 05/22/2012 10:19 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Jorge on 05/23/2012 01:55 amQuote from: Skylon on 05/23/2012 12:06 amQuote from: TJL on 05/22/2012 10:19 pmIf 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
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.
Damn.And tell me again who had the cajones to suggest that the next Saturn V be manned?!?