Assuming a fairly benign failure in the S-IVB like no restart for TLI... I wonder if they would even have bothered with extracting the LM?
My assumption is that if they could not get out of Earth orbit, their first priority would be testing out the LM's systems in LEO. However, there might have been obstacles to doing this. Without a flight plan, I'm not sure how much they would have wanted to actually do with the LM, like firing its engines and such. Maybe they would have just extracted it, run its systems, and then dumped it.
1. Was the PLSS/OPS (required for any spacewalks) stored in the CM or the LM?2. Could the LM be flown remotely? If it could be, then extracting it would mean they could target its re-entry and thus that of the RTG cask.
They could do a spacewalk without the PLSS, using the air hose (I forget the official term). That's how they retrieved the film from the Pan Cam mentioned earlier.
Could the LM be flown remotely? If it could be, then extracting it would mean they could target its re-entry and thus that of the RTG cask.
Quote from: DerekL on 05/28/2009 03:00 pm1. Was the PLSS/OPS (required for any spacewalks) stored in the CM or the LM?2. Could the LM be flown remotely? If it could be, then extracting it would mean they could target its re-entry and thus that of the RTG cask.1. LM2. No, but the SIVB was controllable and depending on the failure could be deorbited by blowdown.
Quote from: DerekL on 05/28/2009 03:00 pmCould the LM be flown remotely? If it could be, then extracting it would mean they could target its re-entry and thus that of the RTG cask.There was an Ascent Engine Arming Assembly (AEAA) that allowed remote firing of the ascent stage. This was used to deorbit the ascent stage after docking with the CSM in lunar orbit. However, the RTG cask was on the descent stage and there was no similar capability to remote-fire the descent engine.
Could the LM have been parked in a "safe" (higher) orbit using the ascent engine? This would seem to be a better option than dropping an RTG into an atmospheric reentry. Other RTGs are up there right now, orbiting the earth in relatively high orbits. (Some of them we don't want to reenter because they were designed to disintegrate, spreading their fuel widely into the atmosphere. It actually happened once, when a Thor-Able-Star carrying a Transit satellite failed. About 1 kg of Plutonium 238 was lost over or just beyond the equatorial Pacific to float down, somewhere). - Ed Kyle
Other RTGs are up there right now, orbiting the earth in relatively high orbits. (Some of them we don't want to reenter because they were designed to disintegrate, spreading their fuel widely into the atmosphere. It actually happened once, when a Thor-Able-Star carrying a Transit satellite failed. About 1 kg of Plutonium 238 was lost over or just beyond the equatorial Pacific to float down, somewhere).
Quote from: Jorge on 05/28/2009 05:34 pmQuote from: DerekL on 05/28/2009 03:00 pmCould the LM be flown remotely? If it could be, then extracting it would mean they could target its re-entry and thus that of the RTG cask.There was an Ascent Engine Arming Assembly (AEAA) that allowed remote firing of the ascent stage. This was used to deorbit the ascent stage after docking with the CSM in lunar orbit. However, the RTG cask was on the descent stage and there was no similar capability to remote-fire the descent engine.Could the LM have been parked in a "safe" (higher) orbit using the ascent engine? This would seem to be a better option than dropping an RTG into an atmospheric reentry. Other RTGs are up there right now, orbiting the earth in relatively high orbits. (Some of them we don't want to reenter because they were designed to disintegrate, spreading their fuel widely into the atmosphere). - Ed Kyle
I think you're thinking of the Soviet reactors. Off the top of my head the only RTGs in Earth orbit are on LES 8 and 9, and they are at very high orbits. I think they also date from after the redesign and could survive reentry.
There'd be enough fuel aboard a lunar CSM to do a retroburn, release the LM, and then to a posigrade burn to reestablish LEO for the CSM.
I wonder how much it costs to restart production. I wonder, at the same time, what it might cost to go into polar orbit, grab those Transit 5 SNAPs, and bring them back with their 2 or so kg of Plutonium 238. - Ed Kyle
I wonder how much it costs to restart production. I wonder, at the same time, what it might cost to go into polar orbit, grab those Transit 5 SNAPs, and bring them back with their 2 or so kg of Plutonium 238.
As has been noted, the Pu238 in orbit, while still toxic, is rather depleted by now.
1-This "production line" will only create a few kg of the material.2-I wonder how much it costs to restart production.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 05/29/2009 12:56 amAs has been noted, the Pu238 in orbit, while still toxic, is rather depleted by now. Uuummm Pu238 has a half life of 87.5 years! In the 40 odd years it has been up, less than 1/4 of it has decayed. It is still hot and still radioactive as hell.