Neil Armstrongs widow finds....
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
The cars were purely battery powered.
I've done some of my own reading and I'm surprised that the batteries weren't even rechargeable, and that the range of ~57 miles was purely from the initial capacity/charge.Imagine what could be achieved today. I *so* wish there was some commitment to return.
How would they have been recharged? What would they have plugged the car into?
The Lunar Module itself was also only powered by batteries.
The only thing they could recharge on the lunar surface were the batteries in their life support system backpacks - which were recharged from the Lunar Module's electricity supply.
The car was a bit of an afterthought and the Lunar Module had not originally been designed to carry one to the moon or support one on the surface.
The Lunar Module itself was also only powered by batteries.
The only thing they could recharge on the lunar surface were the batteries in their life support system backpacks - which were recharged from the Lunar Module's electricity supply.
The car was a bit of an afterthought and the Lunar Module had not originally been designed to carry one to the moon or support one on the surface.
Eric Mc said:
Interestingly, the Orion spacecraft is NOT going to use fuel cell technology as its main power source. For the first time ever (the Skylab space station excepted), an American manned spacecraft will be powered by an array of solar cells - like Soyuz.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. If there's any problems with the panels, you have less or no power and no back-up.Eric Mc said:
How would they have been recharged? What would they have plugged the car into?
No solar panels at that time? Certainly if you were doing it now, they'd be the obvious choice for a bit of a top-up.Eric Mc said:
jmorgan said:
Apart from one (13), on the moon I think. They left them in orbit, probably crashed. Better not have future missions have to contend with them in orbit. Not sure about 10.
Here is a complete history of the ultimate fates of all the Lunar Modules that flew in space - Apollo 4 - LTA-10R (a test article rather than a full LM) Burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 5 - LM1. This LM was legless and burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 6 - LTA-2R Another test article that burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 7 - No LM carried
Apollo 8 - No LM carried
Apollo 9 - 1st manned test of LM (LM3) in earth orbit. Ascent and descent stages both burned up in earth's atmosphere
Apollo 10 - 1st flight of an LM to the moon (LM4) Did not land. Descent stage jettisoned at a height of 50,000 feet above the moon and crashed to the surface. The ascent stage was jettisoned in earth orbit and then fired into an orbit around the sun - where it still is today.
Apollo 11 - 1st lunar landing (LM5). Descent stage sitting on Sea of Tranquility. Ascent stage jettisoned in lunar orbit and crashed back onto the moon at an unknown point.
Apollo 12 - LM6 Descent stage on Ocean of Storms. Ascent stage, same fate as LM5.
Apollo 13 - LM7 Used as a lifeboat to save the crew. Burned up in earth's atmopshere
Apollo 14 - LM8 Descent stage at Fra Mauro. Ascent stage deliberately crashed at targeted point - partly to check on seismometer readings from equipment left by Apollos 11 and 12.
Apollo 15 - LM10 Descent stage at Hadley Rille. Same fate as LM8.
Apollo 16 - LM11 Descent stage at Descartes. The ascent stage went out of control after it was jettisoned so the planned targeted impact on the moon had to be abandoned. It did later crash but no one knows where.
Apollo 17 - LM12 Descent stage sits in the Taurus-Littrow Valley. The ascent stage was deliberately crashed into the moon as in Apollos 14 and 15.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
Interestingly, the Orion spacecraft is NOT going to use fuel cell technology as its main power source. For the first time ever (the Skylab space station excepted), an American manned spacecraft will be powered by an array of solar cells - like Soyuz.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. If there's any problems with the panels, you have less or no power and no back-up.Eric Mc said:
How would they have been recharged? What would they have plugged the car into?
No solar panels at that time? Certainly if you were doing it now, they'd be the obvious choice for a bit of a top-up.A solar panel craft can lose power if the panels aren't orientated correctly but in a manned craft that is not usually a problem.
Fuel cells, on the other hand, have always been temperamental. It was failure of a fuel tank for the fuel cells that crippled Apollo 13 and a number of Space Shuttle flights had serious issues when fuel cells failed.
Solar panels were in their infancy when the Apollo spacecraft were originally specified. The Command Service Module contract was issued in 1960 and it was felt that fuel cells were a better bet at that time. When the Lunar Module was specified in 1962, it was thought that the craft would spend no more than 24 hours on the moon - and batteries were more than sufficient for that.
Of course, as the programme continued, the mission requirements changed and the final stays were up to three days - which was still within the operating window for battery technology at that time.
Nobody even thought of a car until around 1968.
Hooli said:
Thanks both. It's a question that'd never occurred to me until I was reading this thread. I'd expected bits of them to survive re-entry if they came back to earth, guess they are less solid than I imagine. But then things in space don't need to be very strong do they? except for the pressure inside there will be very little load on the structure.
The Lunar Module was exceedingly frail. The actual modules designed for landing on the moon could not stand up under their own weight on earth. No genuine LUNAR Module ever rested on its legs on earth. It was always suspended using cradles and wires when under test.Special beefed up training versions were used for the astronauts to practice on on earth.
One thing I learned fairly recently was the Lunar Module had a fatigue Life of only five pressurisation cycles. In other words, after five pumpings up with oxygen, it was likely that the hull would burst or fail. That's how close they cut the margins on some of the craft used in Apollo. And it was all to keep the structure as light as possible.
Warning, contains naked pictures of the LM
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm
More in there if you follow your nose.
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm
More in there if you follow your nose.
Eric Mc said:
One thing I learned fairly recently was the Lunar Module had a fatigue Life of only five pressurisation cycles. In other words, after five pumpings up with oxygen, it was likely that the hull would burst or fail. That's how close they cut the margins on some of the craft used in Apollo. And it was all to keep the structure as light as possible.
That is cutting it fine!Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff