Apollo XIII's accident is a lot simplier than what happened with Apollo I. The fire'll still happen; when you put 100% oxygen in at too high pressure something's going to burst into flames sooner or later. As high as NASA had it, oxygen toxicity would kick in if the crew wasn't properly sealed in their suits. I remember reading that it was pressurized to over 1 bar, but find that hard to believe. 1 bar of oxygen will make anything burn.
Moonlab (1974-81)
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
Apollo XIII's accident is a lot simplier than what happened with Apollo I. The fire'll still happen; when you put 100% oxygen in at too high pressure something's going to burst into flames sooner or later. As high as NASA had it, oxygen toxicity would kick in if the crew wasn't properly sealed in their suits. I remember reading that it was pressurized to over 1 bar, but find that hard to believe. 1 bar of oxygen will make anything burn.
Under the original plans before the fire, the single-gas cabin was to be at 16.7 psi of pure oxygen at launch, bled down to something like 1/3 bar in space. The plugs-out test was, naturally, at launch conditions--and thus yes, the fire occurred in 1.14 atmospheres of pure oxygen. Pure oxygen atmosphere was...a really bad plan. I'd say it was actually more that Apollo 1 was the "simpler" accident--it was practically inevitable given the design of the system. Apollo 13's was much more complex in root cause and final incident details. Luckily, complexity like that makes it easier to butterfly. Maybe the tech doesn't drop the tank. Maybe they decide to inspect the tank after it won't drain. Maybe somebody remembers the fuse thing and points out not to try and boil it off. Maybe it actually explodes in the lab--could be bad, but a lot less bad than going in space. There's any number of small changes that can stop Apollo 13. For Apollo 1...some kind of fire was a lot less unpredictable. So I guess I'm mainly quibbling with your definition of "simpler," not as to which accident it more butterfly-resistant.
The Block II used for the OTL Apollo missions had no such capability--It was not designed for unmanned operations in lunar orbit, so basically none. The AES proposals would have added capability for up to 40 days of unmanned time in LLO. Getting to months might indeed have required solar power, at that point even fuel cells would have to be unworkably heavy even compared to 70s-era panels.
What about Skylab 4's 84 days? Was that drawing power from Skylab while docked? While the CSM would need to keep some power on (orbital corrections and telemetry, unless we're talking frozen lunar orbits), wouldn't shutting down life support and other functions associated with the crew extend the useful lifetime of a CSM?
They did. And used the CSMs onboard batteries for the few hours - at most - needed from undocking to re-entry, since by this point, the LH2 for the Fuel Cells would have long since evaporated.
The Block I and Block II Apollo CSM's used Fuel Cells as their main power source, and as such, could only provide power for as long as there was H2 and O2 for the Fuel Cells.
Incidentally, this is why long-duration Lunar Orbiters would require Solar Panels to provide a constant power source for its systems, even in a stand-by mode.
It'd be more likely to be included in a Block III, because the capability isn't necessary for the basic missions. That'd mean it'd wait until after Apollo 20ish. (OTL, they were planning for 20, but then it and the original 15 got cut for funding, then two more cut to save their Saturn Vs for Skylab A and B after it became clear we weren't getting a second run of Saturns. ITTL, presumably at least the last two fly, maybe also the former two.)
Last edited:
You couldn't just spring it all of a sudden on the Moonlab missions. Some of the first lunar landings would have to be equipped with it, because NASA will want to make absolutely certain that it works.
They didn't recommend it for Apollo missions IOTL. I don't see a reason they should when the return time is the same.
Apollo missions were gone for a week to ten days. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know how long between first symptoms to surgery. Moonlab plans call for six month missions.
Having astronauts go through the same training as field medics might be a good idea too. Of course, any accident that would require a medic on the surface of Luna would probably kill the astronaut first.
No, it wouldn't be "sprung," but it also wouldn't be introduced at the start. Block III would have it, it would have careful testing starting sometime around 1972 on the ground, then possibly an unmanned LEO loiter flight launched on Saturn IB and lasting 90+ days monitored from the ground. By the time it flies to the moon in '74, they'd have confidence in it. Rushing it for a '68 start and a '70 introduction is only going to complicate the already-touchy recovery from the fire--it'd add a massive change from Block I to Block II SM right when they're already radically redesigning the CM. And worse, if you want it introduced on Apollo 13, you're not eliminating Block II (which would fly Apollo 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12), so now you're rushing the schedule on a rather strongly different variant for not a lot of good reason: They don't need the capability until '74 anyway. Make no mistake--it's not a simple change: they have to replace the fuel cells with batteries (batteries can take recharges better and don't have issues with LH2 or cryogenic LOX boiling off), add the panels, and redesign most of the power distribution system. Give them the time to do it right.
NASA knew that Apollo CSM Block II work only for 14 days
so for the Apollo Application Program, They study the CSM Block III
(not the Block III from Eyes turned Skywards)
Block III feature:
Two-gas Atmosphere 70% oxygen 30% nitrogen at 5 psi. (used in Skylab)
Molecular sieve for CO2 removal (used in Skylab)
New electrical Power system
4 Fuel cell with new cryogenic Tanks for 45 day mission
power range from 2730 W for 45 day to 4000 W on short mission.
RSC from 790 lbs, increased to 1200 lbs fuel.
CSM block III had to fly Skylab mission (power the Wet workshop version),
fly AAP 28-day lunar polar orbit Mapping mission and
longterm AAP lunar mission with max 30 days on lunar surface.
so for the Apollo Application Program, They study the CSM Block III
(not the Block III from Eyes turned Skywards)
Block III feature:
Two-gas Atmosphere 70% oxygen 30% nitrogen at 5 psi. (used in Skylab)
Molecular sieve for CO2 removal (used in Skylab)
New electrical Power system
4 Fuel cell with new cryogenic Tanks for 45 day mission
power range from 2730 W for 45 day to 4000 W on short mission.
RSC from 790 lbs, increased to 1200 lbs fuel.
CSM block III had to fly Skylab mission (power the Wet workshop version),
fly AAP 28-day lunar polar orbit Mapping mission and
longterm AAP lunar mission with max 30 days on lunar surface.
Last edited:
Nope, it's the way they'd do it. You can call them the "Moonlab" Apollos, but the designation would be Block III.
Last edited:
The odds of an astronaut having appendicitis are extremely small, it's not very common in folks in the astronaut age range. Nowadays with laproscopic appendectomies doing it prophylactically would not be a huge thing, but in the 1970's was a more formal surgical procedure (even with small incision). There are lots of other medical emergencies that would be worse, with IV antibiotics you might be able to temporize appendicitis for example. A bad dental abscess, while not fatal, would be really nasty - one reason why deploying folks are supposed to be dental class 1.
Depending on the size of the base, no reason why one of the moon-nauts could not be an MD cross trained for life science experiments etc. Adequate medications and even a small OR setup would actually not take that much weight & cube, some of the military stuff OTL is very portable. Basic, but it works...
Preventive surgery for folks going on a Mars trip is another story...
Depending on the size of the base, no reason why one of the moon-nauts could not be an MD cross trained for life science experiments etc. Adequate medications and even a small OR setup would actually not take that much weight & cube, some of the military stuff OTL is very portable. Basic, but it works...
Preventive surgery for folks going on a Mars trip is another story...