home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2967 sci.space:17655
- Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utzoo!henry
- From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
- Subject: Re: Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule)
- Message-ID: <BzBJnB.Azq@zoo.toronto.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:59:34 GMT
- References: <Byx2H4.8CB@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec8.100407.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <ByyGp2.685@zoo.toronto.edu> <Bz9w8J.6Lv@world.std.com>
- Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <Bz9w8J.6Lv@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
- >>... the Apollo 10 LM *probably* could have
- >>flown a lunar landing if some fuel had been offloaded to lighten it, but
- >>the margins would have been slim and hard to predict...
- >
- >Scary. As I have often recalled, there was a subtle bug in the LM
- >software that flew in the Apollo 10 mission. When in ascent mode, the
- >LM was supposed to automatically stay in contact with the CSM by
- >directional antenna. If it wasn't, then the LM automatically would
- >do a "random tumble" to locate it. During Apollo 10's simulation of
- >ascent, that started happening just at the beginning of the simulated
- >ascent. Stafford yelled "Son of a bitch!", which we all heard on Earth
- >a while before we found out the problem.
-
- Indeed, before the weight problem was fully clear, there was considerable
- debate about whether it was worth flying the dress-rehearsal mission --
- why go all that way only to back out at the last moment? Some of the
- more thoughtful people pointed out that there were still substantial
- unknowns in navigation and communications with two vehicles in lunar
- orbit, and it would be better to sort these out with a final test.
- They were right.
- --
- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
-