NASA and the next inconsistencies with the Apollo spacecraft

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

During the discussion at one of the Runet forums, the participants touched upon the weight of the command module (CM) of the Apollo spacecraft, which returned after the "lunar mission". Doubt has arisen as to compliance with NASA's stated value. Indeed, if the object splashes down and floats, then you can try to determine its weight.

First, let's get acquainted with the NASA document [1], which provides schematic images of the CM, as well as the data that will be required for calculations:

Rice. one

A translation from English has been added to the diagram, and details are highlighted by which it will be possible to navigate when analyzing video and photographic materials. In particular, we will be interested in the nozzles of the side engines, highlighted in red - REACTION CONTROL YAW ENGINES (YE), as well as the nozzles of the front engine - REACTION CONTROL PITCH ENGINES (PE), highlighted in green.

The following diagram shows that the bottom of the module has the shape of a spherical segment:

Rice. 2

The radius of the sphere is easily determined in a graphics editor (for example, in Corel Draw). A circle is taken, superimposed on the module diagram, then, adjusting the radius of the circle, we achieve the coincidence of the curvature of the bottom with the circle. The resulting radius of the circle is calculated by comparing it with the known diameter of the CM (3, 91m).

By "bottom curvature" is meant the junction of the spherical bottom segment and the conical body. Its upper edge is usually highlighted with a light stripe [2]:

Rice. 3

To answer the question: "to what depth should the CM dive?" - it is necessary to calculate the volume of displaced water and then according to the Archimedes law (for a water surface much larger than the dimensions of a floating body, since in the general case Archimedes' law is incorrect) the weight of this displaced water will be equal to the weight of the CM of interest to us. To calculate the volume, we will use the following approximation:

Rice. 4

A spherical segment with the specified parameters is highlighted in blue on the diagram: R- radius of the sphere, h - segment height. Pink - disc with radius R_d and height h_d … Green - truncated cone height h_c, which was selected to obtain a volume of 0.9m³. Adding the body volumes indicated in the diagram, we get 5.3m³, which within an error of 3% (due to the density of seawater, equal to approximately 1025 - 1028 kg / m³) corresponds to the weight of the CM indicated by NASA (see Fig. 1) - 5.3 tons.

Thus, according to the diagram in Fig. 4, the immersion level of the KM, floating in a vertical position, must coincide with the upper edge of the green sector (Fig. 4), while the nozzles of the motors (YE, PE) will be partially submerged in the water. It remains to find out the depth to which the CM was submerged using video and photographic materials.

The only problem is that the center of gravity of the CM is shifted to the rear side (opposite from the hatch), therefore, in a calm state, it floats with a large deviation from the vertical [3]:

Rice. 5

In view of the complex shape of the CM, it is not entirely clear to what level the CM with a displaced center of gravity should submerge. To answer this question, a 1:60 scale KM model was made. Its weight is selected so that the model plunges to the required level, indicated by horizontal strokes:

Rice. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. eight

Rice. 6 - KM model. Rice. 7 - the KM model floats vertically, immersed in water up to the level of the nozzles of the correction engines, indicated by horizontal strokes. Rice. eight - the KM model floats with a shifted center of gravity. It can be seen that when the center of gravity is shifted to the rear side, the nozzles of the side engines (YE - denoted by horizontal segments) are also submerged in water. You can also assume that the axis of swing of the CM back and forth coincides with the straight line connecting the indicated motors. The weight-and-gauge simulator is submerged in approximately the same way in the image depicting a training session in the Gulf of Mexico [5]:

Rice. 9

The description for the photo says: "The main crew of the first manned Apollo mission is resting on an inflatable raft in the Gulf of Mexico during training to leave a full-scale model of the spacecraft." It must be understood that training is carried out with a model that has the weight and dimensions declared by NASA. Similar trainings were also carried out in the pool [6]:

Rice. 10

In both cases (Fig. 9, 10) it can be seen that the upper edge of the bottom curvature in the area of the outboard engines (YE) goes under the water, and although the engines themselves are absent on the model, nevertheless the submersion pattern approximately corresponds to that shown in Fig. 8. Unfortunately There are not so many pictures of free-floating modules. So the next image shows the Apollo-4 (A-4) spacecraft, which returned after a test flight in autonomous mode ([7] - fragment):

Rice. eleven

The immersion level of the KM "A-4" is rather low - the upper edge of the bottom curvature is above the water, not to mention the YE engine nozzles. Apparently, the CM is significantly lightened, which affects its good buoyancy. We mark the observed level of immersion "A-4" with a red "waterline":

Rice. 12

Correlating Fig. 12 with the diagram in Fig. 4, the weight of the "A-4" capsule can be estimated. It will approximately correspond to the sum of the volumes of the blue sector and a third of the pink sector, which will give 3.2 tons … The small weight of the CM is obviously due to the lack of a crew in it. Next, consider a snapshot of the Apollo 7 spacecraft that splashed down [8]:

Rice. thirteen

Unfortunately, there are no other suitable materials on "A-7". But even here it is clearly visible that the YE nozzles are above the water, which speaks for a lightweight capsule. Perhaps, however, the question arises about an inflatable raft hanging on the CM: does it increase buoyancy or not? Elementary reasoning suggests that - no, however, the limited information does not give grounds for complete confidence in the ability to correctly estimate the weight of the CM.

Along the way, I will note that the Apollo 7 crew, allegedly having been in zero gravity for 11 days, looks cheerful and cheerful in the photographs, showing no discomfort from such a long stay in space, which can be attributed to a very mysterious phenomenon that has not received a proper explanation … Let's move on to the video [9], where the Apollo 13 spacecraft splashed down is shown in close-up. Below are the frames in which the floating capsule takes positions close to vertical:

Rice. 14. YE - high above the water, the upper edge of the bottom rounding is visible, which is completely above the surface, the black strip of the rounding itself is also visible, the foam on the right is knocked out from under the bottom.

Rice. 15. YE - high above the water, the upper edge of the bottom curvature is visible, which is completely above the surface, the foam on the right is knocked out from under the bottom.

Rice. 16. White border - foam escaping from under the bottom, YE - high above the water, the upper edge of the bottom rounding is visible, which is completely above the surface, and the black stripe of the rounding itself is also visible.

Rice. 17. View from the other side, YE - high above the water, the right edge hangs over the surface of the water, foam is beating out from under the bottom on the back.

Rice. 18. A picture similar to the previous one (Fig. 17) - the strip of the bottom rounding is clearly visible.

All frames clearly show that the CM, which is in a vertical position, does not sink along the nozzles of the YE engines - they are always visible above the water. Moreover, in most of the frames, the bottom curvature is fully or partially exposed, which gives us a reason to draw the "waterline" for the Apollo 13 CM not higher than the middle of the bottom curvature:

Rice. nineteen.

According to Fig. 4, it is necessary to summarize the blue sector and half of the pink sector, which approximately corresponds to the weight of the CM in 3.5 tons … The NASA archive also contains a photo of the floating Apollo 15 spacecraft, which, as in the previous cases considered, looks "underloaded" ([10] - fragment):

Rice. twenty.

The capsule is turned towards the photographer, the YE engines are not visible, but the immersion can be estimated by the visible nozzles of the PE engine (two black dots under the hatch). Moreover, the capsule is tilted to a significant extent due to the tension of the lines of the parachutes immersed in the water, so the swing axis will be displaced. To clarify the nature of the immersion of the CM "A-15", you can use the frame from the video [11], demonstrating the splashdown of the capsule:

Rice. 21.

The YE side motor nozzles are barely visible due to poor video quality, but they are easily identified by the bright rectangular reflection on the CM body (see examples in Fig. 14, 17, 18). On the left from under the bottom, foam is knocked out, the black strip of the bottom rounding is clearly visible along the entire visible KM profile - from right to left, from which an unambiguous conclusion follows: the YE nozzles are above the water level.

Comparing Fig. 21 s Fig. 20, it can be concluded that the swing axis in Fig. 20 passes roughly through the PE engine, which, as we can see, is also located above the surface of the water. Well distinguishable in Fig. 20, 21 bottom rounding gives us the right to draw the "waterline" below its upper edge:

Rice. 22.

The immersion pattern in this case corresponds to Fig. 19, the weight estimate for which gave 3.5 tons … Of particular interest is the spacecraft that took part in the Soyuz-Apollo joint flight (ASTP). According to NASA, it was the last ship left unused on lunar missions.

As a starting material for the analysis of the buoyancy of the Apollo-EPAS CM, a video was chosen, which shows the splashdown of the capsule [12]:

Rice. 23. a - view from the left side, b - view from the right.

Unfortunately, there are no images of a free-floating capsule in the archives. In Fig. 23a shows the moment when a strongly swinging CM was "caught" in a position as close to vertical as possible. It is clearly seen that the YE nozzles are above the surface of the water, which crosses the upper line of the bottom curvature to the right of the YE engine. Let's transfer our observations to the KM scheme - Fig. 24a.

"Waterline" is shown in red, pink is the immersion level for a vertically floating module. Comparison with the diagram in Fig. 4 it follows that 2/3 of pink must be added to the blue sector. Translated into the weight of the CM, it will turn out 3.8 tons.

Rice. 24. a - "waterlines" for Fig. 23a, b - "waterlines" for Fig. 23b.

The second image of the floating Apollo-EPAS spacecraft - Fig. 23b - Captured the moment when the swimmers somehow managed to "calm down" the rocking of the capsule, which allowed them to start attaching the inflatable raft.

Since it is not inflated, its effect on the buoyancy of the CM is insignificant - it can only make it heavier. At the same time, a characteristic detail was identified - the nozzles of the YE right engine rose above the water level, which, generally speaking, is noted in almost all CM images with an inflatable raft (for example, in Fig. 13).

The bottom curvature was also exposed under the nozzles. The diagram in Fig. 24b by analogy with Fig. 24a shows the observed "waterline" - in red - and pink for the upright position. As the measurement results show, to determine the volume of displaced water, it is necessary to add the blue sector (see Fig. 4) and 0.4 from the pink one, which will correspond to the CM weight equal to 3.3 tons.

The average value for the two values of the Apollo-ASPAS CM weights obtained above will give the result in 3.6 tons … It remains to average the obtained 4 measurements of the CM weight: (3.2 + 3.5 + 3.5 + 3.6) / 4 = 3.5 tons. Thus, the estimate of the capsule weight, based on the available photo-video materials from NASA, gives the following result: 3.5 ± 0.3 tons, which is 1.8 tons (36%) below the declared value by NASA.

Conclusion. In this work, the weight of the Apollo command module was estimated, which confirmed the previously stated assumption: the weight of the capsule turned out to be equal to 3.5 ± 0.3 tons instead of 5.3 tonsspecified in the NASA document [1].

The calculation method is based on a visual assessment of the nature of the CM sinking after splashdown in the ocean. Photo and video materials from NASA, available in the public domain, were used as a data source.

It is characteristic that the result obtained exactly corresponds to the observed CM buoyancy from photographs with inflatable liferafts:

Rice. 25. CM "Apollo 16" [13].

The value of such frames is that there are relatively many of them in the NASA archive and they allow more accurately fixing the depth of the CM immersion.

In particular, the presented image clearly shows that the upper edge of the bottom curvature under the YE nozzles is above the water, and the immersion depth approximately corresponds to the weight of the CM in 3.5 tons at declared weight 5.4 t [14].

However, once again, in order to avoid possible objections, it should be noted that the main calculation was made without use photo and video materials with inflatable rafts.

The reason for the discrepancy in the weight of the CM is obviously related to the fact that we observed a lighter version of the descent capsule. Moreover, in the case of the "A-4" capsule (see Fig. 11), more Othe biggest difference in weight is that it "lacks" about 300 kg for the capsules that have returned with the crews.

The weight of three adult men largely compensates for this "deficit", but the issue of the "shortage" of almost 2 tons of weight requires a different explanation.

And here it would be useful to refer to the strangeness noted above in the behavior of the Apollo-7 crew, who allegedly returned after a long flight (11 days, which was considered super-long at that time) without any signs of poor health.

Moreover, not a single Apollo crew reportedly complained about a violation of the vestibular apparatus and other troubles caused by being in zero gravity for many days. Photo and video materials from the NASA archives testify to the same. This picture is in stark contrast to that observed among Soviet cosmonauts who were literally carried out of their descent capsules.

Even after almost 45 years, the 11-day flight causes severe consequences for astronauts when returning to Earth: "" When you land, this is a very difficult physical test. In space, you get used to other conditions, "Guy Laliberte said at a press conference in Moscow. According to him, there was a lot of adrenaline upon returning to earth, but" when you get out of the descent vehicle, it seems that there is no strength to take the next step. ". The space tourist added that the landing was given to him with great difficulty …" [15] (Guy Laliberté was moved on a stretcher immediately after landing, he did not even try to walk - Author)

American astronauts against, the landing was amazingly easy! They were never taken out of the capsules helpless and powerless, they jumped out of the capsules themselves - cheerful and cheerful.

How can you explain the insensitivity of the Apollo crews to the effects of space? The only answer suggests itself: as such, there was no long-term exposure to space. Or the Apollo crews did not return from space at all!

The lightness of the Apollo descent capsule, revealed in this work, also fits into this context. Indeed, if we are shown an imitation of a return from space, then the CM in a certain sense is an imitation of a full-fledged space module, since there is no need to load it with a full set of equipment and materials to ensure the functioning of the spacecraft and to support the life of the crew in space.

This can also explain the stunning accuracy of the Apollo splashdown, unattainable in modern astronautics:

Rice. 26. Deviation of the Apollo splashdown sites [14] (data source for the Apollo-ASTP spacecraft - [16]).

The deviation of the Soyuz landing from the calculated point, which is considered normal, is tens of kilometers. But even the most advanced Soyuz spacecraft often break into a ballistic descent, and then the deviation exceeds 400 km [18-20].

However, for spacecraft returning from lunar orbit, the descent trajectory becomes much more complicated due to their higher speed ("second space" speed - 11 km / s), due to which it is necessary to carry out either a double entry into the atmosphere, or an ascent of the "gliding" trajectory with subsequent descent to the surface of the Earth.

At the same time, the number of factors that cannot be predicted and calculated in advance to accurately determine the descent trajectory is obviously higher than when the spacecraft descends from low earth orbit. Moreover, an error in only one velocity parameter per 10 m / s "leads to a miss at the landing point of the order of 350 km" [17].

Consequently, the chances of getting into a circle with a radius of several kilometers are practically zero. But the Apollo, in spite of everything, demonstrated phenomenal accuracy - they splashed down at the calculated points in 12 cases out of 12.

And how the emergency Apollo 13 hit the "target" (deviation - less than 2 km!) - only science fiction writer Arthur Clarke knows [21]. These circumstances clearly speak for the fact that NASA imitated the return of the Apollo, dropping them from the board of a transport aircraft [22], the pilot of which was only required to carefully "aim" so as not to hit the capsule on the waiting aircraft carrier.

It is curious that the above reasoning is also true for the Apollo-ASPAS! The weight of its CM turned out to be practically the same as that of the "lunar" samples. Judging by the video [12], the Apollo-ASTP crew, allegedly having spent 9 days in space, is firmly on their feet, looks healthy and joyful, speaking cheerfully at a solemn meeting immediately after splashdown.

But according to legend, during the landing, the crew was allegedly poisoned by vapors of rocket fuel and was close to death. But on the faces there are no traces of either poisoning, or the many days of weightlessness that had been suffered … In conclusion, I will briefly state a version that explains the difficult situation that NASA faced.

In 1961, he was given the task of ensuring the landing of American astronauts on the moon by the end of the 60s. In the "lunar race" that started, not only the prestige of the great powers was at stake, but also the ability of the world's political systems to solve the most difficult problems.

And at a time when the USSR was working out various technical options for achieving victory in the "moon race", the United States went its own - no alternative - way, the main components of which were the Saturn-5 launch vehicle and the Apollo spacecraft.

However, "Saturn-5" was never brought to acceptable operational characteristics - the last test launch (the second in a row) in April 1968 was unsuccessful [23], but an even more tragic fate befell Apollo - in its oxygen the atmosphere during training burned the crew [24].

NASA has had to learn through bitter experience that spacecraft with an oxygen atmosphere are a dead-end direction in the development of astronautics. There was no time to develop a new ship with a solid hull and an atmosphere close to that of the Earth - less than 2 years were left before the planned flyby of the Moon.

But the lunar module was also designed for an oxygen atmosphere, therefore, it was also subject to deep reconstruction. The robust hulls of the spacecraft significantly increased the payload requirements for Saturn 5, which already did not want to fly.

As a result, by 1968 NASA was left with nothing. - without any groundwork for the lunar mission. But the Americans would not have been Americans if they had not calculated the possible scenarios for the development of events, including the most negative, which, as a result, had to be dealt with.

Using breakthrough "Hollywood" technologies, NASA managed to play an unprecedented farce, forcing humanity to believe in an American miracle. The bluff, carried out not without the help of the USSR [25, 26], turned out to be successful.

But the nature of any bluff, as you know, lies in the art of hiding the void.

In support of this truth NASA defiantly refuses the baggage that allegedly brought him world leadership and fame - from the Saturn-5 r / n, from the Apollo spacecraft and the Skylab station.

NASA had to write the next page of its history from scratch - the development of the Space Shuttle [27] had nothing to do with its eminent predecessors.

Links:

1. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

2. [www.flickr.com]

3. [ntrs.nasa.gov]

4. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

5. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

6. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

7. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

8. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

9. "APOLLO 13 - all BBC's TV original reentry & splashdown footage - part 4 of 5": [www.youtube.com]

10. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

11. "Apollo 15 Splashdown": [www.youtube.com]

12. ASTP - Apollo Splashdown & Recovery: [www.youtube.com]

13. [www.hq.nasa.gov]

14. [history.nasa.gov]

15. [tvroscosmos.ru]

16. [history.nasa.gov]

17. M. Ivanov, L. N. Lysenko, "Ballistics and navigation of spacecraft", p. 422.

18. [science.compulenta.ru]

19. [uisrussia.msu.ru]

20. [www.dinos.ru]

21. [a-kudryavets.livejournal.com]

22. [bolshoyforum.org]

23. [ru.wikipedia.org/Saturn-5]

24. [ru.wikipedia.org/Apollo-1]

25. [andrew-vk.narod.ru]

26. [www.manonmoon.ru]