What if the Apollo 13 explosion happened in lunar orbit?

[statisticsnerd]

Let's say the lunar lander had already made it to the surface of the Moon, and the explosion occurred in the service module while Swigert was waiting for Lovell and Haise to return.

I was wondering about a few things.

1. Would Lovell and Haise, knowing that they were doomed anyway, open the hatch of the LM and take off their spacesuit helmets? That way if another mission was sent to that site later on, they would find the bodies and be able to provide a proper burial. If they had ascended to the CSM and died, the CSM would eventually lose orbit and crash into a thousand pieces. None of their bodies would be recovered.

2. Assuming Lovell and Haise died on the lunar surface, how well would their bodies have been preserved? The Moon is very cold, so it seems like any bacteria in their bodies wouldn't be able to propagate.

3. Would NASA have sent up a mission to bury the bodies? I know it would have been expensive, but it would have been the respectful thing to do. Also, they could have conducted additional experiments in the area to justify the cost of the mission.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Let's say the lunar lander had already made it to the surface of the Moon, and the explosion occurred in the service module while Swigert was waiting for Lovell and Haise to return.

I was wondering about a few things.

1. Would Lovell and Haise, knowing that they were doomed anyway, open the hatch of the LM and take off their spacesuit helmets? That way if another mission was sent to that site later on, they would find the bodies and be able to provide a proper burial. If they had ascended to the CSM and died, the CSM would eventually lose orbit and crash into a thousand pieces. None of their bodies would be recovered.

2. Assuming Lovell and Haise died on the lunar surface, how well would their bodies have been preserved? The Moon is very cold, so it seems like any bacteria in their bodies wouldn't be able to propagate.

3. Would NASA have sent up a mission to bury the bodies? I know it would have been expensive, but it would have been the respectful thing to do. Also, they could have conducted additional experiments in the area to justify the cost of the mission.

Why wouldn't Lovell and Haise return to the CSM?

 

[jedidia]

1. Would Lovell and Haise, knowing that they were doomed anyway, open the hatch of the LM and take off their spacesuit helmets?

I think not. Dying slowly of CO2 poisoning is a lot more pleasant than of explosive decompression.

 

[Urwumpe]

1. Would Lovell and Haise, knowing that they were doomed anyway, open the hatch of the LM and take off their spacesuit helmets? That way if another mission was sent to that site later on, they would find the bodies and be able to provide a proper burial. If they had ascended to the CSM and died, the CSM would eventually lose orbit and crash into a thousand pieces. None of their bodies would be recovered.

More likely would be the choice of CO2 poisoning inside the LM, when landed. But that kind of question is extremely hard to answer, since it is an extreme situation that has no plans prepared.

EDIT: Additionally the more important question "Would the astronauts still follow orders for their controlled death?" is not even asked or can be answered except by the astronauts themselves. Would you follow such orders, even if the situation is dire?

2. Assuming Lovell and Haise died on the lunar surface, how well would their bodies have been preserved? The Moon is very cold, so it seems like any bacteria in their bodies wouldn't be able to propagate.

There is still erosion by metorite impacts and solar radiation. They would still decompose, but much different to what you have on Earth.

3. Would NASA have sent up a mission to bury the bodies? I know it would have been expensive, but it would have been the respectful thing to do. Also, they could have conducted additional experiments in the area to justify the cost of the mission.

No. Just like you don't raise dead from sunken ships unless you need to or have to raise them with the ship or parts of it. You also don't justify it by "additional experiments". The place is a grave then. Unless you have an investigation (think of aircraft crashes or mass graves of war crimes) they wouldn't be touched at all.

PS: I think this topic is better placed in the Basement. It touches politics and religion at a pretty strong point

 

[N_Molson]

First, I'd say that this kind of speculation is a little morbid, especially when it involves spaceflight heroes.

They were extremely disciplined people and would first have done what the ground told them.

If no specific orders, I guess their last wish would have been to get back to the CSM, knowing how terrible it would be for their friend to die alone. Then, the most painless solution would probably have been to take painkiller/anesthesic medication if available when the first symptoms of CO2 intoxication appear.

 

[Ghostrider]

1. Would Lovell and Haise, knowing that they were doomed anyway, open the hatch of the LM and take off their spacesuit helmets? That way if another mission was sent to that site later on, they would find the bodies and be able to provide a proper burial.

Don't think so. Those guys knew the risks and I have more than a feeling there was a procedure to handle this as well. There was one for Apollo 11 should the ascent module engine fail to function, and I suspect the same was true for all following missions.

If they had ascended to the CSM and died, the CSM would eventually lose orbit and crash into a thousand pieces. None of their bodies would be recovered.

Since the loss of power in the CSM after the explosion occurred quite swiftly, it's possible the CSM wouldn't have had the ability to RV and dock with the LM. Anyway, where's the love for poor Swigert? Wouldn't he deserve a proper burial as well? Had I been in their shoes, I would have tried to dock with the CSM, so that Swigert wouldn't have to die alone.

2. Assuming Lovell and Haise died on the lunar surface, how well would their bodies have been preserved? The Moon is very cold, so it seems like any bacteria in their bodies wouldn't be able to propagate.

The Moon is neither cold nor hot, it's a vacuum. A lot of bacteria in the body would still be active and since they're anaerobic, they wouldn't need any air. A lot of decomposition happens within the body. Keep in mind that IANAPBIMO (I Am Not A Pathologist But I Married One).

3. Would NASA have sent up a mission to bury the bodies? I know it would have been expensive, but it would have been the respectful thing to do. Also, they could have conducted additional experiments in the area to justify the cost of the mission.

There were more missions in the pipeline so Apollo 14 could have probably done it as part of the EVAs. If the program ended up cancelled for this reason, they would be left there. The astronauts knew the risks and accepted them. There's an old adage that says "don't be an explorer if you're overly worried about where your bones will lie".

IMHO, the respectful think we can do for any pioneer is to carry on with their work and go forward in their name.

 

[T.Neo]

The Moon is neither cold nor hot, it's a vacuum.

The Moon is not a vacuum, it's... a moon. There may not be any air around to transfer heat to or from an object, but heat will conduct into a lander or spacesuit from the surface (which can get both very hot and very cold). The LM and the suits used evaporative cooling to control temperature, and the missions landed during the cooler lunar mornings.

Considering the lack of active thermal control, the long duration of the lunar day and the contact with the lunar surface, temperature in the LM could vary considerably. In addition, during the lunar night the LM would be shielded from sunlight for a full two weeks. During this period the LM temperature would likely drop considerably.

These temperature ranges could accelerate bacterial growth (at higher temperatures) or stifle it (at temperatures that are too high or too low). Repeated temperature cycles may even kill off bacteria. They may also mechanically fatigue the structure of the LM, leading to loss of internal pressure.

There's also a question of what happens to other things in the LM, like propellant, helium pressurants, or batteries. Stuff might explode.

 

[C3PO]

Additionally the more important question "Would the astronauts still follow orders for their controlled death?" is not even asked or can be answered except by the astronauts themselves. Would you follow such orders, even if the situation is dire?

In extreme like this you couldn't even rely on the astronaut's word. The only way to find out is if it happens.

STS checklists included some switch changes in the cockpit if range safety was about to destroy the vehicle.

EDIT: My best guess would be an immediate ascent and docking to save as much battery power as possible. Without any other option Houston would try to use the CSM engine for a TEI. They didn't use that engine on 13 because they didn't have to.

 

[Urwumpe]

STS checklists included some switch changes in the cockpit if range safety was about to destroy the vehicle.

Not known to me (Citation needed).

There are switch changes only for contigency aborts, in which the spacecraft will be destroyed by crashing after the crew left the Shuttle. These are not for ensuring destruction, but rather that the spacecraft remains on course until all astronauts have left the cabin.

 

[FADEC]

I think not. Dying slowly of CO2 poisoning is a lot more pleasant than of explosive decompression.

I would chose a rapid decompression. Dying slowly of CO2 poisoning involves nasty symptoms. A rapid decompression makes you become unconscious within seconds. The only thing you notice before is air streaming out of your body through its orifices, and water in your lungs begins to boil.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

STS checklists included some switch changes in the cockpit if range safety was about to destroy the vehicle.

The orbiter has no range safety system I think. So which switch changes should be required? Range safety would rather destroy the SRBs, which they did during STS-51L, after they became lose and unpredictable. By that time the orbiter was no more. If it would depend on switch settings, it actually would be a useless system.

 

[C3PO]

Not known to me (Citation needed).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroy_Chiao"]Leroy Chiao[/ame] used to be "resident STS expert" on spaceflightnow's webcast. During a countdown the topic of range safety came up, and he was asked if there wasn't some actions they should make if the vehicle was going to be destroyed. The answer was that there were "a few switch throws, but NASA doesn't like to talk about it". I guess it's a "by-heart" checklist, because I can't find anything about it elsewhere.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would chose a rapid decompression. Dying slowly of CO2 poisoning involves nasty symptoms. A rapid decompression makes you become unconscious within seconds. The only thing you notice before is air streaming out of your body through its orifices, and water in your lungs begins to boil.

Problem is: How to ensure a rapid decompression? You can't open any hatch on the LM as long as there is enough pressure inside the spacecraft to stay alive. Taking off the helmet while pressurized is equally hard, while a different system, the 20 kPa pressure make it pretty hard to break the seal in vacuum.

A decompression that is not rapid enough can be 90 seconds of extreme ordeal. The corpses might look peaceful later, but they still tell their stories to the experts.

Unless you can be really explosive (which would also cause severe injury to the humans in the process), it isn't better than CO2 poisoning, which can be made tolerable with on-board medicaments.

 

[C3PO]

The orbiter has no range safety system I think.

All launch vehicles have range safety systems. When Grissom's capsule was recovered in 1999, the first task was to remove the range safety charge.

 

[Artlav]

Why the heck would they commit suicide while there are still options?
They have space suits, they have a spare spacecraft for parts and a lifeboat.
I'd say ascend to the CSM, look at the engine from outside, fix what can be reached, and try to do a TEI.

If the CSM engine is busted forever and ever, then there is still a fact that both engines use the same fuel, and the one on the LM should still be functional - invent a way to transfer fuel, or feed one directly from the other.

If that does not work, keep looking.

It's a chance, however slim.
Taking one's helmet off is no chance at all.

 

[FADEC]

Leroy Chiao used to be "resident STS expert" on spaceflightnow's webcast. During a countdown the topic of range safety came up, and he was asked if there wasn't some actions they should make if the vehicle was going to be destroyed. The answer was that there were "a few switch throws, but NASA doesn't like to talk about it". I guess it's a "by-heart" checklist, because I can't find anything about it elsewhere.

That's the problem with quotes or comments. German Astronaut Ulrich Walter, who flew with the Space Shuttle, said a few incorrect things in the German TV during the landing of STS-135. He wasn't even aware that these days NASA uses the TDRSS instead of the old ground based network. I did not expect to hear some wrong things from someone who took a seat on the Shuttle.

Problem is: How to ensure a rapid decompression? You can't open any hatch on the LM as long as there is enough pressure inside the spacecraft to stay alive. Taking off the helmet while pressurized is equally hard, while a different system, the 20 kPa pressure make it pretty hard to break the seal in vacuum.

A decompression that is not rapid enough can be 90 seconds of extreme ordeal. The corpses might look peaceful later, but they still tell their stories to the experts.

Unless you can be really explosive (which would also cause severe injury to the humans in the process), it isn't better than CO2 poisoning, which can be made tolerable with on-board medicaments.

Okay. I would vote CO2 poisoning then :lol:

All launch vehicles have range safety systems.

But the orbiter is no launch vehicle, although it carries the main propulsion system

I cheked it a few minutes ago. Only the SRBs and the ET were equipped with destruct devices. NASA did some bold moves in its history. But they were still not crazy enough to equip the orbiter with destruct devices.

 

[C3PO]

I cheked it a few minutes ago. Only the SRBs and the ET were equipped with destruct devices. NASA did some bold moves in its history. But they were still not crazy enough to equip the orbiter with destruct devices.

The Orbiter doesn't need a charge because the one on the ET would do the job, and the ET is attached all the way to MECO. Sadly the result of a ruptured ET has been proven.

 

[Ghostrider]

The Moon is not a vacuum, it's... a moon.

Yes, but it's a nice moon.

There may not be any air around to transfer heat to or from an object, but heat will conduct into a lander or spacesuit from the surface (which can get both very hot and very cold).

You know, this could be an interesting experiment. Since building a 1:1 model of the LM with all materials right, putting it into a vacuum chamber and exposing it to the same heat cycles looks a little unfeasible in the short term, is there a way to simulate it?

Additionally, is there any data from the J-missions? The longers stays on the surface should have yielded more data and I suppose they had sensors to record any temperature variation.

As I stated before, I'm not a pathologist but I have easy access to one so if we are of a ghoulish disposition me might try to reconstruct what would happen to a corpse left in a LM, or the lunar surface, depending on suit integrity.

Then we'll find the culprit and drown him in evidence!

 

[garyw]

I cheked it a few minutes ago. Only the SRBs and the ET were equipped with destruct devices. NASA did some bold moves in its history. But they were still not crazy enough to equip the orbiter with destruct devices.

Not true. The range safety devices were removed from the ET after STS-51L.
Only the SRB's had range safety devices and required two persons to ARM then FIRE the charges. The thought was that the orbiter would be destroyed as the SRB charges would causes sufficent stress to detonate the tank. Asymetric airstream forces would then lead to orbiter breakup.

The thought was always that the range safety system would be used AFTER SRB sep to give the crew a chance but if required they would have detonated prior to that.

Its one reason that Range Safety officers refused to meet the crew and families.

 

[FADEC]

The Orbiter doesn't need a charge because the one on the ET would do the job, and the ET is attached all the way to MECO. Sadly the result of a ruptured ET has been proven.

That's what I meant when I said that the orbiter does not have a range safety system.

Not true. The range safety devices were removed from the ET after STS-51L.

So the ET was equipped with destruct devices (until STS-51L)

 

[Urwumpe]

The Orbiter doesn't need a charge because the one on the ET would do the job, and the ET is attached all the way to MECO. Sadly the result of a ruptured ET has been proven.

Still there is no range safety procedure for the crew during flight. Somebody just has the sad duty to end your life before you end the lives of many others. The Range Safety Officer also only gets active during trajectory red lines, not any other event - and when a Shuttle trajectory red line is exceeded, things are already catastrophic.