It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Houston: We have a problem... with your scientific theory:

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Apollo 13 crew would have burned in Earth's atmosphere, research reveals



It has long been believed the crew of the near-doomed Apollo 13 mission would have frozen in the infinity of space had Nasa failed in its dramatic rescue to bring them back to Earth. However new research has revealed the vessel would probably have burned in the planet's atmosphere, debunking the theories noted in the history books.


Two days - and 200,000 miles - into the voyage an oxygen tank exploded, ripping a hole in the capsule's exterior, causing the astronauts to drift off course.

It took four days for Nasa to get the spacecraft back to Earth - with no cabin power, dwindling water supply and restricted oxygen - as part of a delicate operation.


Source: www.dailymail.co.uk... html

On the 40 anniversary, I noticed not much was said either on ATS or the US MSM. But in the Euro and Russia papers-a big deal. Odd. Anyway, I was looking forward to some discussion on the topic. The movie couldn't have answered all the questions... Anyway, I am going to be looking into the Unlucky 13 matter and see what all the big deal was and what was learned/improved for NASA. So very brave men (and now women) in the NASA space program.

Edit to add source (must cut and paste): www.dailymail.co.uk... html








[edit on 4/12/2010 by anon72]

[edit on 4/12/2010 by anon72]

[edit on 4/12/2010 by anon72]




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
(anon72 -- you may need to fix your link -- it was not "clickable" -- although I cut-and-pasted the address)...

I wonder how long it would have taken the ship to come back towards the Earth on it's own -- the article doesn't say. I imagine it would have taken longer than the 4 days it actually did take -- and if it took too much longer, the astronauts probably would have died.

I fixed the link Here



[edit on 4/12/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I found the article rather vague as to why it would have crashed. There's a missing "if" here, as in "they would have crashed IF the thrusters failed to fire."



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I found the article rather vague as to why it would have crashed. There's a missing "if" here, as in "they would have crashed IF the thrusters failed to fire."


I agree, the reference in the OP is one of the worst written pieces I ever came across. Hard to figure out what they are trying to say.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I found the article rather vague as to why it would have crashed. There's a missing "if" here, as in "they would have crashed IF the thrusters failed to fire."

I think the point the article is trying to make is that it was previously said that if they did not attempt the rescue, the ship would be floating in space forever and be a frozen coffin for the crew -- but this new research shows that the ship would have eventually and automatically been caught by the Earth's gravity and pulled in to an atmospheric re-entry...

...although I can't tell by the article when that would have happened -- a few days? a month? a year? ten years?.



[edit on 4/12/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join