[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Apollo 13, Meteorites, and Nininger


>Here is the current version of what happened according to the NASM Apollo
>page at:
>http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/AS13/Apollo13_fact.html
>
>"Electrical shorts in the fan circuit ignited the wire insulation, causing
>temperature and pressure to increase within cryogenic oxygen tank 2. When
>pressure reached the cryogenic oxygen tank 2 relief valve full-flow
>conditions of 1008 psi, the pressure began decreasing for about 9 seconds,
>at which time the relief valve probably reseated, causing the pressure to
>rise again momentarily. About a quarter of a second later, a vibration
>disturbance was noted on the command module accelerometers....[the article
>goes on to the explosion and rescue]."

Observations of the lunar module did strongly indicate an explosion from within.
I suppose that it is possible for a meteor to hit the oxygen tank
and caused it to explode, but considering the miles and miles of
electrical wiring contained within the lunar module, the electrical short
is the more likely suspect.

>If the dates I have are accurate, then suspecting a meteorite as the
>culprit at this stage, especially from Nininger, is not only completely
>understandable, but also should be expected (IMHO that is). Even in the
>NASM brief noted above, the situation begins with an electrical short, and
>Nininger's statement only addresses the electrical short to begin with.
>Interesting, didn't TWA 800 begin with an electrical short? (Oops, sorry
>Ron, I guess the conspiracy theorists up here in Idaho are getting to me)

Actually, the investigation into TWA 800 began assuming a terrorist
attack had occurred, either by a bomb by rocket attack, but the evidence
wouldn't bear any of those theories out.  The evidence did support
the electrical short scenario.

Ron Baalke