- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Apollo 13 question re: batteries
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:29 pm to CocomoLSU
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:29 pm to CocomoLSU
That was more for entertainment than realism.
They also said Apollo had less computing power than the Mr. Coffee in the command center. The Mr. Coffee was a modern item.
Fred Haise called the scene with "I can add" the dumbest part of the movie.
They also said Apollo had less computing power than the Mr. Coffee in the command center. The Mr. Coffee was a modern item.
Fred Haise called the scene with "I can add" the dumbest part of the movie.
1
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:48 pm to Bestbank Tiger
I've met Fred Haise, he's got bigger balls than Billy Cannon and Joe Burrow combined.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:00 pm to Fewer Kilometers
Todays youth have no clue how awesome RS was back in the late 70’s / early 80’s.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:13 pm to CocomoLSU
First, it's an entertainment movie, so who knows how accurate the tape player use is.
Second, if it's accurate, electricity is a very sensitive thing. There could have been any number of issues that could arisen trying to retrofit the shuttle to run on consumer batteries up to and including fire, short circuiting the system, or burning out fuses they couldn't replace.
If it was a possibility, im sure it was discussed and determined that the chances of malfunction were higher than function.
Second, if it's accurate, electricity is a very sensitive thing. There could have been any number of issues that could arisen trying to retrofit the shuttle to run on consumer batteries up to and including fire, short circuiting the system, or burning out fuses they couldn't replace.
If it was a possibility, im sure it was discussed and determined that the chances of malfunction were higher than function.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:21 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:I love how Young Sheldon shows Radio Shack as geek heaven. It really was.
Todays youth have no clue how awesome RS was back in the late 70’s / early 80’s.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:17 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
Your question is why didn't they use AA batteries from a tape player to power a spacecraft?
Is that any less explicable or ridiculous than believing a NASA space ships made out of cans and duct-taped together traveled over 2 millions miles through the vacuum of space and dangers of the Van Allen Belt, shot a lunar lander to the surface to land it and men on the Moon 5 times? And returned again without a hitch?
The battery power of a tape player running days on end is the least of implausible things about the movie and 1970 mission.
I'd also like to know how the lunar moon-buggie and it's huge tires fit on the tiny lunar lander. And the battery to power it?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 3:07 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
Is that any less explicable or ridiculous than believing a NASA space ships made out of cans and duct-taped together traveled over 2 millions miles through the vacuum of space and dangers of the Van Allen Belt, shot a lunar lander to the surface to land it and men on the Moon 5 times? And returned again without a hitch?
The battery power of a tape player running days on end is the least of implausible things about the movie and 1970 mission.
I'd also like to know how the lunar moon-buggie and it's huge tires fit on the tiny lunar lander. And the battery to power it?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 9:51 pm to CocomoLSU
It was all about capacity. I went back to ntrs.nasa.gov and found the Apollo 13 official report. I also found the electrical distribution diagram for the CSM and LEM.
The LEM had separate batteries for each mission stage. 2 for descent, 1 for the surface, 2 for ascent. CSM was different. You had three fuel cells that provided power. You had three batteries for reentry that provided power once the Service Module was jettisoned. Reentry used a lot of power.
According to the report, the CSM batteries were down to around 90 amp/hrs before the spacecraft was shut down after the accident. Capacity was 2200ish amp/hrs. They used the LEM batteries to power the spacecraft and charge the CSM batteries up to about 120 amp/hrs. So that’s the power available for reentry. So the challenge was to get enough systems powered up and in the right sequence to prep the spacecraft and get home without running out of power during reentry.
According to the report the command module batteries had about 29 amp/hrs left once the craft splashed down, which is basically capacity of two deer feeder batteries.
The LEM had separate batteries for each mission stage. 2 for descent, 1 for the surface, 2 for ascent. CSM was different. You had three fuel cells that provided power. You had three batteries for reentry that provided power once the Service Module was jettisoned. Reentry used a lot of power.
According to the report, the CSM batteries were down to around 90 amp/hrs before the spacecraft was shut down after the accident. Capacity was 2200ish amp/hrs. They used the LEM batteries to power the spacecraft and charge the CSM batteries up to about 120 amp/hrs. So that’s the power available for reentry. So the challenge was to get enough systems powered up and in the right sequence to prep the spacecraft and get home without running out of power during reentry.
According to the report the command module batteries had about 29 amp/hrs left once the craft splashed down, which is basically capacity of two deer feeder batteries.
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 9:54 pm to CocomoLSU
20 amps is the power limit they had for the duration the module was expected to run on battery. It doesn’t say anything about capacity.
That’s mixed with time. A double A of the era was probably .4 amp-hours. That means even if you push 2 amps out, it can only sustain for 12 minutes.
For comparison’s sake, the command module’s batteries were 120 amp-hours.
But that’s not the real killer. The real killer is the spacecrafts electrical system was running at 30 volts. The battery only has 1.5 volts.
Power is going to always want to flow from the system to the battery. And you are just hand waving problems away if you think they could jury rig a transformer. It’ll turn that .4 amp hour battery to now a 0.02 amp hour. Literally nothing.
Now let me listen to some damned music.
That’s mixed with time. A double A of the era was probably .4 amp-hours. That means even if you push 2 amps out, it can only sustain for 12 minutes.
For comparison’s sake, the command module’s batteries were 120 amp-hours.
But that’s not the real killer. The real killer is the spacecrafts electrical system was running at 30 volts. The battery only has 1.5 volts.
Power is going to always want to flow from the system to the battery. And you are just hand waving problems away if you think they could jury rig a transformer. It’ll turn that .4 amp hour battery to now a 0.02 amp hour. Literally nothing.
Now let me listen to some damned music.
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 9:57 pm to elprez00
quote:
Capacity was 2200ish amp/hrs.
Eh?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 9:59 pm to Volvagia
LINK to the official Apollo 13 mission report
If you’re interested. You can find the entire procedure manual for the spacecraft on this site. Cool stuff.
If you’re interested. You can find the entire procedure manual for the spacecraft on this site. Cool stuff.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:40 pm to Volvagia
quote:
But that’s not the real killer. The real killer is the spacecrafts electrical system was running at 30 volts. The battery only has 1.5 volts.
Power is going to always want to flow from the system to the battery. And you are just hand waving problems away if you think they could jury rig a transformer. It’ll turn that .4 amp hour battery to now a 0.02 amp hour. Literally nothing.
As I was going through the thread, that's what I was wondering (and one of the main drivers to the OP's feasibility). The other potential (no pun intended) issue was if the craft operated off of a generator that converted AC to DC, which would complicate things.
quote:
And you are just hand waving problems away if you think they could jury rig a transformer. It’ll turn that .4 amp hour battery to now a 0.02 amp hour. Literally nothing.
That mostly covers the issues. Transforming DC from one voltage to a higher one is really complicated (that's why Westinghouse/Tesla's AC beat out Edison's DC), and that may not have even been possible at the time. Twenty x 1.5V batteries wired in series would have taken care of that voltage discrepancy, but would only have a marginal contribution in terms of extra power. Plus they probably didn't have nearly that many AA batteries available.
People are downvoting the OP, but it's been a fun thread. Everyone here is Ed Harrising/Gary Senising this shite.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:44 pm to THRILLHO
Everything on the craft was DC
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:48 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
And returned again without a hitch?
The frickin movie is based entirely on a hitch.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:49 pm to Volvagia
Yeah, that makes sense in hindsight. It's way beyond my expertise, but I suspect that internal combustion engines get a bit fricky in zero-gravity, so alternators probably aren't an option.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:03 am to THRILLHO
quote:
Yeah, that makes sense in hindsight. It's way beyond my expertise, but I suspect that internal combustion engines get a bit fricky in zero-gravity, so alternators probably aren't an option.
Power came from solid state fuel cells, converting (hydrogen and oxygen) into water and power. And yes, for sake of efficiency this was the water used to drink.
Root problem in Apollo 13 was the fact that the compromised oxygen tanks leaking till empty made the cells useless. Within minutes of the explosion the only power they were going to have was what was in the combined batteries of the craft.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 12:06 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 6:43 am to Volvagia
quote:
20 amps is the power limit they had for the duration the module was expected to run on battery. It doesn’t say anything about capacity.
That’s mixed with time. A double A of the era was probably .4 amp-hours. That means even if you push 2 amps out, it can only sustain for 12 minutes.
This is the kind of explanation I was hoping for. Thanks. As foreign as that shite is to me, it does sort of make sense.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 6:46 am to THRILLHO
quote:
People are downvoting the OP, but it's been a fun thread. Everyone here is Ed Harrising/Gary Senising this shite.
Exactly. I don't get the DVs either...it was a legit question and I was curious.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 6:48 am to CocomoLSU
You are spending too much time worried about 1.5v nominal batteries when the craft used a 28v system. Use Ohm's law and you will realize even if there had been some way to convert the 1.5v to 28v the increase in current would have been minuscule.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:12 am to Obtuse1
quote:
You are spending too much time worried about
FWIW, I'm spending zero time "worrying" about any of this shite. It's just fun to talk about. I figured that was obvious.
quote:
1.5v nominal batteries when the craft used a 28v system. Use Ohm's law and you will realize even if there had been some way to convert the 1.5v to 28v the increase in current would have been minuscule.
I am ignorant when it comes to this shite, thus my questions in this thread. I also thought that was obvious (especially since I've stated it multiple times).
But thanks for the........help?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News