... didn't turn off the two fluorescent lamps affixed to the struts? Or at least one of them?
They've had flashlights, and most controls had either phosphorescent labels or electroluminescent light - the computer interface, DSKY.
Even if the fluorescent lights had no individual switches, they probably had a separate circuit breaker. In extremis, they could have removed the tubes.
I've found the answer in the original mission transcript. While tying the two buses in an unorthodox fashion, they needed a load to balance them, so they included the cabin lights in the power-up sequence, as a load appropriate for the electrical task and also a step very useful to the crew.
Seems a MAJOR savings would've been to turn off the "USB" radio(s), and turn them back on only every 20 minutes, quick check in with Houston, then back off, rinse, repeat...
I mean, you're in trans-lunar coast... chill, get some sleep, let gravity do its thaaang... think about MacGuyvering up some solar panels, LOL.
Though elegant in design and "beyond milspec" in build-quality, you know those 1960s Unified S-band radio sets had to be pulling major AMPS!
http://www.ab9il.net/images/apollo-usb-transponder.jpg
Edit: Turns out there is a backup "AM style" power-saving mode, which was used for much of Apollo 13... there is one even lower power mode--very low bandwidth, MORSE CODE ONLY--I kid you not. Those WW2-Era guys covered ALL the bases.
BOTTOM LINE: the O2 tank explosion in the SM was CATASTROPHIC by any measure, and it was only phenomenal teamwork that allowed the remaining THIN MARGINS to add up to successful return and crew survival... thus when driving up I-95, I always snap off a salute when abeam of The Cape. (Houston? Who wants to drive near there? Nightmare roads!)
If I remember correctly, Houston got via telemetry more data about the spacecraft than the astronauts saw on their gauges. So shutting down the radio was not trivial. I don't think the radio consumed a lot of amps; the radios looked like power-hungry beasts, but I'm sure Collins, Motorola or whoever designed them took every little measure to keep amperage down. Earth had huge antennas, there was no need to Apollo spacecraft to have huge radiated power.
After all, there was a ham radio operator who received the backpack transmitter of Neil Armstrong, with his backyard antenna!
Remember the SCR-536 handheld radios from WWII? Tube-based, but the batteries lasted a whole day - so power efficiency was an art mastered even back then.
@razvan-24: Excellent points and historical insights.
shareThere were other battery sources they could have tapped as well: if they had come down to needing 2 or 3 total amps, they could have cut open the EVA backpacks from the lunar spacesuits in the LM, pulled the batteries out of those and probably figured out a way to patch them into the CM power supply.
Those batteries were good for about 24 man-hours of EVA, which is fairly power-intensive, so if they really thought they were going to be just a couple of amps short, they could have done that.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
Indeed, it might've worked. But that depends on how the command module batteries were linked.
The Apollo 13 command module had three silver-zinc batteries, each 28 V and 40 Ah.
The batteries of the two PLSS on board (same silver-zinc chemistry) had 16.8 V and 16 Ah each. Connectors permitting, they could have linked them in series to deliver 33.6 V.
Not really 24 hours rated; PLSS for J-type missions had 23 Ah batteries, but even those got replaced and not recharged between EVAs. (Water and oxygen tanks got recharged though.)
I really doubt there's anything anybody here could think of that somehow escaped the notice of the brightest and most experienced minds at NASA.
shareI don't think anybody here claims to be smarter than the NASA guys; we're just trying to find out why they've acted like they did, and eventually identify movie mistakes.
HOWEVER, every freshman sailor now knows how the Titanic could have been saved that unfortunate night, thus bettering the brightest and most experienced minds on that boat. Not only through a better understanding of physics, but also by lacking the fever of the moment and the time constraints. SO, I think there's always potential for discovery.
OK, you tell us how a freshman sailor could have saved the Titanic that night. You also know how all the people could have been saved, since there weren't enough lifeboats?
shareIt seems that I've been misunderstood, probably by not having English as my native language.
First, I never said that a freshman sailor could have saved the Titanic that night. To convince those in charge what to do would have been too much for a very short timeframe. What I said was that today every freshman sailor knows what the officers on the Titanic should have done to prevent the sinking.
Which brings me to the second misunderstanding. I never said that I know of a way to put twice the people on half the boats; but I do know a few ways (that are common knowledge for those in the sailing business, since the Titanic is a case that still gets taught) that could have prevented the sinking at least until nearby ships arrived.
I will only give some theories, barring those that would have avoided the mishap in the first place, like careful navigation in an area where icebergs were reported (especially flipped ones - the previously underwater part is looking quite dark).
1) no engine reversal; maintaining speed would have decreased the turning radius and thus allowing for a near miss (isn't your language funny? people actually mean a near hit)
2) running at full speed on reverse after impact would have decreased water flow in flooded compartments. Instead they were running full steam bow-first towards New York - even stopping to evaluate damage could have prolonged the float. One large U-turn and they could've go towards New York in full reverse.
3) a frontal collision might have been manageable (even if it would produce many accidents on board, even deaths), as the ship was built to float with the first three compartments flooded, and the impact force would be absorbed by the three compartments. The long cut flooded too many.
4) release (cut free) both starboard and port anchors, together with their long and heavy chains, thus slowing the flooding rate in the forward compartments due to less inclination. Or even avoiding flooding past the watertight bulkheads that didn't run all the way up the bridges.
Perhaps those in this line of work could give you further details and even simulation results. I might even have missed the most ingenious ones.
Well, if the ship had not entered an Ice Field, at Full Steam Ahead, it might have had more time to respond to the danger...
I have always wonder why ships did not half huge search lights mounted on the bows of ships. If it had, light would have reflected off the iceberg, and warned them a whole lot sooner... (instead, some moron who designed ships at that time, thought, people could see non-illuminated objects in the dark...)
1) no engine reversal; maintaining speed would have decreased the turning radius and thus allowing for a near miss (isn't your language funny? people actually mean a near hit)
3) a frontal collision might have been manageable (even if it would produce many accidents on board, even deaths), as the ship was built to float with the first three compartments flooded, and the impact force would be absorbed by the three compartments. The long cut flooded too many.
4) release (cut free) both starboard and port anchors, together with their long and heavy chains, thus slowing the flooding rate in the forward compartments due to less inclination. Or even avoiding flooding past the watertight bulkheads that didn't run all the way up the bridges.
2) running at full speed on reverse after impact would have decreased water flow in flooded compartments. Instead they were running full steam bow-first towards New York - even stopping to evaluate damage could have prolonged the float. One large U-turn and they could've go towards New York in full reverse.
It seems that I've been misunderstood, probably by not having English as my native language.
[deleted]
Faulty premise? It's like questioning a championship winning sports team why they didn't win it even more and better.
Also, you're completely ignoring stress and limited time. You've had the hindsight of 40+ years, whereas a handful of men had hours. Arrogance, do you smell it? It stinks, and so does this thread.
Perhaps they would have been better off switching off the cameras. You know, the ones that were filming everything? That would have saved heaps of power.
When I said I wanted to be a comedian, they all laughed at me. Well, they're not laughing now!
"Perhaps they would have been better off switching off the cameras. You know, the ones that were filming everything? That would have saved heaps of power."
Did it ever occur to you that the ones still being used after the tank explosion were independently battery operated?