Spacelog Apollo 13

But, Joe, assuming the S-IVB is still stable. The object I was looking at was definitely tumbling.

Okay, Fred. As I recall, it was stable then, although it's tumbling now.

Okay. It probably was the SLA panel I picked up.

Right. Incidentally, I guess the guys in building 6 —

Oh and I think we -

Go ahead, Jim.

I—I think we answer to number 9. We—at around 5:32, I think, was when we think the number 5 light came on in the S-II, and a definite vibration which was more than just a high-frequency vibration we got with the normal S-IV burn, and then the light came on. I called ECO thinking from the training that it was 7:42 and looked up at the time and realized it was early. And then, soon after the light came on, the vibration stopped and the engine or the booster smoothed down. It was very smooth from there on.

Okay. This may be a stupid question, but do you have any idea what the frequency of it was?

Only to say that it was much higher—I couldn't really guess now. It was rather a rapid longitudinal vibration.

Okay, Jim. Stand by now for a minute, we're going to switch OMNI.

Houston, 13, …

13, Houston. I read you. We still have quite a bit of noise on the loop.

I'll stand by. Roger.

Okay, Jim. It should be pretty good now. We copied you answering question number 9.

Do you want any more comments on the S-IVB vibrations?

I don't think so. When you get all done, I'll—I'll make a quick check to see if the booster people have any—any additional questions. You skipped number 8, Jim; could you go back to that for a second?

Okay, stand by.

Our only comment there, Joe, was that the burn on TLI, to our knowledge, was about 3-3/4 second longer than had been predicted and that was the only thing that we really noticed; otherwise, looked like PI [?] was nominal at cut-off.

Okay, understand.

Okay, on comparing the flight of 13 to Apollo 8, lift-off was about the same amount of vibration as I noticed on 8, but at the beginning of the flight, there was less of the sideways motion than we experienced on Apollo 8. The S-IC separation felt more violent on 13 than it did on 8, maybe that's because I was in a different seat, I don't know. But there was about three sharp transients of the cut-off and a couple of big bangs where we were thrown backwards longitudinally on our straps before the S-II went off. And the S-II was, of course, just as smooth on 13 as 8 except for the number 5 engine. And we did not experience the vibration that we experienced on 8 towards the end of the S-II burn. And the S-IVB was—had more vibration than we had on 8.

Okay, Jim, got all that.

The up—the update on the ORDEAL ball was a good one. At the burn, we were about—just about 8 degrees. We had to pitch down. The yaw was right on all the way through the entire burn, and just towards the end of the burn, the ball started going black in pitch a little bit.

Okay, sounds good, we'll give Mike Wash a gold star on that one. Okay, Jim, stand by 1 while I see if we have any extra questions.

Jim, while we're waiting to see if they have any more questions, I'd like to read you the booster people's preliminary analysis on the—the S-II cut-off. Over.

That would be very interesting. Go ahead.

Okay, preliminary analysis of the data indicates that the center S-II engine vibrated at a somewhat higher amplitude than we've seen on previous flights, and it started at about 160 seconds into the S-II burn. As a result of these vibrations, the engine chamber pressure decreased to the level where the two low-level thrust sensors, the thrust-okay sensors, initiated center engine cut-off. Early evaluation of data indicates that no damage occurred to the engine, and the cause of the increased vibration amplitude is still under investigation. Over.

I thought it was the center engine.

Yes, right.

Joe, do you have any word on what marks we had for TLI?

Okay, Joe. You can go ahead with the P30 pad.

Okay. Here we go. MCC-2, SPS/G&N: 63634; plus 0.96, minus 0.23; 030:40:49.00; minus 0021.7, minus 0001.7, minus 0008.0; 080, 164, 326; N/A, N/A; 0023.2, 0:03.5—We'll give you half a second on the burn time because it's so short—0018.5; 44, 135.9, 28.1; and the rest is N/A. Comments: set stars 31 and 23; roll aline 288, pitch 205, yaw 034; no ullage, LM weight 33499, and over.

Okay. MCC-2, SPS/G&N: 63634; plus 0.96, minus 0.23, 030:40:49.00; minus 0021.7, minus 0001.7, minus 0008.0; 080, 164, 326; N/A, N/A; 0023.2, burn time 0:03.5, 0018.5; 44, 135.9, 28.1; and the rest N/A. Set stars 31, 23; roll aline 288, pitch 205, yaw 034; no ullage, LM weight 33499.

Roger. Readback correct. I have two more short comments on them, but I want to wait just a second and make sure I understand them before I pass them to you.

Okay.

Okay, Fred; Houston.

Go ahead.

The two additional comments were just that, first of all, they biased DELTA-V_C by minus 0.34 feet per second based on your EMS null bias cheeks. That's just for information. And the second one also for information is that your targeted pericynthion is 60 miles after this correction.

Okay, understand. For Jack's information the EMS DELTA-V bias is 3.4, and our targeted pericynthion after this maneuver is 60 miles.

That's correct on the pericynthion. The EMS bias is 0.34, very small.

Okay. 0.34 on the EMS DELTA-V bias.

Roger. And —

Hey, Joe, we'll give —

Go ahead, Jack —

We'll give you—we'll give you the read—we'll give you the results of another null bias test for comparative purposes right before the—oh, at the proper time.

Okay. Real fine; and the computer is yours.

Okay, Houston; 13. Are you copying the torquing angles on the P52?

Okay, Jack. Give us a second.

And, 13, Houston. We have them. You can torque them.

Okay, Joe. Time of torquing 29 hours 0 minute 30 seconds.

Apollo 13, Houston.

Go ahead, Joe.