Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hh5

Apollo 13 nuclear?

Recommended Posts

They are on the moon. :)

 

Apollo 13 was the only designated-for-landing lunar module that didn't land on the moon. (Apollo 10's LEM practiced maneuvers in lunar orbit, but was never intended to land).

 

The RTGs were used to power instruments left behind on the lunar surface, and so they were deployed on the moon and left behind. So, only in the case of Apollo 13 did a LEM intended to land on the moon return to earth. (on all the others, the landing stage remained on the moon, while the lunar ascent stage was left in lunar orbit; only the command module returned to earth)

 

I'm a bit surprised that there's any concern over the Apollo 13 RTG. That amount of plutonium, even if released into the sea, would be barely, if at all, detectable in the area. By the time it reached the surface, it would have decayed to a point where it would be harmless. (PU238 has a half life of around 80 years) Also, the amount of time it takes deep ocean water to reach the surface (a process called overturning) is centuries. That RTG, like all past and current RTGs, is plutonium 238, NOT, plutonium 239. It's the latter that's used in most nuclear weapons. 238 won't work, so this could never be used for a nuclear warhead.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are on the moon. :)

 

Apollo 13 was the only designated-for-landing lunar module that didn't land on the moon. (Apollo 10's LEM practiced maneuvers in lunar orbit, but was never intended to land).

 

The RTGs were used to power instruments left behind on the lunar surface, and so they were deployed on the moon and left behind. So, only in the case of Apollo 13 did a LEM intended to land on the moon return to earth. (on all the others, the landing stage remained on the moon, while the lunar ascent stage was left in lunar orbit; only the command module returned to earth)

 

I'm a bit surprised that there's any concern over the Apollo 13 RTG. That amount of plutonium, even if released into the sea, would be barely, if at all, detectable in the area. By the time it reached the surface, it would have decayed to a point where it would be harmless. (PU238 has a half life of around 80 years) Also, the amount of time it takes deep ocean water to reach the surface (a process called overturning) is centuries. That RTG, like all past and current RTGs, is plutonium 238, NOT, plutonium 239. It's the latter that's used in most nuclear weapons. 238 won't work, so this could never be used for a nuclear warhead.

 

:)

 

Aaaaaaand, now that we've got the facts out of the way, do you conspiracy theorists have anything to say? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 1952-89, the Soviet Union lost 16 subs.

 

Of that number, 10 were nuclear powered.

 

Fourteen were armed with nuclear weapons- nuclear tipped torpedoes and/or missiles.

 

Most are in waters greater than 10,000 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..