如果宇航员被困在月球,就像电影《火星救援》中的那样,NASA和美国政府会不惜高昂代价去营救吗?If an astronaut was stuck on the Moon (much like in “The Martian”), would NASA/the US government send help (at an exorbitant price)?

翻译自quora,答主是Kevin Spencer, Space Enthusiast and Amateur Historian 】

The scenario of an astronaut stranded on the moon in the 1970s would end up tragically different than the fate of fictional astronaut Mark Watney from “The Martian” book and film adaptation, no matter the cost involved.

1970年代如果有宇航员被困在月球上, 无论NASA和美国政府愿意付出怎样的代价,他的命运都将与小说《火星救援》的及其改编的电影的虚构宇航员马克·沃特尼(Mark Watney)的命运完全不同,

(Apollo 11 on the moon. If the ascent propulsion system did not start or had malfunctioned, the astronauts were as good as dead. NASA photo.)

(阿波罗11号在月球上运行。如果上升推进系统无法启动或发生故障,则宇航员基本上就凉了。NASA照片。)

NASA designed the Lunar Module (as well as the orbiting Command/Service Module) with powerful but highly reliable propulsion systems. All primary and secondary propulsion systems were powered by hypergolic fuel and oxidizers—chemicals that burned on contact, requiring only some helium to pressurize the the chemicals and valves to open and close to burn the engine or shut it down. This design kept the possibility of engine failure greatly reduced due to failure of traditional turbopumps and other complicated machinery.[1]

NASA设计了登月模块(译注:Lunar Module,以下简称LM)以及轨道“命令/服务”模块(译注:command and service module,以下简称CSM),拥有功能强大、非常可靠的推进系统, 所有的一级和二级推进系统均由高挥发性燃料和氧化剂驱动,这些化学品在接触时燃烧,只需要一点氦气就可以对化学品加压,而阀门则可以打开和关闭以燃烧或关闭发动机。 这种设计能让由于传统涡轮泵和其他复杂机械故障导致的发动机故障的可能性大大降低。[脚注1]

These designs were critical for Apollo crewmember safety. NASA knew that to set up a rescue mission for a crew stranded on the lunar surface would be futile. The more fortified J-mission expeditions of Apollo 15, 16 and 17 had only 3 days of power and consumables—earlier missions could last only two days. Even if NASA had a rescue vehicle ready to fly, it would take 3 days to reach the moon. By that time, the stranded astronauts would likely be on their last breaths, if still breathing.

这些设计对于阿波罗船员的安全至关重要。 NASA知道,为困在月球表面的机组人员设立救援任务是徒劳的。 阿波罗15号,16号和17号更加坚固的J任务探险队只有3天的能源和消耗品,而早期的任务只能持续2天。 即使NASA的救援车辆已经准备好飞行,也需要3天才能到达月球。 到那时,滞留的宇航员就算没挂掉,也只剩一口气了。

The Lunar Module was designed to fly two men to the moon and return two men from the surface. The LM program did its best to strip any extra weight from the vehicle. One pound of LM weight would require 4 pounds of fuel for descent. A hypothetical rescue mission would put an overloaded LM ascent stage (filled with three men) in a dangerously low orbit—if it could reach an orbit.

登月舱的设计目的是让两个人飞向月球,然后让这两个人再回来。 LM计划竭尽所能减轻载具的所有多余重量。 一磅的LM重量将需要4磅的燃料才能下降。 假想的救援任务是将超载的LM登上舞台(载有3个人)放置在危险的低轨道上,前提是它可以到达轨道的话。

The LM’s low orbit would require the rescue Command Module Pilot to make an equally dangerous low orbit rendezvous at about 5 miles high, barely missing the mountain peaks on the lunar surface. While CMPs were trained in this scenario, the question arises if the LM was too low to reach, being overloaded.

LM的低轨道将要求负责营救的指挥舱飞行员(译注:Command Module Pliot,以下简称CMP),在约5英里高的地方做出同样危险的低轨道集合点,很有可能碰到月球表面的山峰。 在这种情况下,对CMP进行了培训,但问题是,如果LM太低而无法达到,过载了。

Most critically: The rescue mission would have to be crewed by only two men to allow room for seating a fourth crew member in the otherwise three-crew vehicle. One would fly the CSM alone and the second would fly a rescue LM—alone—to the lunar surface. This powered descent scenario with one man flying alone was unheard of in Apollo simulator training. The Lunar Module Pilot supported the Commander’s flying by verbally notifying him of activity, such as rate of descent, as well as handling computer programs and other aspects of the vehicle. A solo LM pilot on descent would likely be impossible.

最关键的是:救援任务只能由两名人员来安排,以便有空间让另外四名乘员乘坐另外三人的车辆。 一个人将独自驾驶CSM,另一人将独自驾驶用于营救的LM飞往月球表面。 这种使用动力的只有一个人独自飞行下降场景在阿波罗模拟器训练中是没有过的。登月舱驾驶员需要向指令舱指挥官口头通知其活动(例如下降率),以及处理计算机程序和飞行器其他方面的活动来帮助指令舱的飞行。 让仅一位飞行员驾驶LM是不可能的。

Another issue involves the manner of EVA. Before the LM lifts off from the moon, the astronauts jettison anything no longer required—which includes their Portable Life Support System backpacks to walk on the moon. With the jettison of their PLSS, the astronauts have one option to transfer over to a rescue LM: Their 30-minute Oxygen Purge System packs—emergency life support packs mounted atop their PLSS, kept onboard for use on an EVA in orbit, should the crew have to re-enter the Command/Service Module by an emergency vehicular transfer if docking and tunnel pressurization were not possible. If the rescue LM lands more than 30 minutes away (a possibility given the rush of a hypothetical rescue), the crew won’t have enough oxygen to make the walk.

另一个问题涉及EVA(译注:Extravehicular activity,舱外活动)的方式。 在LM从月球表面升空之前,宇航员会扔掉任何不再需要的物体——包括可在月球上行走的便携式生命支持系统背包(译注: Portable Life Support System ,以下简称PLSS)。 在扔掉PLSS后,宇航员有一种方法返回救援LM:他们的30分钟氧气吹扫系统套件,即安装在PLSS顶部的紧急生命支持套件,一般保留在机上用于轨道上的EVA。 如果无法进行对接和隧道加压,则机组人员必须通过紧急载具转移重新进入命令/服务模块。 如果营救LM降落距离超过30分钟(考虑到急于进行抢救的可能性),那么机组人员将没有足够的氧气来行走。

There would still be the matter of the rescue and stranded LMs’ ability to locate each other after landing.

营救队伍与被困月球的LM着彼此定位的能力仍然存在很多问题。

So Apollo astronauts that could not leave the moon were stranded there forever. The Command/Service Module pilot would have to eventually leave them behind as his own consumables would run too low for making it home.

因此,无法离开月球的阿波罗宇航员被永远困在那里。 指挥/服务模块的飞行员最终将不得不将它们留在那里,因为他自己的消耗品可能会不足而无法回家。

The fictional NASA of Mark Watney’s time, around the year 2035, had designed their Mars expeditions for long-term stays of up to 30 days for six people. As a result, Mark benefited from a durable habitat with enough food, water, power and air (as a result of being stranded) for 300 days, lasting longer with rationing. He didn’t have a way off of the planet but managed to fashion a radio from a 1990s-era lander he reclaimed to communicate with NASA. Between his farming of potatoes and other ingenious engineering, he was able to fashion what resources were needed for him to survive until NASA could work out a rescue plan, approximately 520 days later.

电影《火星救援》中,2035年左右,虚构的美国宇航局马克·沃特尼(Mark Watney)所属的火星探险队携带的补给,可以供6个人停留30天。当其他宇航员任务沃特尼已经死亡而返回时, 沃特尼却能使用坚固的火星基地,其中有供一个人300天的食物,水,电力和空气,合理运用那么可持续的时间会更长。 他暂时没法离开火星,但设法从1990年代时代的着陆器上回收部件,并制作了收音机,以便与NASA通信。他从马铃薯种植技术到其他巧妙的工程设计之间,创造出了出生存所需的资源,直到大约520天后,NASA可以实施救援计划。

In short, a stranded Apollo crew, having only the very limited resources of the battery-powered Lunar Module’s food, water and oxygen, could not live long enough for any rescue mission, even if it were launched at the moment of trouble.

简而言之,如果宇航员被困月球,他所拥有的,只是依靠电池供电的登月模块上的食物,水和氧气,这些资源都非常有限,没法让他等到下一次救援任务。就算被困月球后立马启动登月舱想返回地球,也是非常困难的。

Footnotes

[1] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM0…

【以下为评论区】

@ Frederick Mikkelsen:

Now that we are a nation that is 50% larger of resources, and have 50 more years of experience in rocketry, and 50 more years of engine efficiency and miniaturization of essential components, we could afford to have a back-up capability. A 33% increase in payload in the 1960s was detrimental to the plan.

现在,我们的国家比过去多拥有50%的资源,并拥有50多年的火箭技术经验,以及50多年的发动机效率和关键部件小型化的历史,我们有能力让火箭装载备份资源。但在1960年那时,多33%的载荷将对计划造成不利的影响。

Today, it could be a design constraint. Design the assent module for room with an additional seat perhaps to hold fuel or oxygen in the event of a rescue.

如今会有设计要求。 为带有附加座位的房间设计许可模块【??】,以在救援时容纳燃料或氧气。

In 1960, the parameters for success had to be carved very closely. In 2020, we know where to sew in a little extra yarn for safety.

1960年,为了成功需要小心地观察各种参数。 在2020年,我们知道在哪里缝纱线以保障安全【??】。

答主回答:

I agree. In a perfect world, Commercial Crew missions would also have a rescue mode. Since problems with these spacecraft may simply mean an ISS “safe haven” mission mode like that in post-Columbia Orbiters, the urgency might be less. When private missions and ferries are more frequent to additional LEO destinations, rescue vehicles (and more pads to support them) would be required, with specialized CC spacecraft. I think the NASA Docking System allows two CC spacecraft to dock together, so that would be useful.

我同意。 在理想情况下,商业航天(译注: Commercial Crew ,以下简称CC)任务也会有救援模式。 由于这些飞船可能只是像“后哥伦比亚”轨道飞行器那样的国际空间站“避风港”任务模式,因此紧迫性可能较小。 当私人任务或运输任务更频繁地到达其他LEO的目的地时,将需要配备专用CC航天器的救援车辆(以及用于支撑它们的更多护垫)。 我认为NASA对接系统允许两个CC航天器对接在一起,这很有用。

@ Keith Robison

Nice explanation. Wasn’t the CSM for Skylab rescue configured for a 5-man crew? Obviously LEOMwoukd be a shorter time to be crammed in than a return trip from the moon

很棒的回答。 Skylab的救援CSM的配置是否是5名宇航员? 显然,LEOMwoukd【??】被困住的时间比从月球来回的时间要短。

答主回答:

Sort of. The Skylab Rescue CSM, CSM-105, was designed with two crew flying up, five seats total (two in the mid-deck) to return three additional astronauts. It’s on display at the Kennedy Space Center Apollo/Saturn Center. Until the STS-3xx rescue launches scheduled for all post-Columbia launches (but not used), it was the only manned spacecraft rescue vehicle ever planned by NASA to my knowledge.

有点。 Skylab Rescue CSM(CSM-105)的设计是让两名机组人员操作,共有五个座位(中间甲板有两个),可以营救三名宇航员。 它在肯尼迪航天中心阿波罗/土星中心展出。 ,在 在STS-3xx救援发射计划准备用于所有后哥伦比亚的所有发射器(但未使用)之前,据我所知,它是NASA计划的唯一载人航天飞机救援飞行器。

Leave a Reply