Apollo 8 and a LM

History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk, w/o an
LM since the LM wasn't ready.

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

Thinking about it, was ANY thought given to launching it, even if it was
only dead weight to be used as a lifeboat (ala Apollo 13). I.e. could they
have accomplished Apollo 8 even more safely than they did?



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk,
w/o an LM since the LM wasn't ready.

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

I strongly recommend "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell. Especially if
you have any interest in computers, either hardware or software.

Mindell makes clear that the software to actually land the LM wasn't
ready until fairly late, certainly not for Apollo 8. Heck, there was a
scramble to complete the non-landing lunar software in time for
Christmas 1968.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

"kevin willoughby" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk, w/o
an LM since the LM wasn't ready.

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

I strongly recommend "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell. Especially if you
have any interest in computers, either hardware or software.

Mindell makes clear that the software to actually land the LM wasn't ready
until fairly late, certainly not for Apollo 8. Heck, there was a scramble
to complete the non-landing lunar software in time for Christmas 1968.

Umm, why? The LM wasn't used by then.

But that's sort of my point. Forget using the LM for anything other than a
lifeboat, pretty much as it was used during Apollo 13. Were there technical
issues that would have prevented that?




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

kevin willoughby writes:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the
risk, w/o an LM since the LM wasn't ready.

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

I strongly recommend "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell. Especially if
you have any interest in computers, either hardware or software.

Not directly related to the original question, but I'll strongly second
the suggestion of Digital Apollo. Outstanding book, giving a lot of
insight into computers in the 1960s, and the conflict between a "man in
control" vs. "machine in control" mentality.

On Apr 24, 11:06 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"kevin willoughby" wrote in message

...

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk,
w/o
an LM since the LM wasn't ready.

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

I strongly recommend "Digital Apollo" by David Mindell. Especially if y
ou
have any interest in computers, either hardware or software.

Mindell makes clear that the software to actually land the LM wasn't re
ady
until fairly late, certainly not for Apollo 8. Heck, there was a scramb
le
to complete the non-landing lunar software in time for Christmas 1968.

Umm, why? The LM wasn't used by then.

But that's sort of my point. Forget using the LM for anything other th
an a
lifeboat, pretty much as it was used during Apollo 13. Were there tech
nical
issues that would have prevented that?

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

It wasn't ready, meaning behind schedule

On Apr 24, 6:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk, w/o an
LM since the LM wasn't ready.

That statement implies a spec that the LM could be used as
a "lifeboat", we got lucky the Apollo 13 SM malfunctioned when
it did. If it happened when the LM was on the moon...

What exactly wasn't ready? I suspect it was more than simply being
overweight (since it was overweight as late as Apollo 10).

The LM was the most complicated 2 stage manned
rocket ever built. I'd imagine the assembly instructions
and checklist would run to nearly 1,000,000 items.
(anyone know?).
The engineers could not sign-off a unit 90% complete,
unless that was pre-designed.

Thinking about it, was ANY thought given to launching it, even if it was
only dead weight to be used as a lifeboat (ala Apollo 13). I.e. could they
have accomplished Apollo 8 even more safely than they did?

Not realistically, after all, Apollo 8 proved to be 100% safe.
I think the Constellation Earth-Moon-Earth ferry-boat should
have redundancy.

IIRC the Apollo 13 was a freak accident caused by a
check-list malfunction, (had the wrong switch).

Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On Apr 24, 6:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk, w/o
an
LM since the LM wasn't ready.

That statement implies a spec that the LM could be used as
a "lifeboat", we got lucky the Apollo 13 SM malfunctioned when
it did. If it happened when the LM was on the moon...

Yes, the astronauts would have died. However, the lifeboat scenario had
been discussed prior to Apollo 13. And specifically in Apollo 8 it would
have provided a lifeboat capability during the entire flight.


The LM was the most complicated 2 stage manned
rocket ever built. I'd imagine the assembly instructions
and checklist would run to nearly 1,000,000 items.
(anyone know?).
The engineers could not sign-off a unit 90% complete,
unless that was pre-designed.

In other words, you don't know what exactly wasn't ready. And your
statement isn't completely accurate in any case since both Apollo 9 and
Apollo 10 flew with LMs that did not meet the landing criteria, which
arguably means they weren't 'complete'.


Thinking about it, was ANY thought given to launching it, even if it was
only dead weight to be used as a lifeboat (ala Apollo 13). I.e. could
they
have accomplished Apollo 8 even more safely than they did?

Not realistically, after all, Apollo 8 proved to be 100% safe.
I think the Constellation Earth-Moon-Earth ferry-boat should
have redundancy.

Umm, your statement doesn't really follow and is only ex post facto. We
know NOW that it was 100% successful. It wasn't 100% safe though. A failure
could have killed the crew.


IIRC the Apollo 13 was a freak accident caused by a
check-list malfunction, (had the wrong switch).

Not quite.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Umm, could you be more specific. What wasn't ready? Clearly it was behind
schedule, but what items (besides apparently software and mass?)


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


It wasn't ready, meaning behind schedule

On Apr 25, 7:58 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

On Apr 24, 6:44 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
History says that Apollo 8 was launched to the Moon despite the risk, w/o
an
LM since the LM wasn't ready.

That statement implies a spec that the LM could be used as
a "lifeboat", we got lucky the Apollo 13 SM malfunctioned when
it did. If it happened when the LM was on the moon...

Yes, the astronauts would have died. However, the lifeboat scenario had
been discussed prior to Apollo 13. And specifically in Apollo 8 it would
have provided a lifeboat capability during the entire flight.



The LM was the most complicated 2 stage manned
rocket ever built. I'd imagine the assembly instructions
and checklist would run to nearly 1,000,000 items.
(anyone know?).
The engineers could not sign-off a unit 90% complete,
unless that was pre-designed.

In other words, you don't know what exactly wasn't ready. And your
statement isn't completely accurate in any case since both Apollo 9 and
Apollo 10 flew with LMs that did not meet the landing criteria, which
arguably means they weren't 'complete'.

Agreed. The LM has various degrees of preparation,
for example, from zero to fully fueled on both stages
and the Life Support topped up, and the requirement
for LM rendevous and extraction by CSM.

If I might provide a bit of back-drop, the Earth orbit
rendevous was only done previously (IIRC) in the
Gemini Program, which had some bugs, also (sadly)
the Apollo Capsule fire caused Apollo managers and
engineers a set back in confidence.

Well I'm sure you can imagine the complexity of
fueling the 2 stage LM with it's hypergolics etc.
(Life Support) on top of the 3 Stages of the SV,
there isn't a short-cut.

Thinking about it, was ANY thought given to launching it, even if it was
only dead weight to be used as a lifeboat (ala Apollo 13). I.e. could
they
have accomplished Apollo 8 even more safely than they did?

Not realistically, after all, Apollo 8 proved to be 100% safe.
I think the Constellation Earth-Moon-Earth ferry-boat should
have redundancy.

Umm, your statement doesn't really follow and is only ex post facto. We
know NOW that it was 100% successful. It wasn't 100% safe though. A failure
could have killed the crew.

There is no such thing as 100% safe.

IIRC the Apollo 13 was a freak accident caused by a
check-list malfunction, (had the wrong switch).

Not quite.

True, I over-simplified, though the malfunction was caused
by an "over-sight" on the ground, (rather than a random act
of nature), that was missed by engineers-technicians, so
I use the umbrella sematic, "check-list malfunction", to
focus attention there to an engineering inconsistency.

Greg Moore

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Umm, could you be more specific. What wasn't ready? Clearly it was
behind schedule, but what items (besides apparently software and mass?)

I got Curious about this, so I went over to the Encyclopedia
Astronautica article on the LM with its comprehensive chronology of the
LM program: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm
It wasn't one thing, it was a whole pile of things getting behind
schedule or just not working right.
As late as October 1968 LM propellant tanks were rupturing during ground
tests, and there were still changes being made to it into early 1969...
in fact, it's pretty amazing they had it ready to go at all anytime in
1969 after reading all the plethora of problems they were running into
regarding it.
Even without the Apollo fire occurring and slowing the program down, the
LM would have been nowhere near ready to go when the CSM was, and the
first lunar landing would probably occurred almost exactly when it did,
as the LM was the limiting factor on when that could happen.
The LM lifeboat concept came up in 1966:

"1966 March 17 - Apollo time-critical aborts due to service propulsion
system failure investigated - Program: Apollo.
John D. Hodge, Chief of MSC's Flight Control Division, proposed that
time-critical aborts in the event of a service propulsion system failure
after translunar injection (TLI; i.e., insertion on a trajectory toward
the moon) be investigated. Time-critical abort was defined as an abort
occurring within 12 hours after TLI and requiring reentry in less than
two days after the abort.
He suggested that if an SPS failed the service module be jettisoned for
a time-critical abort and both LEM propulsion systems be used for earth
return, reducing the total time to return by approximately 60 hours. As
an example, if the time of abort was 10 hours after translunar
injection, he said, this method would require about 36 hours; if the SM
were retained the return time would require about 96 hours.
He added that the LEM/CM-only configuration should be studied for any
constraints that would preclude initiating this kind of time-critical
abort. Some of the factors to be considered should be:

1. maximum time the LEM environmental control system could support
two or three men on an earth return;
2. maximum time the CM electrical system could support minimum
power-up condition;
3. time constraints on completely powering down the CM and using the
LEM systems for support;
4. effects on planned landing areas from an open loop reentry mode;
5. stability of the LEM/CM configuration during the descent and
ascent propulsion burns;
6. total time to return using the descent propulsion system only or
both the LEM's descent propulsion system and ascent propulsion system; and
7. communications with Manned Space Flight Network required to
support this abort."

John D. Hodge was a man way ahead of the curve here, and it's a very
good thing that he started the investigations into this possibility.

Pat