Felxibility of Apollo design (was Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) )

I've just noticed how nearly everything potentially anti-NASA/Apollo is
either banished and/or stripped out of the MAILGATE archives.

This is a good thing because, you and I know damn good and well there
were never any such R&D prototype landers that ever managed a test drop
and down-range fly-by-rocket controlled flight with any soft landings.
If so we'd have all sorts of affordably nifty instruments deployed upon
the moon, and perhaps of tonnes worth being safely deployed at least
one-way onto the surface of Mars.

Thus far there's not been even a single foot or meter worth of film upon
anything R&D related to those NASA/Apollo landers nor of any AI/robotic
fly-by-rocket landers from them nice Russians, and as of today they
still haven't managed squat in such AI/robotic landers to work with, and
we can't seem to manage keeping the V22 Osprey in the air.

Who's kidding whom?

We obviously need to start from scratch and prove the capability as
doable right here on Earth, as easily accommodated by way of cutting out
the necessary mass that'll make those scaled prototype landers
manageable at the 6 fold gravity of Earth. Removing whatever payload and
of other onboard instruments having nothing to do with the fly-by-rocket
functionality, limiting the fuel and oxidiser supply to merely 5 seconds
of decent and offering perhaps as little as 10 seconds worth of
down-range capability should be more than sufficient. Though actually
that's being somewhat overly conservative, as they should be able to
accommodate at least twice that capacity and still being under i/6th the
mass of an actual manned lunar lander.

Regards, Brad GUTH / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:44:33 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

In article ,
says...
There is nothing modular about
the Apollo spacecraft. The CSM is a matched pair always and forever.

Wasn't there some non-trivial thoughts about a light-weight mini-SM for
use with Earth-orbit missions like Skylab?

....That, and a stretched SM for one of those asteroid flyby missions
as well.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

I have in
front of me right now, a drawing that Owen left me, of the "Radial
"Module All-Rigid Space Station" that one of the draftsment did for him
in 1962; designed to be launched on a Saturn V, using a ciyple of
"6-man ferry-logistics vehicles" docked to it, basically an Apollo
CSM. Owen also prepared (and patented) a design for a trans-Mars space
station based on this design (I think that one was planning on using a
NERVA upper stage to push it out to Mars and back again)---this was
actually released by one of the commercial model companies as a
plastic kid's model in the 1960s, as "NASA's Space Station."


MPC's Pilgrim Observer. One of the best fictional spacecraft kits ever
made.

Gene

wrote in message
oups.com...
MPC's Pilgrim Observer. One of the best fictional spacecraft kits ever
made.

A quick Google search brings up a page with pictures. Very cool looking
design.

http://www.greysteele.com/models/pilgrim.htm

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In article ,
John Savard wrote:
The original specs for what became the CSM called for missions in Earth
orbit and lunar orbit... but not a landing.

And, of course, that means that if the Saturn V could be pressed into
sending men to the Moon, the later rocket, had it been developed, would
have been, if not well suited to, at least capable of, sending men to
Mars.

Careful here. The Saturn V appeared *after* the goal changed to a landing.

Those original CSM specs envisioned flying on a Saturn I, and later on one
of various concepts for a Saturn II. Circumlunar flights were thought to
require orbital assembly, and any lunar landing would probably require
both orbital assembly and a larger launcher, plus perhaps a small space
station as an assembly base.

Only after the goal became more ambitious and the schedule was greatly
compressed did the rockets start to balloon in size. The Saturn V was
*enormous* by the standards of the early planning -- bigger than most of
the old Nova concepts for Saturn follow-ons -- and shared only the name
and a few odds and ends of hardware with the original Saturn concepts.
And at that, using two *Saturn Vs* with orbital assembly was the baseline
concept for a while.

As it is, though, we have Dr. Zubrin who came up with a way to make even
the mere Saturn V capable of sending men to Mars.

The Saturn V was perfectly capable of sending men to Mars, provided you
didn't insist on doing it with a single launch. Orbital assembly simply
would come back into the picture at that point. (Note that even Zubrin's
ideas need two launches -- he just does the assembly on Mars instead of
in Earth orbit. Not everyone agrees that this is the best approach.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
There is nothing modular about
the Apollo spacecraft. The CSM is a matched pair always and forever.
Wasn't there some non-trivial thoughts about a light-weight mini-SM for
use with Earth-orbit missions like Skylab?

There was. But substituting a SM late in the game isn't the same as
designing a modular system.

And likewise, designing a modular system which ends up only existing in
one version isn't the same as designing a non-modular system. Note that
Owen Maynard, who Kieran was quoting, was there, and you weren't.

Hint: think of what the M stands for in CM, SM, LM.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Hint: think of what the M stands for in CM, SM, LM.

And RM.


--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:08:37 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

..

Hint: think of what the M stands for in CM, SM, LM.

And RM.



Apollo also used one more Module. Can anyone name it?


- Rusty

Jeff Findley wrote:

A quick Google search brings up a page with pictures. Very cool looking
design.

http://www.greysteele.com/models/pilgrim.htm

The Apollo in the kit has two odd features- its CM is corrugated on the
exterior like a Mercury or Gemini, and there's a odd depression on the
CM that has a chrome rod set in it.
You can see the modified Apollo on this PDF of the instruction sheet;
it's on page 4, step 11:
http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/model...ns/mpc9001.pdf
The Pilgrim Observer's design has a major problem; there is almost no
propellant on board for the three base-mounted J-2 engines.

Pat

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:

There is nothing modular about the Apollo spacecraft. The CSM is a
matched pair always and forever.

Wasn't there some non-trivial thoughts about a light-weight mini-SM for
use with Earth-orbit missions like Skylab?

There was. But substituting a SM late in the game isn't the same as
designing a modular system.

And likewise, designing a modular system which ends up only existing in
one version isn't the same as designing a non-modular system.

sigh It's not like you Henry to not actually read and comprehend
the initial post.

When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to
leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is
decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM,
or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever
to a SM.

Note that Owen Maynard, who Kieran was quoting, was there, and you
weren't.

Note that Kieran isn't quoting him, he's giving his impression of
Maynard's reminiscences.

Hint: think of what the M stands for in CM, SM, LM.

Hint: Lacking formal naming terminology, names mean little. Gemini
also had 'modules', but wasn't modular either.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL