Request for Apollo 10 document location

In article IbdCg.356730$Mn5.111824@pd7tw3no,
Dave Michelson wrote:
No. By having the CSM place the LM into the 60 by 10 nautical mile
orbit, the LM saved descent fuel...
That way, the LM could pack less fuel, and could thus use that mass
saved, in more payload to the lunar surface.

Sorry, your second point is not quite correct...
In general, the later LMs carried much more fuel and oxidizer in the
descent stage than their earlier counterparts.

He just phrased it poorly. The propellant requirements -- other things
being equal -- were reduced by having the CSM carry the LM into the
descent orbit, so the LM didn't have to do that burn. As a separate
issue, the descent-stage tanks were enlarged, and the propellant load
increased. (And as another separate issue, the engine nozzle was
lengthened to increase Isp and get more propulsion per kilogram.) Each
of these changes would have increased surface payload; together, they
increased it quite substantially.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article IbdCg.356730$Mn5.111824@pd7tw3no,
Dave Michelson wrote:
No. By having the CSM place the LM into the 60 by 10 nautical mile
orbit, the LM saved descent fuel...
That way, the LM could pack less fuel, and could thus use that mass
saved, in more payload to the lunar surface.
Sorry, your second point is not quite correct...
In general, the later LMs carried much more fuel and oxidizer in the
descent stage than their earlier counterparts.

He just phrased it poorly.

Tsk. While the first point is obviously correct - using the SPS engine
for the DOI burn obviously saved LM descent fuel, his /second/ point -
that later LMs packed less fuel - is simply and demonstrably wrong.

--
Dave Michelson