1965 Apollo plans

Given the somewhat rancorous thread about Apollo-1 (and indeed 2 & 3),
some may be interested to read:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1979076757.pdf

"This document contains the flight mission assignments for the Apollo
flight programs."

Nothing on the contentious part, but some interesting examples of what
the planning for the program revolved on at this point. Unless I'm
misreading it, they planned CSM/LM missions launched by a single S-IB -
was the LM intended to be that light then, or am I misreading?

--
-Andrew Gray

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
Given the somewhat rancorous thread about Apollo-1 (and indeed 2 & 3),
some may be interested to read:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1979076757.pdf

"This document contains the flight mission assignments for the Apollo
flight programs."
Nothing on the contentious part, but some interesting examples of what
the planning for the program revolved on at this point. Unless I'm
misreading it, they planned CSM/LM missions launched by a single S-IB -
was the LM intended to be that light then, or am I misreading?

-Andrew Gray

The last page is probably the most interesting. If you add the 18 month
delay, due to the Apollo 1 accident and the rework/investigation following
the Apollo 13 accident ... the schedule maps fairly closely to the mission
timeline projected.

Regarding your question, the CSM/LM missions would be laucnhed by two Saturn
1B ... you had pad 37A and pad 37B --- so it was feasible to perform this
without the Pad 39 complex - which I believe the EOR profile would have
supported.

The delays in LM construction & delivery -- removed this possibility - since
LM 3 was not actually flown until March 1969 with Apollo 9 (AS-504). This
was a "D" mission. The "D" in McDivitt on the Apollo 9 mission patch has a
red interior which signified the "D" mission

gb

On 2004-09-21, G.Beat wrote:
"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
Given the somewhat rancorous thread about Apollo-1 (and indeed 2 & 3),
some may be interested to read:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1979076757.pdf

"This document contains the flight mission assignments for the Apollo
flight programs."
Nothing on the contentious part, but some interesting examples of what
the planning for the program revolved on at this point. Unless I'm
misreading it, they planned CSM/LM missions launched by a single S-IB -
was the LM intended to be that light then, or am I misreading?

-Andrew Gray

The last page is probably the most interesting. If you add the 18 month
delay, due to the Apollo 1 accident and the rework/investigation following
the Apollo 13 accident ... the schedule maps fairly closely to the mission
timeline projected.

Regarding your question, the CSM/LM missions would be laucnhed by two Saturn
1B ... you had pad 37A and pad 37B --- so it was feasible to perform this
without the Pad 39 complex - which I believe the EOR profile would have
supported.

See, this is what I'd thought - an email (thanks, Jud) pointed me
towards http://astronautix.com/flights/apolo207.htm which gives the
mission as

"Separate Saturn IB launches would put Apollo Block II CSM 101 / AS-207
and Lunar Module LM-2 / AS-208 into earth orbit."

Yet if you look at page 30 (pp38 of the PDF) on the document, it gives
AS-207 as a single launch with CSM-101 and LM-2. AS-208 is listed as
"profile to be developed", but -206 is also a joint CSM-LM flight (LM-1
and a boilerplate capsule) on a single S-IB. So this seems to either
predate, or be unaware of, the decision to fly seperately launched CSM
and LMs for the S-IB test flights.

Looking at pp17/8 (25/6 in the PDF) seems to confirm this, although they
did apparently plan to fly LM-2 without any landing gear - how much mass
would this have saved?

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

Nothing on the contentious part, but some interesting examples of what
the planning for the program revolved on at this point. Unless I'm
misreading it, they planned CSM/LM missions launched by a single S-IB -
was the LM intended to be that light then, or am I misreading?

You need to look at the details of the planned missions. The CSM/LM
(all two of them) missions do specify a modified (lightened) CSM and a
modified (lightened) LM.

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

Very early in the Apollo program planning, they did indeed plan to
launch the CSM and the LEM on a single S-IB. But, as the LEM weights
became better defined(e.g., heavier), the plan was scaled back to
launching only the ascent stage, to provide the crews practice at
rendezvous and docking. Eventually the plans gelled to include dual
launches on two S-IBs, and then single launches on a Saturn V.

I can provide a reference when I get back onto my own hard-drive, if
anyone wishes.

John Charles
Houston, Texas

Yet if you look at page 30 (pp38 of the PDF) on the document, it gives
AS-207 as a single launch with CSM-101 and LM-2. AS-208 is listed as
"profile to be developed", but -206 is also a joint CSM-LM flight (LM-1
and a boilerplate capsule) on a single S-IB. So this seems to either
predate, or be unaware of, the decision to fly seperately launched CSM
and LMs for the S-IB test flights.

Looking at pp17/8 (25/6 in the PDF) seems to confirm this, although they
did apparently plan to fly LM-2 without any landing gear - how much mass
would this have saved?

On 22 Sep 2004 18:08:00 -0700, (John
Charles) wrote:

Very early in the Apollo program planning, they did indeed plan to
launch the CSM and the LEM on a single S-IB. But, as the LEM weights
became better defined(e.g., heavier), the plan was scaled back to
launching only the ascent stage,

....And the punch line? The few "artist renderings" of this particular
mission had the LM being the old, rounded, round hatch in front with
big glass windows version that Dolan first proposed. Optimisim^4!


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