A *better* Apollo 18 Plot Synopsys...

On Mar 7, 9:13*pm, David Spain wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
But apart from that, your script sounds better than whatever "Apollo 18"
turns out to be. (well, that and Rusty getting a lunar flight... highly
doubt Slayton would have gone for that).

*From what I've read about Slayton vs Kelly, it's doubtful Apollo 21 would
have returned with two crew even if it HADN'T successfully docked with the
abandoned LM.

:-D

Dave

PS: In this alternate history original Apollo 21 mission patch before re-task
contained Ace & Jack of Spades. CSM codename was Blackjack. Because of the
urgency and rush of the mission re-task no one bothered to actually change it....

Hey it's MY story... Artistic license, blah blah blah... :-D

Neil Armstrong runs for president right after apollo 11s return with
the vision of sending astronauts to mars in 10 years.

Using multiple saturn 5 launches and Nerva they pull it off with time
to spare. Niel wants to be the first man on mars but looses.

The USSR is devastaed end ends communism right after the mars
landing....

The one flaw I thought would be glaring and kill the whole idea is the
inability of LEM/CSM to reach high enough angle orbits to actually carry
off a lunar polar landing mission. Was this ever really seriously
considered?

There was extra fuel in that in a problem the CSM could go down and rescue a
LM with a failed Ascent Engine that wouldn't restart after initial liftoff.
Also some extreme cases where multiple phasing orbits would allow the CSM to
rescue the LM crew. LM-10 and sub had the stretched descent tanks to permit
longer stay plus the rover. Could drop the rover since another LM will bring
a pressurized one and maybe make the tanks a bit larger. Ascent Propulsion
had crossfeed between RCS and Ascent Propulsion and backup fuel for RCS
system failure. Cutting margins should make things work if indeed it was
needed.
I don't think polar landing was fuel constrained - the real problem was
hazard avoidance in the polar lighting conditions. The CSM also had mass
allowance for mapping cameras etc. Swap out for fuel or just make it
lighter. So by making some engineering changes, mission groundrules your
mission seems plausable.

The real problem is maintaining the LM in lunar orbit and docking with it
after years. The LM used battery power. Ascent stage had 12 hours and then
it's done. So you have to either add solar arrays or maybe an RTG to keep
the LM Ascent stage going. If you do this you could have ground station
managing orbit maneuvers to keep it alive and available. Next problem is the
Mean Time Between Failures for the 1960s LM guidance units, and the number
of cycles you get get out of the RCS thruster valves. Remember this was
planned for a several day mission.

Youo could cut the timeline and resort to things like "The thing just won't
quit - the Grumman Iron Works comes through again"


Val Kraut

David,

Could you contact me at my newsgroup e-mail address? Thanks!

On 3/7/2011 2:09 PM, David Spain wrote:

The CSM, with me as the sole surviving astronaut, returns to Earth.

That's why I proposed the necessity of the "stretch" Saturn V. ;-)

No respect, I get no respect at all...
Hey, with me choice of sex position is simple; she's on top and
everything is fine...me on top and I get arrested for necrophilia.

Pat

On 3/7/2011 2:13 PM, David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
On 3/7/2011 1:10 PM, Obviousman wrote:
I like that plot - well done! You should tout it to Hollywood, perhaps
the Howard / Hanks team could use it. They have a lot of the set props
already made.

I think it would be a lot more likely that RFK would have devoted the
funds freed up by leaving Vietnam for social programs rather than
further Apollo missions.

Pat

I dunno, IIRC my local paper was running Apollo 11 stories and the
Mary Jo Kopechne story on the same front page. If I was RFK and I
was president I'd be doing *something* to keep the public imagination
away from my family....

Nixon was pretty much going to ditch the manned space program after the
slated Apollo missions, but thought it would look like he was being
vindictive against JFK for the 1960 election, so we ended up with the
Shuttle.
Just like Nixon being the only person who could go to China, RFK would
be the only person who could say that we did just what his late brother
said we would do in his speech, and now it was time to move on to other
challenges.
LBJ was always a lot more of a space cadet than JFK ever was anyway.


Pat

On 3/7/2011 8:12 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
The one flaw I thought would be glaring and kill the whole idea is the
inability of LEM/CSM to reach high enough angle orbits to actually carry
off a lunar polar landing mission. Was this ever really seriously
considered?

There was extra fuel in that in a problem the CSM could go down and rescue a
LM with a failed Ascent Engine that wouldn't restart after initial liftoff.

It would be fun to see it try that without landing legs. :-D

Pat

In article b398a0d6-4371-45de-82bf-9444c02d2e3a@
34g2000pru.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 7, 9:13*pm, David Spain wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
But apart from that, your script sounds better than whatever "Apollo 18"
turns out to be. (well, that and Rusty getting a lunar flight... highly
doubt Slayton would have gone for that).

*From what I've read about Slayton vs Kelly, it's doubtful Apollo 21 would
have returned with two crew even if it HADN'T successfully docked with the
abandoned LM.

:-D

Dave

PS: In this alternate history original Apollo 21 mission patch before re-task
contained Ace & Jack of Spades. CSM codename was Blackjack. Because of the
urgency and rush of the mission re-task no one bothered to actually change it....

Hey it's MY story... Artistic license, blah blah blah... :-D

Neil Armstrong runs for president right after apollo 11s return with
the vision of sending astronauts to mars in 10 years.

Now this one really is fantasy. Neil Armstrong doesn't have the
personality to be a politician. He barely has the personality to do
public appearances every few years. I ought to know, Armstrong has
lived in the Cincinnati since at least the late the 70's (I moved here
permanently in the early 90's).

Buzz Aldrin has always had a much more outgoing personality than Neil
Armstrong. One look at buzzaldrin.com proves that.

Using multiple saturn 5 launches and Nerva they pull it off with time
to spare. Niel wants to be the first man on mars but looses.

The USSR is devastaed end ends communism right after the mars
landing....

USSR in a race to Mars *and* they beat the US there? Just when I
thought you couldn't push further into fantasy land...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Val Kraut wrote:
I don't think polar landing was fuel constrained - the real problem was
hazard avoidance in the polar lighting conditions. The CSM also had mass
allowance for mapping cameras etc. Swap out for fuel or just make it
lighter. So by making some engineering changes, mission groundrules your
mission seems plausable.

Could a "Block 3" LM been outfitted with higher resolution landing radar to
provide hazard avoidance? Was the radar technology in 1970 (you have to go
back a few years to what was available BEFORE the mission is actually launched
to use that tech), sufficient to provide this capability?

Wow, talk about getting lucky for pulling a plot line completely out of one's
ahem, you know where....

The real problem is maintaining the LM in lunar orbit and docking with it
after years. The LM used battery power. Ascent stage had 12 hours and then
it's done. So you have to either add solar arrays or maybe an RTG to keep
the LM Ascent stage going. If you do this you could have ground station
managing orbit maneuvers to keep it alive and available. Next problem is the
Mean Time Between Failures for the 1960s LM guidance units, and the number
of cycles you get get out of the RCS thruster valves. Remember this was
planned for a several day mission.


Good point. New plot gimmick. In the original mission plan of Apollo 20 the
LM/AM was to remain in orbit for awhile conducting surveys over the polar
regions via remote control because of its uniquely high angle orbit. The first
LM to to have its electronics powered by a set of RTGs, evolved from the ones
used in ALSEP.

Youo could cut the timeline and resort to things like "The thing just won't
quit - the Grumman Iron Works comes through again"


Probably shortest 'realistic' time frame is 1 year + a few months.

"beep Blackjack, Houston you are go for TLI. beep"

"Roger, go for TLI..."

Dave

Could a "Block 3" LM been outfitted with higher resolution landing radar
to
provide hazard avoidance? Was the radar technology in 1970 (you have to go
back a few years to what was available BEFORE the mission is actually
launched to use that tech), sufficient to provide this capability?


No - the landing radar gave overall slope and distance. Initials guidance
calculations were based on IMU data - IMU data became less accurate due to
drift as the landing proceeded. Landing Radar data was than used and
weighted more heavily than the IMU based calculations in the terminal phase.
The real problem is Hazard avoidance - small rocks or craters big enough to
tilt the vehicle, hit the engine bell etc. They're still working that
problem LIDARs today. LM got you above the landng sight and the astronaut
accepted or redesignated to a clear area. In the poles you get poor light
with long shadows that mask hazards. One of the reasons polar missions were
ruled out early in the game. If you land the Taxi first the crew can pick
smooth sppots and place beacons for the cargo and habitat landers -
hopefully away from each other and the taxi- LM-6 exhaust kicked up enough
dust to do some sandblasting on the Surveyor they visited.


Val Kraut

Val Kraut wrote:

The real problem is Hazard avoidance - small rocks or craters big
enough to tilt the vehicle, hit the engine bell etc. They're still
working that problem LIDARs today. LM got you above the landng sight
and the astronaut accepted or redesignated to a clear area. In the
poles you get poor light with long shadows that mask hazards.

I suppose some bright landing lights flipped-on at N feet was either
too heavy or pulled too much power? Too simple? (Or today, some
rather high intensity LEDs)

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...