Why didn't Apollo keep the ascent module as extra space on the way back?

According to reports, the following propellant was left in the ascent
stages on jettison (fuel / oxidiser, in pounds):

Apollo 11 - 164 / 238
Apollo 12 - 150 / 219
Apollo 14 - 128 / 204
Apollo 15 - 118 / 173
Apollo 16 - 164 / 257
Apollo 17 - 109 / 175

The total (fuel / oxidiser) consumed by each ascent stage was roughly
4800-5000 pounds on each mission.

On 14/01/2011 4:15 AM, wrote:
It seems to me that it would have been at least pleasant to have the
extra space. The thing could be dumped at any time. I know it was
used to test the seismographs.

Mass - too heavy to bring out of Lunar orbit.

In article . com,
says...

On 14/01/2011 4:15 AM, wrote:
It seems to me that it would have been at least pleasant to have the
extra space. The thing could be dumped at any time. I know it was
used to test the seismographs.

Mass - too heavy to bring out of Lunar orbit.

Yea, the rocket equation is a p.i.t.a. when you're talking about adding
extra mass to the final stages (i.e. Apollo service module). The ripple
effect to the Saturn V's three stages would be quite large.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On Jan 14, 10:42*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com,
says...



On 14/01/2011 4:15 AM, wrote:
It seems to me that it would have been at least pleasant to have the
extra space. *The thing could be dumped at any time. *I know it was
used to test the seismographs.

Mass - too heavy to bring out of Lunar orbit.

Yea, the rocket equation is a p.i.t.a. when you're talking about adding
extra mass to the final stages (i.e. Apollo service module). *The ripple
effect to the Saturn V's three stages would be quite large.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. *The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

I dont believe saturn launch weight was a big issue.

The BIGGIE was the LMs weight, they went thru many attempts to cut
weight.

The SM was sized for direct landing so it should of had the margins

On Jan 14, 2:11*am, Obviousman wrote:
According to reports, the following propellant was left in the ascent
stages on jettison (fuel / oxidiser, in pounds):

What's the source of the numbers? Some days I a desperate need for
such trivia.

Thanks.


Mike

On Jan 13, 2:50*pm, rwalker wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:16:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:15 am, " wrote:
It seems to me that it would have been at least pleasant to have the
extra space. The thing could be dumped at any time. I know it was
used to test the seismographs.

There actually quite a bit about all that Apollo "right stuff" that
doesn't add up.

Not to mention Kodak's stuff that simply can not be replicated or
otherwise objectively supported.

~ BG

Damn, I cleaned out my kill file and accidentally let HIM out.

So you can help answer those nagging questions, but only if we make it
worth your while?

~ BG

On 1/13/2011 11:11 PM, Obviousman wrote:
According to reports, the following propellant was left in the ascent
stages on jettison (fuel / oxidiser, in pounds):

Apollo 11 - 164 / 238
Apollo 12 - 150 / 219
Apollo 14 - 128 / 204
Apollo 15 - 118 / 173
Apollo 16 - 164 / 257
Apollo 17 - 109 / 175

That's less than I was expecting; they were cutting it pretty fine as
far as engine performance to reach the intended lunar orbit went.

Pat

Apollo by the numbers - a great reference.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

On 15/01/2011 06:15, wrote:
On Jan 14, 2:11 am, wrote:
According to reports, the following propellant was left in the ascent
stages on jettison (fuel / oxidiser, in pounds):

What's the source of the numbers? Some days I a desperate need for
such trivia.

Thanks.


Mike

On 15/01/2011 5:07 AM, wrote:


The SM was sized for direct landing so it should of had the margins



Really? Cite?

On Jan 14, 10:44*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 15/01/2011 5:07 AM, wrote:



The SM was sized for direct landing so it should of had the margins

Really? Cite?

will have to look but the SM was definetely sized for a direct landing
after that the 2 step approach was choosen, but they decided to leave
the SM basically as is. except it would of had landing legs,
might have tipped over

and just think of that first step