|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
The Apollo SM had to support the weight of the CM and LES at 4Gs. That
meant that it had to have strong walls. I was wondering what if the S-IVB panels were designed to support the interface of the CM and SM. That means that the SM walls could be a lot lighter. Which means that the SM would have had to carry less fuel. Which means the overall payload would have been lighter. Would that design have been better? -- Replace you know what by j to email |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
Jud McCranie wrote in
: The Apollo SM had to support the weight of the CM and LES at 4Gs. That meant that it had to have strong walls. I was wondering what if the S-IVB panels were designed to support the interface of the CM and SM. That means that the SM walls could be a lot lighter. Which means that the SM would have had to carry less fuel. Which means the overall payload would have been lighter. Would that design have been better? The weight tradeoff would have had to go into other structures to support different loads; probably would have meant the CM would have been heavier. How much lighter is a "lot"? I suspect not much. --Damon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
On Jul 20, 3:44�am, Damon Hill wrote:
Jud McCranie wrote : The Apollo SM had to support the weight of the CM and LES at 4Gs. That meant that it had to have strong walls. �I was wondering what if the S-IVB panels were designed to support the interface of the CM and SM. That means that the SM walls could be a lot lighter. �Which means that the SM would have had to carry less fuel. �Which means the overall payload would have been lighter. �Would that design have been better? The weight tradeoff would have had to go into other structures to support different loads; probably would have meant the CM would have been heavier. How much lighter is a "lot"? �I suspect not much. --Damon actually the SM was designed before a seperate lander was decided on, it had the thrust to land on moon but no legs it was seriously overdesigned |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:44:14 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote: The weight tradeoff would have had to go into other structures to support different loads; probably would have meant the CM would have been heavier. I don't see how the CM would have been heavier - it had to support the LES anyway. The S-IVB panels would have had to been a little longer, but you are right - there probably would have needed to be some support for the SM at the top of the third stage. -- Replace you know what by j to email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:46:46 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote: The Apollo SM had to support the weight of the CM and LES at 4Gs. That meant that it had to have strong walls. I was wondering what if the S-IVB panels were designed to support the interface of the CM and SM. That means that the SM walls could be a lot lighter. Which means that the SM would have had to carry less fuel. Which means the overall payload would have been lighter. Would that design have been better? I don't know how much lighter they could have made it--it had to be strong enough to take the thrust of the SPS without collapsing like a beer can. take care, Scott |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Service Module design
Jud McCranie wrote:
The Apollo SM had to support the weight of the CM and LES at 4Gs. That meant that it had to have strong walls. The walls of the cylinder were actually doors that opened up to allow access to the components inside... SM structural strength probably came mostly from the walls between the bays and the central core structure. (Which makes sense if you consider that they had to transmit both S-IVB and SPS propulsion loads.) The diagrams I've seen show the CM support structure attached to the top of the walls, which lends credence to this thesis. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS Service Module Thruster Test Fails | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 36 | April 28th 06 02:20 PM |
Service Module thermal control system must be fixed to allow EVA to proceed | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 1 | March 27th 05 06:13 AM |
"Command and Service Module Electrical Power Distributions System" | OM | History | 2 | December 15th 04 08:53 PM |
Apollo 13 Service Module | Bruce Palmer | History | 6 | November 24th 03 10:49 PM |
Apollo 1 Service Module | Bob | History | 3 | September 1st 03 11:37 AM |