#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA PDF Mercury, Gemini, Apollo reports free online | Rusty Barton | History | 81 | October 3rd 04 05:33 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | UK Astronomy | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |