Apollo service module question

A LONG time ago I heard the SM was originally designed for a direct
moon landing, and later changed to having a seperate LM land on moon.

My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?

On Aug 12, 4:55�pm, " wrote:
A LONG time ago I heard the SM was originally designed for a direct
moon landing, and later changed to having a seperate LM land on moon.

My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?

I am really curious about this.

As the general idea could be used for the next generation of moon
landings

*From:* bob haller
*Date:* Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Aug 12, 4:55_pm, " wrote:
A LONG time ago I heard the SM was originally designed for a
direct
moon landing, and later changed to having a seperate LM land on
moon.

My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?

I am really curious about this.

As the general idea could be used for the next generation of moon
landings

Perhaps you're thinking about the "Direct Ascent" Moon landing proposals,
which would indeed have placed the entire spacecraft on the Moon.

However this was never the Apollo SM, and in any case would have required
a much larger launcher than the Saturn V.

On Aug 18, 6:34�am, wrote:
*From:* bob haller
*Date:* Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Aug 12, 4:55_pm, " wrote:
A LONG time ago I heard the SM was originally designed for a
direct
moon landing, and later changed to having a seperate LM land on
moon.

My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?

I am really curious about this.

As the general idea could be used for the next generation of moon
landings

Perhaps you're thinking about the "Direct Ascent" Moon landing proposals,
which would indeed have placed the entire spacecraft on the Moon.

However this was never the Apollo SM, and in any case would have required
a much larger launcher than the Saturn V.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thats what I was thinking off, read somewhere the SM was designed for
direct asent, before they decided on using a seperate LM. my vague
recollaction was the SM was never downsized to save time, and I just
wonder how much extra hardware would of been required?

On Aug 12, 4:55*pm, " wrote:
A LONG time ago I heard the SM was originally designed for a direct
moon landing, and later changed to having a seperate LM land on moon.

My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If memory serves correctly the engine bell was much larger then was
needed for lunar docking method. Going along with this a think there
may have been plans afoot to use actuators of some sort to extend and
withdraw the bottom section of engine bell so as to allow for
landing. Guess they got far enough along so they could not redesign
engine/bell when they changed methods and so bell is a bit of fossil
remnant from the direct ascent method.................Doc

wrote:
My question how far out was the SM from being able to land?

attach 3 legs? or major redesign?
I am really curious about this.

As the general idea could be used for the next generation of moon
landings

Perhaps you're thinking about the "Direct Ascent" Moon landing proposals,
which would indeed have placed the entire spacecraft on the Moon.

However this was never the Apollo SM, and in any case would have required
a much larger launcher than the Saturn V.

The SM started life as the _ascent_ stage of the direct ascent lander,
which would have put it and the CM on the return trajectory to Earth
after blasting off from the Lunar surface...which is why it ended up
with that honking big engine nozzle hanging out of the back of it.
A cutaway of one version of the concept is shown he
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ect_Ascent.png

Pat

Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote:
needed for lunar docking method. Going along with this a think there
may have been plans afoot to use actuators of some sort to extend and
withdraw the bottom section of engine bell so as to allow for
landing. Guess they got far enough along so they could not redesign
engine/bell when they changed methods and so bell is a bit of fossil
remnant from the direct ascent method.................Doc


You might have been able to land it if you had put landing gear on it,
but that's all you could have done, as it would have used up all the
onboard fuel to get to the lunar surface and wouldn't be leaving again.
There's another drawing of the CSM atop the landing stage he
http://tinyurl.com/oworbd
One problem (other than landing something that heavy slowly enough that
the gear didn't collapse) was how to get the astronauts from the CM down
to the lunar surface, which was 65 feet beneath the top hatch; and even
in 1/6 G, that could have meant a dangerous fall on the way down or back up.

I take it the heart surgery went okay?

Pat

On Aug 18, 10:37*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote: needed for lunar docking method. *Going
along with this a think there may have been plans afoot to use
actuators of some sort to extend and withdraw the bottom section of
engine bell so as to allow *for landing. *Guess they got far enough
along so they could not redesign engine/bell when they changed
methods and so bell is a bit of fossil remnant from the direct
ascent method.................Doc You might have been able to land
it if you had put landing gear on it, but that's all you could have
done, as it would have used up all the onboard fuel to get to the
lunar surface and wouldn't be leaving again. There's another drawing
of the CSM atop the landing stage hehttp://tinyurl.com/oworbd One
problem (other than landing something that heavy slowly enough that
the gear didn't collapse) was how to get the astronauts from the CM
down to the lunar surface, which was 65 feet beneath the top hatch;
and even in 1/6 G, that could have meant a dangerous fall on the way
down or back up. I take it the heart surgery went okay?
Pat_______________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________Yeah
not bad.* Dicey thing about is that you have to stop the heart to see
if the implant is working.* Thing about that is if you have blackages
or are prone to (had previous MI back in '02) you coul;d wake up dead
as your heart goes ape****, twtiching to get blood to blocked dying
areas and at the same time the ICD is firng like hell to stop it.*
Anyway after two good engine stops and two good restarts , looks
okay.* No shocks yet (680 volts) thinking about getting another nomme
de guerre, " lighting* 'perhaps maybe "old sparky"..................Doc

Dr.Smith wrote: Another earlier design
incorporated on Skylab, although nearly impossible to see, was the airlock
hatch, which was a Gemini capsule hatch.

I never could quite figure out the point of that, as its shape made it
hard to incorporate into the design. You saved a few bucks by using it,
but it would seem to create a design headache that would offset any
savings.
The grid floor work made it possible for the astronauts to have shoes
which could look them in place if need be...solid floors might have
needed Velcro like in "2001" or the magnetic boots of golden age sci-fi.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
telephone...
Dr.Smith wrote: Another earlier design
incorporated on Skylab, although nearly impossible to see, was the
airlock hatch, which was a Gemini capsule hatch.

I never could quite figure out the point of that, as its shape made it
hard to incorporate into the design. You saved a few bucks by using it,
but it would seem to create a design headache that would offset any
savings.
The grid floor work made it possible for the astronauts to have shoes
which could look them in place if need be...solid floors might have needed
Velcro like in "2001" or the magnetic boots of golden age sci-fi.

And they helped with airflow, which is a *good thing* when you depend on a
handful of fans to supply you with fresh air to breathe.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon