Author Topic: Apollo Contingency  (Read 8389 times)

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Apollo Contingency
« on: 06/04/2007 04:33 pm »
Here is a link to an interesting Apollo Contingency paper written in 1965.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770078693_1977078693.pdf

The thought was if the Saturn 5 was not man rated in time, the crew would go up on a Saturn 1B and transfer to the lunar vehicle launched, unmanned, on the Saturn 5.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #1 on: 06/04/2007 06:06 pm »
Quote
Danny Dot - 4/6/2007  11:33 AM

Here is a link to an interesting Apollo Contingency paper written in 1965.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770078693_1977078693.pdf

The thought was if the Saturn 5 was not man rated in time, the crew would go up on a Saturn 1B and transfer to the lunar vehicle launched, unmanned, on the Saturn 5.

Danny Deger

That is incredibly interesting.  Anyone want to posit what would have been the increase in payload to the Moon if a fully fueled SM/CSM had launched on a 1B and then docked with a cargo version of the Saturn V?

I bet that would be VERY interesting.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #2 on: 06/04/2007 10:41 pm »
I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.
Maybe a modern day equivalent could be that an Ares-V be used to do an all-up mission as a contingency in case the Ares-1 cannot be man-rated!
(yes, I'm joking...)
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2007 11:20 pm »
Quote
Kaputnik - 4/6/2007  5:41 PM

I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.
Maybe a modern day equivalent could be that an Ares-V be used to do an all-up mission as a contingency in case the Ares-1 cannot be man-rated!
(yes, I'm joking...)

The CSM on the Saturn 1B was loaded for only 5,000 ft/sec worth of fuel.  The Saturn V would carry up the fully loaded CSM that would go to the moon.  The CSM launced on the 1B did not go to the moon.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #4 on: 06/04/2007 11:21 pm »
Quote
Kaputnik - 4/6/2007  5:41 PM

I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.
Maybe a modern day equivalent could be that an Ares-V be used to do an all-up mission as a contingency in case the Ares-1 cannot be man-rated!
(yes, I'm joking...)

The CSM on the Saturn 1B was loaded for only 5,000 ft/sec worth of fuel.  The Saturn V would carry up the fully loaded CSM that would go to the moon.  The CSM launced on the 1B did not go to the moon.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #5 on: 06/05/2007 01:36 am »
Quote
Danny Dot - 4/6/2007  6:21 PM

Quote
Kaputnik - 4/6/2007  5:41 PM

I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.
Maybe a modern day equivalent could be that an Ares-V be used to do an all-up mission as a contingency in case the Ares-1 cannot be man-rated!
(yes, I'm joking...)

The CSM on the Saturn 1B was loaded for only 5,000 ft/sec worth of fuel.  The Saturn V would carry up the fully loaded CSM that would go to the moon.  The CSM launced on the 1B did not go to the moon.

Danny Deger
So which would carry the S-IVB stage for TLI, which vehicle would be docked ass-backwards, and how much mass could that S-IVB handle at TLI?

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #6 on: 06/05/2007 05:04 am »
The Saturn V would launch a full but unmanned Apollo stack, complete with a fully fueled CSM.  Within the 10-hour timeframe after orbital insertion during which you could restart the S-IVB and perform a TLI maneuver, a second CSM, fueled up to only about 5,000 fps maneuvering capacity and launched on a Saturn IB, would rendezvous and dock with the Saturn V-launched, unmanned TLI stage.  The crew would transfer to the CSM that had been launched with the Saturn V, abandoning the CSM that took them into orbit (for automatic de-orbit and recovery, I would imagine) and would proceed on to the Moon.  The interesting thing would be that they would travel out of Earth orbit and complete the lunar mission in a different command module than the one they launched in.

This would actually have had one other side effect -- you could have increased the mass of the Saturn V-launched Apollo stack (CSM and LM) by roughly the mass of the three crewmen and their suits.  After all, the worst of the propellant penalties for extra mass come in the first and second stage burns.  By flying the TLI stage into orbit without a crew, you could have increased the total mass of the TLI stage by a few hundred kg.  (This increase, and more, was eventually accomplished without the need to use an entire second CSM and a Saturn IB to launch it by simply beefing up the Saturn V a bit and eating into the generous reserves those wonderful Germans had built into the vehicle.  But in 1965, they weren't sure how long it would take to man-rate the huge beast, much less whether it would ever be possible to uprate it a bit.)

Fortunately, there were delays in the CSM and LM development programs which allowed all of the elements of the Apollo system to mature at roughly the same time.  I say fortunately, and mean it, even though the biggest CSM delay cost lives.  I'm convinced to this day that had we not lost Grissom, White and Chaffee on the ground, we would have lost them, or another crew, in space, and that would have had a far more disastrous impact on Apollo as a whole.
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #7 on: 06/05/2007 09:38 am »
One question for understanding...
Man-rating the vehicle includes the need for higher reserves, right? So, theoretically speaking, would the payload of a cargo Saturn V be higher than that of a man rated one? BTW you also spare the launch escape system. How much difference would that make?
But I suspect this is all of little use if you don't design for it in the first place since the limiting factors will be LM payload and return payload, right?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #8 on: 06/05/2007 11:15 am »
S-IB can put a fully fueled CSM (65klb)into LEO

Offline Big RI Joe

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #9 on: 06/05/2007 02:56 pm »
No, it could not. The Saturn 1B had an LEO payload of 40k.

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #10 on: 06/05/2007 05:33 pm »
Yep -- the IB couldn't get a fully fueled CSM into orbit.  The ASTP CSM was barely fueled, I believe the SPS tanks were only filled up to about 20% of their capacity, in order to provide the mass margin needed to get the CSM and the DM into orbit.  (In the case of an early-out shutdown of the S-IVB on ASTP, the procedure would have been to use the CSM's RCS to try and drag the whole stack into an orbit that would maintain long enough for T&D with the DM.)

In fact, one of the places that the planners found extra mass on the J missions was in the SPS fuel loading.  The J missions flew with less SPS propellants than did the earlier flights, due to relaxed safety margins and flight experience in the ability of the Saturn to perform a nearly perfect injection into the translunar trajectory.  And with the post-Apollo 13 modifications to the CSM, it was determined that it would be possible to safely dump the LM in the case of a trajectory dispersion that the SPS could not handle with the LM attached.
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline Big RI Joe

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 18
RE: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #11 on: 06/05/2007 10:30 pm »
Quote
dvandorn - 5/6/2007  12:33 PM

 (In the case of an early-out shutdown of the S-IVB on ASTP, the procedure would have been to use the CSM's RCS to try and drag the whole stack into an orbit that would maintain long enough for T&D with the DM.)


I don't think so. If the S4B shutdown early, the SPS would be used to get into an orbit.......assuming that enough fuel remained for a de-orbit burn In any case, an early S$B shutdown would doom the mission. The Docking Module was in the SLA adapter, and there would be no way for the CSM's RCS thrusters to drag a partially loaded S4B stage, a SLA/DM, and a CSM into any kind of an orbit.    :frown:

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #12 on: 06/06/2007 06:21 am »
Quote
Kaputnik - 4/6/2007  4:41 PM

I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.

I've been pondering this one as well, and some of the subsequent comments in this thread have confirmed some (but not all) of my suspicions.  Encyclopedia Astronautica gives the 18.6 metric ton figure for the Saturn IB, yet the Skylab CSM's were all around 20 metric tons (and launched into a more demanding orbit than the 185 km, 28-deg reference orbit given for the Saturn IB.)  Did the Skylab CSMs perform a burn of the SPS engine before reaching orbit, or is Encyclopedia Astronautica low-balling the performance of the Saturn IB?

Obviously, the option of a sub-orbital SPS burn wasn't an option during ASTP due to the need to retrieve the docking module from the expended S-IVB.  In that case, the combined mass of the ASTP CSM & docking module was only 16.8 metric tons, which would fit within the performance figures given on Encyclopedia Astronautica.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Big RI Joe

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2007 08:33 am »
Quote
CFE - 6/6/2007  1:21 AM

Quote
Kaputnik - 4/6/2007  4:41 PM

I thought a 1b couldn't orbit the fully fuelled CSM? Payload was only c.18t as opposed to the c.25t of the fully fuelled CSM.

I've been pondering this one as well, and some of the subsequent comments in this thread have confirmed some (but not all) of my suspicions.  Encyclopedia Astronautica gives the 18.6 metric ton figure for the Saturn IB, yet the Skylab CSM's were all around 20 metric tons (and launched into a more demanding orbit than the 185 km, 28-deg reference orbit given for the Saturn IB.)  Did the Skylab CSMs perform a burn of the SPS engine before reaching orbit, or is Encyclopedia Astronautica low-balling the performance of the Saturn IB?

Obviously, the option of a sub-orbital SPS burn wasn't an option during ASTP due to the need to retrieve the docking module from the expended S-IVB.  In that case, the combined mass of the ASTP CSM & docking module was only 16.8 metric tons, which would fit within the performance figures given on Encyclopedia Astronautica.


The Saturn 1B could put 40,000 lbs into a LEO with an orbital inclination of about 28 degrees., Remember in order to dock with the Soyuz, the orbital inclination of the Apollo orbit was around 51 degrees. You loose part of the launch capability as your launch azimuth changes from due east to one that will fit the intended orbital inclination. The Soyuz launch vehicle could not reach a 28 degree orbital inclination with a Soyuz spacecraft from it's cosmodrome, so it was the Americans that had to take the hit of launch vehicle performance. The same thing holds true for the Shuttle-Mir launches and the Shuttle -ISS launches. Mark wade's site had the correct performance figures for the Saturn 1B in a 51 degree launch from Cape Kennedy.

Offline Big RI Joe

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #14 on: 06/06/2007 08:35 am »
Oh and incidently, there was no SPS burn to complete orbital insertion on the flight. It was a straight S4b burn all the way.

Offline dvandorn

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #15 on: 06/06/2007 08:52 pm »
Quote
Big RI Joe - 5/6/2007  5:30 PM

Quote
dvandorn - 5/6/2007  12:33 PM

 (In the case of an early-out shutdown of the S-IVB on ASTP, the procedure would have been to use the CSM's RCS to try and drag the whole stack into an orbit that would maintain long enough for T&D with the DM.)


I don't think so. If the S4B shutdown early, the SPS would be used to get into an orbit.......assuming that enough fuel remained for a de-orbit burn In any case, an early S$B shutdown would doom the mission. The Docking Module was in the SLA adapter, and there would be no way for the CSM's RCS thrusters to drag a partially loaded S4B stage, a SLA/DM, and a CSM into any kind of an orbit.    :frown:
I suggest you do a search of AW&ST for May and June, 1975.  That's where I read about this rather unusual abort mode, only planned for use (if necessary) for ASTP.  Yes, there was an Abort to COI mode (CM Orbital Insertion, using the SPS), but there was also a Stack Abort mode (that's what I always called it, I forget the actual acronym, if there was one) which involved using the SM's RCS if an S-IVB underburn within a certain range occurred.  This abort mode was reached considerably later than the COI mode, but it superseded the COI mode once that particular velocity gate had been reached.  It was specifically designed to allow the T&D maneuver and extraction of the DM, even in the case of an S-IVB underburn.
-Doug

"The problem isn't that there are too many fools, the problem is that lightning isn't aimed right."  -Mark Twain

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #16 on: 06/08/2007 07:51 pm »
How would they have handled the crew transfer from the CSM the crew launched in to the empty one on the Saturn V stack? I don't see how two command modules could be configured to dock with the one completing the mission still able to dock with the LM. Equip the passive CM with a drogue then after docking transfer the probe to the passive CM?  Or, would it have been via EVA? That might have been a bit hairy.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #17 on: 06/08/2007 08:26 pm »
Quote
DMeader - 8/6/2007  2:51 PM

How would they have handled the crew transfer from the CSM the crew launched in to the empty one on the Saturn V stack? I don't see how two command modules could be configured to dock with the one completing the mission still able to dock with the LM. Equip the passive CM with a drogue then after docking transfer the probe to the passive CM?  Or, would it have been via EVA? That might have been a bit hairy.

They would have equiped the CM the crew went up in with the half of the docking mechanizm that was normally on the LM.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #18 on: 06/08/2007 10:42 pm »
How would the crew in the manned CM command the probe in the unmanned CM to retract to establish a hard dock? Or would that come from the ground?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #19 on: 06/09/2007 07:51 am »
Quote
DMeader - 8/6/2007  5:42 PM

How would the crew in the manned CM command the probe in the unmanned CM to retract to establish a hard dock? Or would that come from the ground?
The docking probe on the CM is automatically in the 'dock' position, it's just a matter of triggering the latches for a soft-dock. IIRC if at least 2 latches hold, retraction can enable enough of a 'hard dock' to manually (within the vestibule) hard-latch the rest to ensure a hard-dock, leak-free mate.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #20 on: 06/09/2007 04:54 pm »
Not to be argumentative, but if I recall correctly the capture latches on the tip of the probe engage automatically when it mates with the drogue. A command has to be issued then to cause the probe to retract and pull the docking rings on the two spacecraft together.  A nunber of hard-dock latches trigger automatically, and the rest are set by the crew once the hatches are opened and the tunnel is accessable. What I am wondering, once again, is: if the active spacecraft (the manned CSM) has the drogue and the passive target spacecraft (the empty CSM on the Saturn V stack) has the probe, once soft-dock is attained how wwould the probe in the empty CSM be commanded to retract to finalize the docking. I seem to remember Mike Collins in "Carrying The Fire" mentioning throwing a switch to retract the probe, hearing the "ripple-bang" (as he describes it) of the docking latches firing, then opening the hatch to remove the probe and drogue and set the remainder of the latches. I'm wondering how probe retraction in the unmanned CSM would have been accomplished.

Offline rcaron

  • ELFIN Chief Engineer
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #21 on: 06/09/2007 05:51 pm »
I would assume that the process would be automated onboard the Saturn-V CM so that hard dock would occur x seconds after some of the soft dock latches engaged. Either that or it'd have to be commanded by the ground. Granted, ground-commanding wasn't something done in Apollo, but I'd have to think that it would be possible to setup some kind of basic capability to do it if it was necessary.
Thank you Delta II & ICESat-2!

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Apollo Contingency
« Reply #22 on: 06/09/2007 06:36 pm »
I can't think of anything besides the command coming up from the ground either. I don't think auto would be a good idea in case the alignment wasn't good or some other issue popped up.

I wonder if the probe could be collapsed and removed from the drogue side?

The more I think about it, the more I don't like the whole deal. I'm glad it wasn't necessary. Heck of a waste of a good spacecraft.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1