Author Topic: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware  (Read 22188 times)

Offline camelopardalis

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 11
Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« on: 09/28/2009 05:18 am »
The Augustine Comission seems to be favouring a 'flexible path' approach to future HSF such as missions to near-earth asteroids.  There has been much discussion about sending an Orion capsule to rendezvous with a near-earth asteroid, but as early as 1966 E. Smith suggested using Apollo hardware to visit Eros in 1975 ("A Manned Flyby Mission to Eros", Eugene A. Smith, Proceedings of the Third Space Congress, "The Challenge of Space" pp. 137-155, 1966).  He envisioned an Eros Command Module (like an Apollo command module)/Eros Service Module (33.6 tons), and Eros Mission Module (33.2 tons), and a 98.6 ton SIV-B stage (165.4 tons total).  Because this was beyond the 130-ton capability of a Saturn V, he recommended upgrading the J2 engines of the SII stage or strapping a pair of SRB's on the SI-C stage.  Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone else studied this problem at the time, or looked at the problem again at the end of the Saturn V era.  With the technology that existed in 1973, just how close were we to achieving such a mission (if the political support were there?).  Also, what modifications would have been made to the Apollo capsule, for example, to perform such a mission, and were any of the required hardware elements on the drawing board or developed?  Just how feasible was such a long-duration, deep-space mission with 1973ish technology?   

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
    • Aerospace Projects Review
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #1 on: 09/28/2009 05:38 am »
Manned landings on Ceres and Vesta were examined at least as far back as 1966.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2010 03:28 am by Generic Username »
"US Spacecraft Projects" and "US Launch Vehicle Projects"
aerospaceprojectsreview.com

Offline camelopardalis

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #2 on: 09/29/2009 03:06 am »
Thanks for the info.  Looking at www.astronautix.com, it seems fairly clear that such a mission (both the Ceres/Vesta mission as well as the near-earth asteroid one) would require a significant upgrade to the standard Saturn V launcher.  For the near-earth asteroid mission, Eugene Smith quoted a payload of 165.4 tons to 185 km earth orbit (well beyond the 130 tons to earth orbit of the standard Saturn V).  So there'd definitely be a requirement for a Saturn V-MLV-1 launcher with a pair of 260" diameter solids strapped to the first stage - or a similarly powerful upgraded Saturn V.  Makes me wonder whether a two-launch solution would have been adopted (i.e. Saturn IB to get the CSM into low-earth orbit where it would dock with the Eros Mission Module and Saturn IVB stage which had already been launched by a Saturn V - similar to the Skylab approach).  The only problem is that the Eros Mission Module (33.2 tons) plus S-IVB stage (98.6 tons) would weigh a bit over 130 tons: 131.8 tons.  So some upgrades would be required in either case.

Offline Thande

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #3 on: 09/29/2009 02:52 pm »
Your two-launch solution with Saturn IB and Skylab-type Saturn V seems plausible. As for boosting the payload of the Saturn V further, there were several proposals to use strap-on solid boosters, which might push it far enough to avoid having to stretch the vehicle and therefore run into the problem of the VAB's limits.

What launch architecture was planned for the Manned Venus Flyby, anyone know?

Offline camelopardalis

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #4 on: 09/29/2009 04:59 pm »
Here's a link on the Apollo Venus flyby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

They turn the CSM around and dock with the Saturn IVB stage prior to the escape trajectory burn.  The 'wet workshop' idea is interesting: once the fuel has been burned/vented from the S-IVB, the stage is used for shelter on the interplanetary voyage.  Sounds like a single Saturn V launch, although it would be interesting to see details (some sites mention the idea of advanced Saturn V rockets - even with nuclear upper stages - in reference to some interplanetary missions).  Also worth noting that they considered using Block III and Block IV CSMs to achieve these long-duration deep-space missions.   Would be interesting to know how advanced these designs became before the end of the Apollo era.

Offline camelopardalis

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #5 on: 09/29/2009 11:13 pm »
Just wanted to add one important consideration in any two-launch solution to this problem: boiloff on the cryogenic SIV-B stage.  The SIV-B had 4.5 hours of lifetime in LEO before boiloff became a serious issue.  The RAND (1965) backup plan for the Apollo moon landings suggested that a Saturn V could be launched unmanned without a launch escape tower so that a larger amount of cryogenics could be added to the SIV-B stage (they said this could get them 10 hours of lifetime).  They also recommended that the manned S-IB be launched first (any delay of a Saturn IB trying to dock with an already orbiting S-IVB stage would clearly result in mission failure).  Were there ever any design studies on a long-duration SIV-B stage (EDS-like)?

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #6 on: 04/30/2010 05:06 am »
Here's a link on the Apollo Venus flyby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby

They turn the CSM around and dock with the Saturn IVB stage prior to the escape trajectory burn.  The 'wet workshop' idea is interesting: once the fuel has been burned/vented from the S-IVB, the stage is used for shelter on the interplanetary voyage.  Sounds like a single Saturn V launch, although it would be interesting to see details (some sites mention the idea of advanced Saturn V rockets - even with nuclear upper stages - in reference to some interplanetary missions).  Also worth noting that they considered using Block III and Block IV CSMs to achieve these long-duration deep-space missions.   Would be interesting to know how advanced these designs became before the end of the Apollo era.

You might be interested to know that someone has used the orbiter spaceflight simulator to fly the mission profile using 'stock' Apollo hardware.

They posted a summary video covering Launch/Trans Venus Injection (TVI)/Venus Flyby & landing to Youtube:


Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #7 on: 04/30/2010 04:50 pm »
That's somewhat clever, although really all it shows is the mission events.  An actual spacecraft would have looked differently and would have included different equipment, like probes.

But when you watch it all the way through, you can really see the problem.  What's the point of doing a mission like that with people?  What do they bring to the mission that is necessary and that robots cannot do?  Nothing, which is why it never got flown.

I think the music choice was a little odd.  Although I'm a huge fan of Bear McCreary's various Battlestar soundtracks, that music doesn't go with the visuals.  It's a little too depressing.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #8 on: 04/30/2010 06:38 pm »
I think the music choice was a little odd.  Although I'm a huge fan of Bear McCreary's various Battlestar soundtracks, that music doesn't go with the visuals.  It's a little too depressing.
Nothing in the "space music" realm quite seems to stand up to Kubrick's choices.  :)


As for the need for humans, I suppose the same question can be asked of any realm of beyond-Earth-atmosphere exploration.  My answer to that question, in part, is that robots can't smell:  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/30jan_smellofmoondust_prt.htm 
Of course there's no dust to smell during a flyby mission, but there are still human experiences to be described.  Doing it once might make some sense on that basis, but not twice.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/30/2010 07:00 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #9 on: 05/01/2010 01:28 am »
But when you watch it all the way through, you can really see the problem.  What's the point of doing a mission like that with people?  What do they bring to the mission that is necessary and that robots cannot do? 

At the time the major concern was the reliability of automated probes (Just look at all the problems the Americans had with the Ranger Series and of course all the failures the Russians(Soviets) had trying to get probes to Venus/Mars), the humans were there to fix things if they broke down.

They also had the advantage of being able to react 'real-time' to events as they happened.

I've been through the NTRS several times and it's clear that Venus was never the main focus of NASA's future plans, Mars was, there is only one other study I know of for a Venus focused manned mission and that one was for an orbiter with completely different hardware.

See: Manned Venus Orbiting Mission

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #10 on: 05/01/2010 07:09 am »
Manned landings on Ceres and Vesta were examined at least as far back as 1966.


wow, look at the "potential targets" mentionned by North American -Ganymede and Mercury ! :o


Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #11 on: 05/01/2010 12:45 pm »
Manned landings on Ceres and Vesta were examined at least as far back as 1966.


wow, look at the "potential targets" mentioned by North American -Ganymede and Mercury ! :o


I've seen those landers too, but I've never been able to find anything on manned missions to either location beyond the proposed landers. All the surviving planning documentation is either Mars (with or without a Venus Flyby) or Venus (no landing).

Included as an example of a typical NASA Mars mission is another video by the same individual who created the Manned Venus Flyby video (Rseferino). This one uses a simulation of the hardware/mission Stephen Baxter created for his novel Voyagers.



One thing to watch out for, the creator had not fully learned the value of sound editing and there is a rather annoying 'chunka-chunka-chunk' sound every time spacecraft docking occurs.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2010 05:21 pm by Graham2001 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #12 on: 05/01/2010 02:56 pm »
As for the need for humans, I suppose the same question can be asked of any realm of beyond-Earth-atmosphere exploration.  My answer to that question, in part, is that robots can't smell: 

Humans can't smell on Venus either.

But I wasn't debating robots vs. humans per se.  I was pointing out that a flyby mission with humans has zero value.  After all, the only in situ measurements that they are going to do will involve dropping robotic probes anyway.  You don't need a human craft to carry them.

Now I think that humans can contribute a lot scientifically to other missions.  But that's where you need human dexterity, judgment, and knowledge and intelligence.  You really don't require those things for flyby missions.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2010 05:17 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #13 on: 05/01/2010 05:42 pm »
As for the need for humans, I suppose the same question can be asked of any realm of beyond-Earth-atmosphere exploration.  My answer to that question, in part, is that robots can't smell: 

Humans can't smell on Venus either.

But I wasn't debating robots vs. humans per se.  I was pointing out that a flyby mission with humans has zero value.  After all, the only in situ measurements that they are going to do will involve dropping robotic probes anyway.  You don't need a human craft to carry them.

I think you may be missing the point of my earlier post, at the time (mid 60s) the primary concern was the reliability of automated systems, both sides in the space race had experience of balky unmanned spacecraft that almost failed to reach their targets in a functional state.

In the case of NASA both the Manned Venus & Mars Twilight flyby missions one function assigned to the crew would be ensuring that the encounter probes were in working order at encounter.

The Manned Venus Flyby spacecraft incorporates an airlock to enable the crew to get access to the Venus encounter probes if need be, though its primary function would be to enable the changing of film in the telescope camera (See attached picture).

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #14 on: 05/01/2010 06:04 pm »
The Manned Venus Flyby spacecraft incorporates an airlock to enable the crew to get access to the Venus encounter probes if need be, though its primary function would be to enable the changing of film in the telescope camera.

Taking images of Venus? Now there's a waste of film if I ever saw one. Unless you operate in UV in which case the human operator wouldn't immediately see what he's actually taking images of anyway, without some rig to present UV wavelengths in a visible way in real time - a fluorescent screen being projected a filtered telescope image or something.
For reference, here's a visible light, spacecraft-based image of Venus, and it's actually a contrast-enhanced one at that. Otherwise a blank white sphere would be all that's visible.

In either case, a manned Venus flyby strikes me as a not particularly good idea, especially if the rationale back then was to get around unreliable unmanned automated probes. And replace them instead with automatic systems required to keep those humans alive?

Offline Graham2001

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #15 on: 05/02/2010 01:51 am »
The Manned Venus Flyby spacecraft incorporates an airlock to enable the crew to get access to the Venus encounter probes if need be, though its primary function would be to enable the changing of film in the telescope camera.

Taking images of Venus? Now there's a waste of film if I ever saw one. Unless you operate in UV in which case the human operator wouldn't immediately see what he's actually taking images of anyway, without some rig to present UV wavelengths in a visible way in real time - a fluorescent screen being projected a filtered telescope image or something.
For reference, here's a visible light, spacecraft-based image of Venus, and it's actually a contrast-enhanced one at that. Otherwise a blank white sphere would be all that's visible.

They were not planning to send a pure visual light camera, but something more akin to the instrumentation carried in Skylabs ATM.

The quote below taken from pages 66/67 pdf version of the report (Link)

Quote
Obtaining data on Venus by telescopic means will be difficult because of the cloud layer which appears to completely obscure the planetary surface. However, frequent observations at ranges considerably closer than that of the earth may permit a determination of patterns of motion of the cloud cover. Observation at various portions of the frequency spectrum will assist in determining the composition of the Venusian atmosphere, and it is conceivable that penetration to the surface can be achieved.

Without attempting to optimize the selection of a telescope system for the mission, it appears that a 40 cm aperture telescope would be a suitable basic unit. The surface resolution at periapsis would be about 11m. From Reference 27 it can be seen that with a minimum focal length of about 2 m, the 40 cm telescope would be usable with a camera system having a film format of 10 cm x 10 cm with 300 lines/mm. Based on the planning for the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory program, the estimated weight of basic optics and structure of the 40 cm telescope would be about 220 lbs.

In addition to the telescope designed for visible spectrum data, units similar to those being proposed for the ATM experiments should be provided to cover infrared, ultraviolet and X-ray data. The estimated total additional weight requirements would be about 600 lbs.

Primary multi-spectral photographic target was of course Venus, after the Venus encounter the spacecraft would fly past Mercury sufficiently close to allow imaging at a resolution of 44 nautical miles (81km) per photo.

I have to correct something I wrote earlier, while looking up the details of the camera/imaging system I found that at least for this proposed mission it was not proposed to give the astronauts access to the (up to four) Venus atmosphere probes, but a probe status panel would be built into the airlock.

One key point to remember with this is that the proposal (Which I've privately dubbed "Project Bellerophon") was effectively 'Skylab to Venus' rather than 'Apollo to Venus'.

The second point is that this was not the only such study being conducted at that time. The introduction to the report mentions that several other (unidentified) studies were being carried out to provide AAP with a long term objective for the Post-Apollo period.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2010 01:55 am by Graham2001 »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #16 on: 02/15/2016 12:33 pm »
Folks: I've been searching for the Eros paper for a long time, and then, all of sudden, it has appeared on the Internet
https://www.google.fr/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ZdPBVq-CFITXyQPXja_YCQ#q=%22A+Manned+Flyby+Mission+to+Eros%22

« Last Edit: 02/15/2016 02:59 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1313
  • Liked: 830
  • Likes Given: 201

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #18 on: 02/15/2016 03:48 pm »
I wish I knew you were looking for that. I found that in an obscure archive over a decade ago. I gave a copy to somebody at NASA ca 2005 when they were looking at possible humans to an asteroid missions. They shared it with a few others, which is how I presume it got to the Embry-Riddle site. (I may have also posted it here to NSF at some point.) Here it is attached.


Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Near-Earth Asteroid Mission with Apollo Hardware
« Reply #19 on: 02/15/2016 04:27 pm »
Thanks you all.
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0