NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Q&A Section => Topic started by: APG85 on 01/19/2008 02:10 PM

Title: LC-39 Pad B Used Only Once For Apollo
Post by: APG85 on 01/19/2008 02:10 PM
Just wondering why Pad B was used only once during Apollo (Apollo 10)?  Thanks...

Interesting link below...

http://www.savethelut.org/MLDocs/ML_History.html
Title: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: APG85 on 01/19/2008 02:11 PM
The Lunar Module ascent stage from Apollo 9 (Spider) decayed from orbit on 23 October 1981 and re-entered the atmosphere. Out of curiosity, could the Shuttle have retrieved it (money/purpose set aside)?  Is the cargo bay deep enough to hold the ascent stage?
Title: Re: LC-39 Pad B Used Only Once For Apollo
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 02:10 PM
The flight rate didn't require it.  It was cheaper to only use one
Title: RE: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 02:11 PM
Quote
APG85 - 19/1/2008  9:17 AM

The Lunar Module ascent stage from Apollo 9 (Spider) decayed from orbit on 23 October 1981 and re-entered the atmosphere. Out of curiosity, could the Shuttle have retrieved it (money/purpose set aside)?  Is the cargo bay deep enough to hold the ascent stage?

There was no way to attach it and the landing loads may be too high.  Also the  hazards on board it would be unknown, residual hypergolic propellants, high pressure gases, batteries, ordnance, etc
Title: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 01:25 PM
Should we start one of these?
Title: Re: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Dana on 01/19/2008 02:11 PM
Being as how the Shuttle was still very early in its two-man flight test program, there wasn't a lot of experience handling large objects with the RMS, and no Shuttle EVAs had been performed yet, there was no way to realistically do it.
Title: Re: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 02:11 PM
Also it probably was tumbling
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/19/2008 01:50 PM
Quote
Jim - 19/1/2008  2:25 PM

Should we start one of these?

Yep indeedy!
Title: RE: LC-39 Pad B Used Only Once For Apollo
Post by: psloss on 01/19/2008 02:10 PM
Quote
APG85 - 19/1/2008  9:07 AM

Just wondering why Pad B was used only once during Apollo (Apollo 10)?  Thanks...
Are you intentionally omitting the Skylab crew and ASTP launches from the mid-70s?
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: DaveJ576 on 01/19/2008 03:00 PM
Assuming we had continued with a robust Apollo/Saturn flight program through the 1970's (i.e. an expanded Skylab program) how likely would it have been that Saturn 1B production would have ceased and we would have gone to the so-called Saturn II vehicle? That is the S-II/S-IVB combo with modified J-2's, boosted by UA1205 or UA1207 solids.

The info I have read on this booster sounds very interesting and the case for going to this Saturn mod seems to make sense.



Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Jason on 01/19/2008 04:32 PM
In the CM did the seats fold up or out of the way for more space inside?
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2008 04:40 PM
Quote
DaveJ576 - 19/1/2008  11:00 AM

Assuming we had continued with a robust Apollo/Saturn flight program through the 1970's (i.e. an expanded Skylab program) how likely would it have been that Saturn 1B production would have ceased and we would have gone to the so-called Saturn II vehicle? That is the S-II/S-IVB combo with modified J-2's, boosted by UA1205 or UA1207 solids.

The info I have read on this booster sounds very interesting and the case for going to this Saturn mod seems to make sense.


The more likely configuration would have been a 260 inch single solid as the first stage with an SIVB second.  

The S-II with modified J-2's, boosted by UA1205 or UA1207 solids would have have been just as expensive as an S-IB
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Sid454 on 01/19/2008 05:03 PM
I don't think the S-II would have been used nor would it been a good choice from an economics or safety stand point instead the the SV-B would have been used this also has no air start event and that always is a good thing from a safety stand point but mostly it's cheap.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnvb.htm
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: mikeh on 01/19/2008 05:18 PM
Quote
Jason - 19/1/2008  11:32 AM

In the CM did the seats fold up or out of the way for more space inside?

All of the seats were adjustable, the center one had the additional capability to be folded and stored underneath one of the others.  Michael Collins, in his book "Carrying The Fire", noted that the center couch was stowed out of the way prior to the return of the LM so that if there was some diffficulty with using the tunnel there would be more room in front of the CM's hatch for Armstrong and Aldrin to enter the spacecraft after making a spacewalk from the LM.
Title: RE: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Sid454 on 01/19/2008 05:19 PM
It probably would have fit even the apollo command module was able to fit in there but the shuttle was at a very early stage also I think the lem ascent stage was in a highly elliptical orbit  and the shuttle just doesn't have the delta V to get in such a orbit.
That lem upper stage had as much delta V as an xprize craft and they ran the engine until it ran out of fuel so I think the apogee was something like 8000km even though the perigee skimmed the atmopshere
Plus you have the risk of leaking fuel and batteries contaminating a new spacecraft .
Lastly I don't think the shuttle eva suits were even ready at the time.
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: APG85 on 01/20/2008 01:19 PM
On Apollo 15 Dave Scott performed a Stand-up EVA from the top docking hatch of the LM and did a 360 degree assessment of the lunar landing site.  This was not done on Apollo 16 and 17.  Any reason why?  It seemed like a pretty valuable thing to do...
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: dwmzmm on 01/20/2008 01:31 PM
Quote
APG85 - 20/1/2008  8:19 AM

On Apollo 15 Dave Scott performed a Stand-up EVA from the top docking hatch of the LM and did a 360 degree assessment of the lunar landing site.  This was not done on Apollo 16 and 17.  Any reason why?  It seemed like a pretty valuable thing to do...

I recall reading that Deke Slayton was dead set against this EVA, but was over ruled.  I agree
it seems like a valuable thing to do; I always like to listen to David Scott's commentary piece
on the Apollo - 15 NASA presentation.  David's excitement and enthusiasm is very obvious in his
voice and inflection...
Title: RE: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Jorge on 01/20/2008 04:47 PM
Quote
Sid454 - 19/1/2008  12:19 PM

It probably would have fit even the apollo command module was able to fit in there but the shuttle was at a very early stage also I think the lem ascent stage was in a highly elliptical orbit  and the shuttle just doesn't have the delta V to get in such a orbit.
That lem upper stage had as much delta V as an xprize craft and they ran the engine until it ran out of fuel so I think the apogee was something like 8000km even though the perigee skimmed the atmopshere
Plus you have the risk of leaking fuel and batteries contaminating a new spacecraft .
Lastly I don't think the shuttle eva suits were even ready at the time.

The LM was not equipped with a shuttle RMS grapple fixture, so the initial EVA to install it would, by necessity, be untethered. Even if the EMU could have been made ready by then, the MMU definitely could not have.

Based on a quick look at my drawings, the only way the LM ascent stage could have fit in the orbiter payload bay would have been sideways, and even then it is likely that the rendezvous radar and the high-gain S-band antenna would need to be removed first.

The shuttle's onboard rendezvous navigation and targeting software were not ready by then (they were only barely ready for the IRT demonstration on 41B). All the rendezvous burns would have needed to be ground-targeted based on ground-navigated state vectors. This is fine for the early burns but not fine enough for the later midcourse corrections; the manual phase would have been, shall we say, "sporty".
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: TJL on 01/25/2008 07:24 PM
During the Apollo 9 EVA's...Schweickart from LM and Scott from CM, was the hatch between the 2 spacecraft opened or closed?
Thank you.
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/25/2008 08:06 PM
Quote
Jim - 19/1/2008  12:40 PM
The more likely configuration would have been a 260 inch single solid as the first stage
Given the concerns about Ares flying on a single solid & combustion resonance issues, I wonder how bad they would ahve been on a 260" solid?

One imagines them to be pretty brutal.

Paul
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: APG85 on 01/25/2008 11:17 PM
Speaking of Apollo 9 EVA's, what was up with the red helmets?
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/27/2008 02:58 AM
For the latter cargo lunar lander, would a manned cm have been needed in lunar orbit, or could it have landed without any extra mechanisms than the lander itself.
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: rsp1202 on 01/28/2008 08:48 PM
Quote
During the Apollo 9 EVA's...Schweickart from LM and Scott from CM, was the hatch between the 2 spacecraft opened or closed?

From Astronautix.com:
"McDivitt followed Schweickart into the lunar module an hour later. Within a brief time, a television camera had been unstowed and their activities were being beamed to the earth. Then they shut themselves off from Scott by closing their hatch while he was sealing himself off from Spider."
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: rsp1202 on 01/28/2008 08:56 PM
Quote
On Apollo 15 Dave Scott performed a Stand-up EVA from the top docking hatch of the LM and did a 360 degree assessment of the lunar landing site.  This was not done on Apollo 16 and 17.  Any reason why?

Stand-up was pushed by head geologist Lee Silver for A15, the first real science mission. Probably the multiple EVAs on following missions precluded any real need for this extra one, plus it used up consumables.
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: rsp1202 on 01/28/2008 08:59 PM
Quote
Speaking of Apollo 9 EVA's, what was up with the red helmets?

http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000179.html
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: grakenverb on 02/19/2008 12:03 AM
Regarding the Apollo 10 LM ascent module "Snoopy" being in heliocentric orbit: Why?  Is it still being tracked? Does it ever approach Earth?
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: rsp1202 on 02/19/2008 01:41 PM
Talked about here:
http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000850.html
About halfway down the page.
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Andy_Small on 03/29/2008 03:41 PM
does anyone know of a picture or a diagram of the Rover in it's stowed config on the LM?

Thanks in Advance
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: nacnud on 03/29/2008 05:22 PM
The thrust of the first stage of Saturn 1B is roughly equivalent to that of an F1 engine. Was there ever a study done looking at redesigning it for a F1 or F1A?
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/29/2008 06:28 PM
Quote
Andy_Small - 29/3/2008  9:41 AM

does anyone know of a picture or a diagram of the Rover in it's stowed config on the LM?

Thanks in Advance

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-3.html
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovinstalls.jpg
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_15/hskap15rovchkscott.jpg
http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/lrve.htm
Title: Re: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Rusty_Barton on 04/01/2008 09:01 PM
Here are two interesting Apollo documents just posted on the NASA NTRS server:

Apollo Post retrieval Procedures for NASA Recovery Team - Aug 5, 1970
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750066911_1975066911.pdf

S-1C stage vertical internal access equipment technical manual: Installation information - Sep 15, 1972
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730062821_1973062821.pdf
Title: RE: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Takalok on 04/02/2008 02:24 AM
Quote
APG85 - 19/1/2008  10:11 AM

The Lunar Module ascent stage from Apollo 9 (Spider) decayed from orbit on 23 October 1981 and re-entered the atmosphere. Out of curiosity, could the Shuttle have retrieved it (money/purpose set aside)?  Is the cargo bay deep enough to hold the ascent stage?

The shuttle cargo bay is 15 ft 60 ft.

The LEM ascent stage is 13.78 ft in diameter by 12.34 ft in height.  

The weight (fully fueled) is about 1/5 of the shuttles payload capacity of 55,000 pounds.

The answer it would seem is, "Yes."  The asenct stage would fit, and it would not be too heavy.  

Now since the Apollo 10 LEM is still cruising around the sun out there, all you have to do is figure a way to retrieve it to LEO, and then get it in a shuttle (of course, before the year 2010).  

Hey, "It's not a miracle, we just decided to do it."   ;)
Title: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: Takalok on 04/02/2008 02:41 AM
Quote
DaveJ576 - 19/1/2008  11:00 AM

Assuming we had continued with a robust Apollo/Saturn flight program through the 1970's (i.e. an expanded Skylab program) how likely would it have been that Saturn 1B production would have ceased and we would have gone to the so-called Saturn II vehicle? That is the S-II/S-IVB combo with modified J-2's, boosted by UA1205 or UA1207 solids.

The info I have read on this booster sounds very interesting and the case for going to this Saturn mod seems to make sense.

Even today, IMHO, the first stage, S-1C, makes sense.  But it is politically untennable.

However, to answer your question, "Yes, the S1B was history."  All future versions of the Saturn, according to Final Report - Studies of Improved Saturn V Vehicles and Intermediate Payload Vehicles were based on the S-1C stage.  Some versions had only three F-1 engines.  There was quite a range of configurations and payloads.

Here's a web page here with all kinds of cool configurations:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturnv.htm
Title: Re: LC-39 Pad B Used Only Once For Apollo
Post by: gordo on 09/11/2008 06:59 PM
Any News on the Lost Apollo Data tapes search that started a few years back?
Title: Re: RE: Apollo 9 Ascent Stage - Could it have been recovered?
Post by: Jim on 09/11/2008 07:18 PM
Quote
APG85 - 19/1/2008  10:11 AM

The Lunar Module ascent stage from Apollo 9 (Spider) decayed from orbit on 23 October 1981 and re-entered the atmosphere. Out of curiosity, could the Shuttle have retrieved it (money/purpose set aside)?  Is the cargo bay deep enough to hold the ascent stage?

The shuttle cargo bay is 15 ft 60 ft.

The LEM ascent stage is 13.78 ft in diameter by 12.34 ft in height. 

The weight (fully fueled) is about 1/5 of the shuttles payload capacity of 55,000 pounds.

The answer it would seem is, "Yes."  The asenct stage would fit, and it would not be too heavy. 


Down mass is not the same as up mass

Also the dimensions ignore the need for a cradle/support structure

Additionally, the LM structure might not be able to take the landing loads

And finally, the idea ignores the actual condition of the propulsion system that has high pressure gases and hypergols
Title: Re: RE: Apollo Q&A
Post by: iamlucky13 on 09/12/2008 07:37 PM
Quote
Jim - 19/1/2008  2:25 PM

Should we start one of these?

Yep indeedy!

Do you think could you retitle this thread "Apollo/Saturn Q&A" then?

Now for my question inspired by a comparison someone made of the Ares 1 to the Saturn INT-21: Did the second stage for the Skylab launch perform a restart for a circularization burn, was it able to make the tight 434x442 km orbit in a single burn, or was the perigee raised by Apollo CSM's during the manned visits?