| Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Apollo service module question... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| hallerb at (no spam) aol.com... |
 Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob haller... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 4:55�pm, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote:67cb4c13ca]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?
[/quote:67cb4c13ca]
I am really curious about this.
As the general idea could be used for the next generation of moon
landings |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob haller... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 18, 6:34�am, dere... at (no spam) cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
[quote:a9bbc9479d]*From:* bob haller <hall... at (no spam) aol.com
*Date:* Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 12, 4:55_pm, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> 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 -
[/quote:a9bbc9479d]
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dr.Colon Oscopy... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote:210c6b789c]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?
[/quote:210c6b789c]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:f4e49356b2]*From:* bob haller <hallerb at (no spam) aol.com
*Date:* Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 12, 4:55_pm, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> 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
[/quote:f4e49356b2]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
derek_c at (no spam) cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
[quote:503db4dcbb]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.
[/quote:503db4dcbb]
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 here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_Direct_Ascent.png
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr.Colon Oscopy wrote:
[quote:b02c2cfa2e]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
[/quote:b02c2cfa2e]
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 here:
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dr.Smith... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dr.Colon Oscopy" <dr.colon.oscopy at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9325085-c41c-446d-952b-5fa4a43d8d03 at (no spam) o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "hall... at (no spam) aol.com" <hall... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Another "fossil remnant" from an earlier design in the space program was the
grate style floors aboard SkyLab. These floors were designed when Skylab
was to be a "wet workshop" and did not change when Saturn V availability
enabled it to be a fully equipped "dry workshop". Another earlier design
incorporated on Skylab, although nearly impossible to see, was the airlock
hatch, which was a Gemini capsule hatch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr.Smith wrote: Another earlier design
[quote:e6f8cb21e0]incorporated on Skylab, although nearly impossible to see, was the airlock
hatch, which was a Gemini capsule hatch.
[/quote:e6f8cb21e0]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:-tWdnfSef6dOMgDXnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone...
[quote:8dae45512f]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.
[/quote:8dae45512f]
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote:81be4a2319]"
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.
[/quote:81be4a2319]
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that aspect of the grid floor, but it
certainly would help with airflow. The airflow problem is one that
seldom gets mentioned in regards to microgravity. Theoretically, it
would be possible for you to suffocate in your sleep from the bubble of
exhaled CO2 surrounding you if there is no gas movement due to the lack
of the thermal upwelling of the cabin atmosphere, or the denser CO2
settling towards the floor.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jochem Huhmann... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> writes:
[quote:574497edb7]Jeff Findley wrote:
"
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.
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that aspect of the grid floor, but it
certainly would help with airflow. The airflow problem is one that
seldom gets mentioned in regards to microgravity. Theoretically, it
would be possible for you to suffocate in your sleep from the bubble of
exhaled CO2 surrounding you if there is no gas movement due to the lack
of the thermal upwelling of the cabin atmosphere, or the denser CO2
settling towards the floor.
[/quote:574497edb7]
Hmm, this poses the question if big open spaces like in Skylab are
better here than the cans on a string of ISS... In a large open space
you can probably get a good draft going with a quite simple setup,
while ISS needs lots of ducts to reach into every corner and module
(along with the noise air going through tight ducts tends to cause).
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jochem Huhmann" <joh at (no spam) gmx.net> wrote in message
news:m24orldtle.fsf at (no spam) revier.com...
[quote:29ff6819d6]Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> writes:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"
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.
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that aspect of the grid floor, but it
certainly would help with airflow. The airflow problem is one that
seldom gets mentioned in regards to microgravity. Theoretically, it
would be possible for you to suffocate in your sleep from the bubble of
exhaled CO2 surrounding you if there is no gas movement due to the lack
of the thermal upwelling of the cabin atmosphere, or the denser CO2
settling towards the floor.
Hmm, this poses the question if big open spaces like in Skylab are
better here than the cans on a string of ISS... In a large open space
you can probably get a good draft going with a quite simple setup,
while ISS needs lots of ducts to reach into every corner and module
(along with the noise air going through tight ducts tends to cause).
To a certain extent, probably.[/quote:29ff6819d6]
One result other thing they've learned (I read it was a result of the Mir
decompression) is you're better off having hatches OPEN if a decompression
event occurs, until it can be located and isolated. Since basically it
gives the person more time to evacuate the module since there is a lot more
volume for the leak to draw from.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jochem Huhmann... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> writes:
[quote:cf18d1ea7c]One result other thing they've learned (I read it was a result of the Mir
decompression) is you're better off having hatches OPEN if a decompression
event occurs, until it can be located and isolated. Since basically it
gives the person more time to evacuate the module since there is a lot more
volume for the leak to draw from.
[/quote:cf18d1ea7c]
I think this depends on which module is leaking. There's probably not
much doubt about keeping rarely used modules (garbage cans) sealed most
of the time. And surviving in a sealed module with no access to the
lifeboat or spacesuits buys you not much. In a rather large station with
lots of modules (like ISS) it's probably the wisest thing to keep only
those hatches closed that lead to very rarely used modules (which would
reduce the risk of overall decompression by a fixed amount if the risk
of getting leaky is the same in all modules).
Even then a station with large open spaces is probably better, because
ways are much shorter and you probably could easier locate the leak or
at least dash to the lifeboat in a matter of seconds. You get less inner
surface area though, so that you would end up with all walls covered
with racks and stuff and no way to fix the leak (if this an option at
all, but I think that a small hole in a bare wall could probably easily
be fixed even with a patch of duct tape, one atmosphere is not *that*
much). Large modules with a central column and bare walls are probably
the best here.
I do not care much for Ares I, but Ares V with 10 m payload diameter and
188 tonnes would allow to build some sensible space station ;-)
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Derek Lyons... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote:
[quote:ef05fcfa99]One result other thing they've learned (I read it was a result of the Mir
decompression) is you're better off having hatches OPEN if a decompression
event occurs, until it can be located and isolated. Since basically it
gives the person more time to evacuate the module since there is a lot more
volume for the leak to draw from.
[/quote:ef05fcfa99]
We kept the hatches open because it prevented pressure differentials
from building up and made atmosphere circulation easier.
One of the first actions in the event of a casualty however was to
shut them on the latch.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
