One-and-a-half-launch architecture considered for Apollo?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
Does anyone know if NASA considered using the Saturn IB to launch the (crewed) CSM seperately with a Saturn V delivering only the LM and the S-IVB to orbit?
 
L

larper

Guest
I don't think it was ever proposed for the first missions, but it certainly would have made sense if we had kept the Saturn architecture and had wanted to deliver more mass to the moon, say like a reusable hab module. It would have made tremendous sense. Certainly would have made building a moon base very simple by basing off of the previous system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Exactly. I think it would have been a great way to deliver more mass to the lunar surface. The S-IVB might have had to be modified though because of boil-off problems...
 
L

larper

Guest
Well, you are going to have to modify the S-IVB to carry more fuel and last all of the way to the moon, aren't you? You will need a bigger LOI engine, and it might as well be the S-IVB, extended for 3 burns, not 2.<br /><br />And, if it can do that, it might as well be your ETO engine as well, meaning that the SM is not really needed, right? So the S-IVB needs to loft only the CM. <br /><br />Eventually, you might be able to come up with a system where the IVB is extremely long-lived, capable of say, 20 LTO-LOI-ETO-EOI sequences. Could the S-I loft the CM and a refueler for the S-IVB? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
"That design is tested, tried, and true. We'd have to start from scratch when in reality if we swaped out the old stuff and replaced it with up to date stuff, it would lift even more into orbit." <br /><br />Which is sort of what NASA is proposing, eh? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Earth orbit rendezvous was a strong candidate for Apollo, along with direct ascent. The method finally chosen, Lunar Orbit rendezvous was something of a dark horse. There were a range of EOR proposals, all leading up to assembly a large spacecraft capable of returning directly from the moon.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
LOR really only won because of the schedule pressure. It turned out to be more expedient. Much of the Apollo program was born of expedience. That's not neccesarily a bad thing; the schedule constraint inspired some truly remarkable creativity. But it did force some compromises which may not be ideal for a more methodical approach. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
LOR is also a lot more efficient than DA or EOR because the fuel for the return does not need to lugged down to the surface of the Moon. This was its greatest attraction.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts