Register here

Author Topic: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been  (Read 50800 times)

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« on: February 26, 2008, 05:40:56 am »
In case you asked yourself what the hell was the GD/Astro Apollo proposal, it is the Design IV in the drawing. Design III is Martin's.
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3622
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2008, 09:48:23 am »
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?

YES !

i look for the moment my data for another Solid Nova Consept
I love Strange Technology

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 924
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2008, 11:00:07 am »
Ditto to the highly detailed please!
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3158
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2008, 11:04:53 am »
please ::)

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2008, 01:34:02 pm »

  yes please!!,

cheers,
        Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1566
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2008, 12:09:57 am »

  yes please!!,

cheers,
        Robin.

Yes ye yes please!!
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2008, 01:32:50 am »
Ok, I'll start a new thread, give me some time, I have to assemble things. As for the danger posed by all-solids booster, I doubt that a choke of powder grain could have provoked an all-booster explosion. Liquids, expecially involving hydrogen, are more dangerous. Anyway, the real danger is to the crew. NASA run a score of studies of effects of explosions on the launch pad by large boosters, and Apollo in particular was object of at least three studies. In the Apollo specifications there was a provision for a strong structural resistance to a launch pad explosion. The research in big solids was in part driven by safety consideration (and cost, and logistics).

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1459
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2008, 02:24:39 am »
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?

Definitely YES!!!!!

Please...please......

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3622
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2008, 10:59:04 am »
i found this on Flickr Blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22948295@N02/2217192111/

Quote
On July 25, 1962, NASA invited 11 firms to submit proposals for the LEM. Of the 11 invited, 9 submitted proposals. The firms that submitted proposals were Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Ling-Temco-Vought, Grumman, Douglas, General Dynamics Convair, Republic, and Martin Marietta. Grumman won.

Convair's proposed vehicle featured a single throttleable main engine backed by two standby thrust chambers. It was to be a partially staged configuration with a side-by-side crew arrangement and a probe-drogue docking mechanism. The lower structure held the descent tankage, which was to be depressurized 15 seconds prior to touchdown. The depressurized tankage, along with the crushable vehicle skirt, were to offer a back-up to the landing system in the event of a landing accident.
The engines were protected against landing damage through use of a crushable main engine nozzle skirt and the placement of the standby engines above the descent tankage. The reaction control thrusters were mounted on hinged arms, which folded 120 degrees to allow the vehicle to be stowed in the SIVB stage of the Saturn V rocket.
The concept was derived from studies of the probability of successful abort and complete mission success. Although the studies indicated that a multiple engine, two-stage vehicle had higher safety characteristics at higher levels of landing damage, Convair chose the stage and a half configuration due to the lower weight requirement.

Docking was to have been achieved by a probe and drogue mechanism. The method was to allow the crew to take advantage of good visibility and not have to change positions. Controls, displays and cues would not change during docking. Once the probe was aligned with the drogue, it would be locked in place, and the LEM rotated 90 degrees for final mating and crew transfer.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2008, 04:02:47 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2008, 07:40:32 pm »
Great find.

Offline starviking

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 831
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2008, 11:55:20 pm »
I think we need an official forum invite for that chap!

Starviking

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2008, 01:24:15 am »
Invite, invite !

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3622
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2008, 03:55:00 am »
we need that guy in this forum !

here Republic Apollo LEM proposal
This model is owned by the Cradle of Aviation Museum in Long Island NY.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22948295@N02/2222792091/in/photostream/


by the way i chance Name of Topic into "Lunar Excursion Module Proposal"
« Last Edit: February 28, 2008, 04:03:45 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2008, 05:42:10 am »
This was the final Lockheed proposal, CL-625-1. BTW, this was the SECOND lunar lander competition, there was one before for the direct ascent or Earth-orbit rendezvous method.
Inboard profile from Bill Slayton via Scott Lowther. 

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2008, 06:41:12 am »
This the final internal NASA LEM concept for the July 24th 1962 Lunar Excursion Model Statement of Work.