Register here

Author Topic: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been  (Read 47425 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: 3528
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: 923
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: 3145
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: 1608
  • 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: 1553
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: 1457
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: 3528
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: 615
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: 818
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: 3528
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.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6721
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2008, 01:13:07 pm »
Quote
Enough talk!

Yeear bring them on !

Design 1 General Electric Capsul
Design 2 ??
Design 3 Martin W-1
Desing 4 Convair M-1

Apollo 1 pic NASA Study ?
GE Apollo 04 that new to me General Electric goes Lifting body ???
Image23      Project Horizon lander and return capsul
Martin Design W-1
Refuel1        EOR study for Direct landing

I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2008, 02:20:10 am »
I was asking myself what Scott was doing..  :D
But, for "highly detailed" I mean more something like this....
General Dynamics/Convair Astro baseline proposal.
I'll start a new topic of that, please post to the new thread. If moderators would want to disentangle things, appreciated  ;)

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2008, 07:50:54 am »
Continuing with the GD proposal, the least known, in my opinion.
These are growth version of the baseline design. First is an alternate configurations of the control flaps of the reentry vehicle, more aerodynamic in ascent phase; second is reentry vehicle with paraglider option; third is Apollo-to-Apollo rendezvous method, with (fourth) detail of the extensible airlock. Next post on lunar lander concepts (four, one preferred).

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2008, 08:20:28 am »
These are the GD lunar lander version of Apollo (which, remember, originally was an Earth-orbit or circumlunar vehicle).
First is the preferred configuration using the baseline main vehicle; second is lander on the Moon with egress method for astronauts; third is lander taking-off; forurt are the four alternate configurations studied, the one chosen is I.

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #20 on: February 29, 2008, 08:39:08 am »
SUPERCOOL Scott!!!!!!

And thank Skybolt too.

I've really appreciated your contribution....  :D

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2008, 09:23:49 am »
Wait, we are only starting up....
GD Apollo advanced configurations, first batch, with six-place M-2 reentry vehicle.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2008, 09:46:06 am »
Last of the GD advanced configuration. A six-place M-3 reentry vehicle with foldable wings.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2008, 09:51:01 am by Skybolt »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2008, 12:34:51 am »
i love this forum dynamic 
befor you know thead is rebulid  ;D

back to Apollo
wat is with Boeing, Repulic, Lookheed, Goodyear, Vought Corporation, Grumman, Douglas proposal ?

McDonnell Aircraft Corporation had two proposals
one
direct landing with Gemini
two
direct landing with 2 (men apollo like) capsul

source
Report no. 9182 from 31 october 1962
Direct Flight  Apollo Study
Volume  I: Two Man Apollo Spacecraft
Volume II: Gemini Spacecraft Applications

Briefing October 3, 1962



I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2008, 01:26:56 pm »
Yep, but TRW had another proposal to use a modified NAA Apollo to land on the Moon using a direct ascent method with a Saturn C-5. And NAA too studied a two-man direct-ascent reduced-weight proposal. Let me dig them up (I have the McDonnel studies too).

Offline fredgell

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2008, 12:59:13 am »
I always remember a little joke that was going around at this time.
Along the lines of-

A proud astronaut standing in front of Apollo -

Its a great honour and I'm supremely confident...
knowing that this has been built by the company that put in the cheapest bid....


Of course the truth is - it did work.


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2008, 03:53:24 am »
here Langley LEM from year 1963

I love Strange Technology

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2008, 07:43:01 am »
found this links to Apollo PDF

General Electric Apollo

GE PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT VOLUME II. SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730065795_1973065795.pdf

GE PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT VOLUME VI.
AERODYNAMICS, CONFIGURATIONS, HEATING, STRUCTURES, AND MATERIALS
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064728_1973064728.pdf

PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT VOLUME IX. APOLLOPROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073801_1974073801.pdf

GE PROJECT APOLLO DATA BOOK VOLUME II
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073595_1974073595.pdf

GE PROJECT APOLLO DATA BOOK VOLUME II
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073599_1974073599.pdf
GE PROJECT APOLLO DATA BOOK VOLUME III
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072452_1974072452.pdf

General Dynamic
GD PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT Volume IV GROWTH AND ADVANC ED CONC EPTS
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076966_1979076966.pdf
GD PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT VOLUME V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073799_1974073799.pdf

Martin
PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT Configuration
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750064557_1975064557.pdf
PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT Guidunce and Control II
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073598_1974073598.pdf
PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT Structures Materials II
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072482_1974072482.pdf

I love Strange Technology

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 923
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2008, 01:56:10 pm »
Lunar Logistics vehicle and a Boeing Lunar Rover.



"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 923
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2008, 12:12:45 am »
Martin I believe...

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7882
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2008, 12:58:19 pm »
Martin Nova Direct Flight Rocket Lunar Lander Model
already $571 at eBay
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2008, 01:48:10 pm »
a zilion thanks from my side

(its first time i see the Martin Lunar Direct proposal)
I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2009, 05:42:57 pm »
A few more.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2009, 05:43:28 pm »
GE's proposals.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2009, 10:29:02 am »
It has appeared on NTRS the second part of the McD (not NAA) study of Apollo Direct Flight configuration (includes Lunar Gemini Direct....)  with DETAILED drawings, like the one attached , here: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19740076556

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2009, 09:17:24 am »
Now on NTRS: very detailed drawings of configuration studies of the GE proposal. High quality scanning, at long last..  ::)
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19730065791

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2009, 10:10:18 am »
ahh wounderfull picture
THX skybolt
I love Strange Technology

Offline pesholito

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2009, 10:44:00 am »
A few more.
Hi,
is there a pdf for the Convair Apollo contender?
Regards!

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2009, 11:12:06 am »
Sure. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3791.msg31502.html#msg31502 . Just take a tour of previous posts, this Forum works in a cumulative way. Topics are always refreshed.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2009, 10:14:12 pm »
Some interesting Apollo and post-Apollo concepts

http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2271
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2009, 12:42:09 am »
Great find, thanx !

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2009, 04:21:17 pm »
That's a really nice compilation.  I was going to complain about the lack of citations for all the data until I scrolled down to the bottom.  It's very extensive.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #42 on: July 01, 2009, 10:54:42 pm »
That's a really nice compilation.  I was going to complain about the lack of citations for all the data until I scrolled down to the bottom.  It's very extensive.

...I posted the link to this several years ago to sci.space.history. It's essentially a support, research and inspiration page for those designing addons for Orbiter. The real surprises at the time was that they actually cited sources, and it wasn't just ripped off en masse from Mark Wade's site.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2009, 01:12:37 pm »
Good job on it!

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #44 on: August 27, 2009, 06:59:43 pm »
Model of early design of Grumman Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361-2.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2009, 07:11:59 pm »
Model of early design of Grumman Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000361-2.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2010, 06:24:58 pm »
Model of Grumman Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) by Precision found on eBay.

URL: http://cgi.ebay.com/Grumman-Aerospace-Lunar-Module-desk-model-Topping_W0QQitemZ170534053391QQcategoryZ86954QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m8QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DMW%26its%3DC%26itu%3DUCC%26otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D6003865150509665223


Description:
Quote
This is a Grumman Model Lunar Module by Precision. The base is made of Plexi and I believe this to be a pre-flight model as evidenced by the markings on the base. The base is about 10 inches across and the model sits about 7 inches high.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 06:27:30 pm by Triton »

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 967
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2011, 05:05:51 pm »
Dear Boys and Girls, here is an article in French about post-Mercury "projects", illustrated by an artist's impression of a Martin Apollo space vehicle with petal-type solar panels......

The article comes from the 3rd February 1961 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2011, 07:05:29 pm »
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 12:19:55 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2011, 01:48:46 pm »
Model of early Grumman LEM concept on display at The Museum of Flight in Seattle.

Source:
http://www.freewebs.com/aeroscale/mof.htm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7882
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2011, 09:52:47 am »
anyone, any more info on that?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2011, 01:05:58 pm »
anyone, any more info on that?

you got a source on that, eric ?

like the name on Picture say it a LEM
could be proposal from Boeing, Douglas, Northrop, Ling-Temco-Vought or Martin Marietta
 
I love Strange Technology

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7882
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2011, 03:14:44 pm »
you got a source on that, eric ?
Igor Afanasyev of Novosti Kosmonavtiki (www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru) sent me this image labeled 'Chance Vought LM 1962' asking if any further info available.
watermark at top left corner says 'Astronautics Division'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2011, 12:24:51 am »
you got a source on that, eric ?
Igor Afanasyev of Novosti Kosmonavtiki (www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru) sent me this image labeled 'Chance Vought LM 1962' asking if any further info available.
watermark at top left corner says 'Astronautics Division'

Mmmmm... really interesting!!
Never seen something like that before.... ::)

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2011, 02:21:08 am »
"APOLLO RENDEZVOUS SIMULATOR STUDY" the name of that report from CHANCE VOUGHT CORPORATION to NASA in 1962. One more illustration from that report.

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 923
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2011, 03:58:55 am »
2 more...
 
 
"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2011, 04:44:36 am »
That's really interesting. It looks like they only used a single engine, with the descent stage essentially consisting of landing legs and fuel tanks that would be dropped on the surface and the same engine used for descent and ascent.

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2011, 04:47:47 am »
That's really interesting. It looks like they only used a single engine, with the descent stage essentially consisting of landing legs and fuel tanks that would be dropped on the surface and the same engine used for descent and ascent.

The same arrangement forseen for the Russian LK lander.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2011, 08:03:25 am »
I love this Forum  ;D

BIG THX to Igor B and Barrington Bond for the Picture

by the way, got some one pictures of LEM proposals of Boeing, Douglas, Northrop and Martin Marietta ?
I love Strange Technology


Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2011, 02:07:00 am »
MARTIN MARIETTA.
 
I have one report prepared MARTIN MARIETTA for NASA in November 1962. There are two drawing: LOR configuration and DF configuration:
 
 
 
 
 

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2011, 11:04:35 am »
THX again, Igor Bezyaev

DF stand for Direct Flight
lucky they not take decision to use that
imagine Niel Armstrong down-climbing this Martin design in cumbering A7L space suit...
I love Strange Technology

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2011, 10:23:19 am »
Today I try to imagine Niel Armstrong down-climbing this Martin design in cumbering A7L space suit ... and there is result of it. Not so exactly, but somehow like that  :) :

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2011, 10:51:22 am »
one moment, you are "that" Igor Bezyaev !
http://spaceart1.ning.com/profile/IgorBezyaev

I love Strange Technology

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2011, 10:59:26 pm »
Yes, I am "that" Igor Bezyaev and some my illustrations accessible on the my page in International Space Art Network by the link:
 
http://spaceart1.ning.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=29mezxzv5np3a
 
Many thanks to Nick Stevens for that site!
 
Concerning concept of Boeing LEM I have only data from "The Lunar Exploration Scrapbook". Many thanks to Robert Godwin for that book and I hope he will not complain to me if I show one illustration from that book here. So the concept of Boeing LEM below. If somebody have the drawings or technical description of that concept, please, help me. I have plan to make space scene with that concept.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2011, 10:18:55 am »
Today I try to imagine Niel Armstrong down-climbing this Martin design in cumbering A7L space suit ... and there is result of it.

I work with him. A week ago he was showing us a video of his landing.

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2011, 09:04:29 am »
Do you work with Niel Armstrong? You are lucky man! When I was the schoolboy, I dreamt to be the cosmonaut as well as many boys at that time. I envy to Armstrong and all other astronauts who went on the Moon (white envy, not black!). I regret that I cannot to handshake with him.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2011, 10:14:33 am »
Yes, I do. But it's aviation-related, not space. He is very interested in aircraft engineering and refers to his time as an astronaut as "the dark side." So it was a treat to hear him talk about space.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 05:47:59 pm by blackstar »

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2011, 05:31:42 am »
I understood one more of the reason why NASA rejected Direct Flight. Look at the situation presented on the illustration below. Who will be the first? Smile  ;) !

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7188
  • _ \\ //
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2011, 05:44:21 am »
 ;D
To the Stars

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2011, 06:03:53 am »
I understood one more of the reason why NASA rejected Direct Flight. Look at the situation presented on the illustration below. Who will be the first?

Well, the Russians got a very late start to all of this. The timelines don't match. But I agree that a smaller spacecraft is easier to build than a big one.

But there is a well-known quote from one of the Apollo books where an Apollo official (I forget who) asked the question "Can you imagine trying to back an Atlas down onto the launch pad?" Try imagine steering something that tall as you bring it in for a landing. Probably impossible. The center of gravity would be very high, and it would be moving as the vehicle burned propellant.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 07:18:47 am by blackstar »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2011, 09:56:31 am »
I understood one more of the reason why NASA rejected Direct Flight. Look at the situation presented on the illustration below. Who will be the first? Smile  ;) !


I love Strange Technology

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2011, 11:43:21 am »
Mr. Michel Van! Thank you very much for your phrase “imagine Niel Armstrong down-climbing this Martin design in cumbering A7L space suit...”! It is help me to develop of series of illustrations. I cannot stop. It means the illustration above is not last! There is question: “Who will be first on the Moon?” Everybody! Please, consider about that question and prepare the answer. The day after tomorrow I will show the true answer and everybody can check it!  ;)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 09:17:42 pm by Igor Bezyaev »

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2011, 12:30:49 am »
I update illustration.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 05:31:52 am by Igor Bezyaev »

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2011, 05:45:58 am »
I am ready to explain who will first. Please look at picture. Smile!

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #75 on: September 13, 2011, 06:38:06 am »
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the space,
Britons never will be the last, thanks to the BIS.

When Britain first at Heav’n’s command
Arose from out the azure main;
Arose, arose, arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain;

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the space,
Britons never will be the last, thanks to the BIS...

sung by crew of BIS Lander "Francis Drake" as they put the Union Jack on moon  ;D
I love Strange Technology

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2011, 07:44:32 am »
Really nice illustration, bravo!!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2011, 11:49:06 pm »


 ;D
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2011, 11:54:40 pm »
Yes, I also thought about  :D

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #79 on: September 19, 2011, 08:57:23 pm »
Today I try to imagine Niel Armstrong down-climbing this Martin design in cumbering A7L space suit ...

...Actually, the fun thing to imagine would be Pete Conrad trying to climb down from such a spacecraft. I'd pseudoquote him verbatim, but as Pete was a "master of the colorful metaphor", were I to do so Dwayne's head would explode  :P :P :P :P

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #80 on: November 12, 2011, 07:13:26 am »
The San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) Archives has just uploaded (looks like SDASM deleted the original Convair/GD LEM photos and reposted them in May 2012 - accordingly, the links & photos below have been corrected) their latest series of photos at their Flickr Commons photostream (link).  Among the photos posted are almost 30 photos of the Convair/General Dynamics Lunar Excursion Module proposal in mock-up and model form.  Here's a link that should bring up all of them through tags (LINK - Convair/General Dynamics Lunar Excursion Module proposal photos).  Aside from the lunar module (LM) photos, there are a bunch of other gems posted in this latest batch, including test photos, drawings, etc., of Saturn I first-stage models equipped with a Rogallo Wing (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3) as a booster recovery system.


Here are a couple examples of the LEM mock-up photos (much larger resolution versions are available at the links/photostream).


Convair Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)


Convair Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 05:46:27 am by Boxman »

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #81 on: November 12, 2011, 07:32:05 am »
SUPER! Thank you BOXMAN!  :D 

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #82 on: November 12, 2011, 01:20:41 pm »
OMG
Thanks Boxman  B)
I love Strange Technology

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2011, 07:00:30 pm »
...Yeah, but you know what? For some reason, I still love the LM design we wound up with.



 ;D ;D ;D

[ahem]

...That being said, Pat Flannery would have loved this one from the same Flicker pool:


 
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 07:53:13 pm by OM »

Offline Bill S

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #84 on: November 22, 2011, 09:29:18 am »
McDonnell/Chance Vought/Hughes/Lockheed all worked together on an Apollo proposal

Here are a few images of that proposal from the Vought Heritage Archives.

Enjoy!

bill


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #85 on: November 22, 2011, 01:35:28 pm »
THX for picture Bill S
what intrigue find
I love Strange Technology

Offline Bill S

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #86 on: November 22, 2011, 06:50:55 pm »
I had a couple of requests for this document.

Here is a pdf of the report that the drawings came from.
I had to break it into two pieces to fit the posting limits.

From the Vought Heritage Archives.

Report 8398 Summary Apollo Spacecraft Proposal

bill

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8954
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 11:08:19 am by Triton »

Offline Igor Bezyaev

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2012, 10:44:16 am »
The interesting concept. Somebody knows history of it ore have othe drawing?

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2012, 01:38:47 pm »
The interesting concept. Somebody knows history of it ore have othe drawing?


Landing this craft and climbing it down and up, is a nightmare 


nice work, igor Bezyaev
I love Strange Technology

Offline aemann

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • This is Rocket Science
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #90 on: December 11, 2012, 12:32:25 pm »
If us Brits did get to the Moon first, it would surely have been in one of R.A. Smiths Moonships!


Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #91 on: December 11, 2012, 07:28:43 pm »
If us Brits did get to the Moon first, it would surely have been in one of R.A. Smiths Moonships!


...Reminiscent of this image from You Will Go To The Moon:





...Note to future generations: when someone asks what a "dream deferred" means, it'll be what this book promised for my generation, and not some poem by Langston Hughes.  >:( :-\ :'(





The interesting concept. Somebody knows history of it ore have othe drawing?


...I find the "fire in the hole" style of adapter between the descent and ascent stages rather interesting. More of a weight savings issue as opposed to exhaust buildup concerns?



I had a couple of requests for this document.

Here is a pdf of the report that the drawings came from.
I had to break it into two pieces to fit the posting limits.

From the Vought Heritage Archives.

Report 8398 Summary Apollo Spacecraft Proposal

bill


...Bill, it's a year late, but accept a bit of belated thanks for posting these documents. Thanks to this thread being bumped up, I just now came across it. Well done, sir!


Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #93 on: December 14, 2012, 12:35:20 pm »
Unidentified Three Man direct landing Apollo found in an early mission simulation report published by Martin in 1962, which was early enough to simulate both the Direct and Lunar Orbital Rendezvous methods of carrying out the lunar mission.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630000908_1963000908.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640019292_1964019292.pdf





« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 03:46:21 pm by Graham1973 »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #94 on: December 14, 2012, 01:45:21 pm »
i just wonder
could this be Marin final version of Apollo, they proposed to NASA and won the advertised bidding ?
until NASA announce "sorry wrong company, we take North America Aviation.."
I love Strange Technology

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #95 on: December 15, 2012, 06:36:21 am »
i just wonder
could this be Marin final version of Apollo, they proposed to NASA and won the advertised bidding ?
until NASA announce "sorry wrong company, we take North America Aviation.."

I don't think so, the simulated vehicle looks like the North American version of Apollo.  The simulated launch vehicle was a Nova design not too different from the Saturn C-8 (8 F-1, 8 J-2, 2 J-2).

I've located a further document related to the simulated mission which included a second crew photograph, and closeups of the Commander/Navigators section of the control panel. From the looks of the reports these may have been the first attempts to simulate the Apollo missions.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630003009_1963003009.pdf
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 06:09:57 pm by Graham1973 »

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #96 on: December 15, 2012, 11:09:38 pm »
...Do we have any IDs on who made up these two sim crews? Might be worth tracking down whoever's still alive to see what sort of insight they can add to their participation.

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #97 on: December 15, 2012, 11:23:19 pm »
...Do we have any IDs on who made up these two sim crews? Might be worth tracking down whoever's still alive to see what sort of insight they can add to their participation.

Not in the documents I've located.

From the introduction to report 19630000908:

Quote
Many individuals contributed to the successful completion of the program, and we Wish to acknowledge their assistance. The cooperation and contributions of the four NASA crew members...

From the Crew Description included in the same report:

Quote
Four crew members were assigned by NASA to participate in the present study. Since only three crew members were required for each flight, the fourth crew member served as capsule communicator with other resident NASA personnel. The four crew members provided by NASA were all experimental test pilots with extensive flight experience and each held a degree in engineering. The pilots had an average of 4500 hours of reciprocating and jet engine time. Further, they had flown an average of 40 different types of aircraft, had extensive analog simulation experience, had participated in centrifuge tests, etc.

The age range was between 31 and 38 years of age with two pilots being at each end of this age distribution. All the crew members were of good health and had no known disabilities. In succeeding chapters of this report, the pilots will be designated as Pilot A, Pilot B, Pilot C and Pilot D. However, Pilot D participated only as an observer in one of the flights and therefore, his performance will not be reported.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #98 on: December 16, 2012, 05:38:28 pm »
Quote
The age range was between 31 and 38 years of age with two pilots being at each end of this age distribution. All the crew members were of good health and had no known disabilities. In succeeding chapters of this report, the pilots will be designated as Pilot A, Pilot B, Pilot C and Pilot D. However, Pilot D participated only as an observer in one of the flights and therefore, his performance will not be reported.


...Lessee, between 31 and 38, and this is just *barely* 1963 when the report was released. By 1963, we had the following potential candidates for Astronauts comprising the Corps. Note that you will see a bit of overlapping between projects:


MISS Group One - 8/1/1958
==================

Neil A. Armstrong (NACA)
Bill Bridgeman (Douglas)
Scott Crossfield (NAA)
Iven Kincheloe (USAF)
John McKay (NACA)
Robert Rushworth (USAF)
Joe Walker (NACA)
Al White (NAA)
Bob White (USAF)




NASA Group One - 4/9/1959:
===============
Scott Carpenter
Gordo Cooper
John Glenn
Gus Grissom
Wally Schirra
Alan Shepard
Deke Slayton




X-15 Pilots - Starting with 1st flight in 1959:
============================

Scott Crossfield (NAA)
Joe Walker (NASA)
Bob White (USAF)
Forrest Petersen (USN)
John McKay (NASA)
Robert Rushworth (USAF)
Neil Armstrong (NASA)
Joe Engle (USAF)
Milt Thompson (NASA)
Pete Knight, (USAF)
Bill Dana (NASA)
Mike Adams (USAF)



NASA Group 1A - ?/?/1960:
==============
Jose Jimenez




Air Force Dyna-Soar Group 1 - 4/?/1960
=========================
Neil Armstrong (*)
Bill Dana (*)
Hank Gordon
Pete Knight
Russell Rogers
Milt Thompson (NASA)
Jim Wood


(*) Left program in 1962, still employed by NASA



NASA Group Two - 9/17/1962:
===============
Neil Armstrong
Frank Borman
Pete Conrad
Jim McDivitt
Jim Lovell
Elliott See
Tom Stafford
Ed White
John Young



Air Force Dyna-Soar Group 2 - 9/19/1962
==========================
Al Crews


...Again, this list only goes up to the end of 1962, as the report clearly states its date of issue as in early January of 1963. This list does *not*, however, include those test pilots who were assigned to/hired by NASA as Test Pilots and not Astronauts, as I simply was unable to find a concise list for those pilots during that period who might have been available to assist Martin with the sim testing. So, while these four test pilots may have been listed as "Astronauts" for PAO agitprop purposes, they in fact may not actually have been "real" Astronauts.


Note 1: Some of these pilots could be ruled out due to specific circumstances. I'd rule out Bill Bridgeman as by the time the Martin photo was shot, Bridgeman was already working for Grumman. Al White was Chief Test Pilot for the Valkyrie, while Bob White was transitioning from the X-15 program back to active duty in West Germany. Kinch, sadly, had been deceased since 1958.


Note 2: Mockup testing like this, even this early in the Apollo development phase, would have been handed over/down to the rookies, which would explain why the ones we see pictured don't exactly look familiar on first glance. Add to this the high probability that NASA and/or Martin used any test pilot they had who was low on the ziggurat and "volunteered" them to help out with the testing. Again, without a complete list of test pilots that NASA and/or Martin would have had on staff, unless documentation turns up identifying these guys will take a bit of detective work.


Note 3: On the other hand, on a fourth glance the pilot in Figure 6 who's closest to the camera sort of resembles John Young. If anyone here has contact with Young, might be a good point of contact to start with to see if he was in fact part of this testing, and if so can he identify the others who participated. I'd do it, but the only time I ever seem to get in touch with John Young is when I get called on during the Q&A of his welcoming speeches during JSCOH :) :) :OM:

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #99 on: December 17, 2012, 05:32:23 am »
Quote
The age range was between 31 and 38 years of age with two pilots being at each end of this age distribution. All the crew members were of good health and had no known disabilities. In succeeding chapters of this report, the pilots will be designated as Pilot A, Pilot B, Pilot C and Pilot D. However, Pilot D participated only as an observer in one of the flights and therefore, his performance will not be reported.


...Lessee, between 31 and 38, and this is just *barely* 1963 when the report was released.

The report was released in August 1962.

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #100 on: December 17, 2012, 11:20:28 am »
Quote
The age range was between 31 and 38 years of age with two pilots being at each end of this age distribution. All the crew members were of good health and had no known disabilities. In succeeding chapters of this report, the pilots will be designated as Pilot A, Pilot B, Pilot C and Pilot D. However, Pilot D participated only as an observer in one of the flights and therefore, his performance will not be reported.


...Lessee, between 31 and 38, and this is just *barely* 1963 when the report was released.

The report was released in August 1962.


...Which cuts out the last two groups, of which a few were still in the loop as having been part of other programs. Which sort of makes your point mox nix, especially since the cutoff date I was using was the one listed on the cover, which was in early 1963.


Does anyone have a more concise list of test pilots assigned to NASA and/or Martin during this perior who could have been "volunteered" to pose as Astronauts for these tests?

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #101 on: December 17, 2012, 12:26:18 pm »
I don't, but this quote might help:


Quote
In order to approach this problem area more realistically, the four crew members participating in the NASA-Martin experiment were all NASA research pilots. These pilots were mature, experienced, and well-motivated, their average age was 34½ years and their average flight time was about 4,000 hours; each had flown at least 40 different types of aircraft. Three of the pilots comprised the actual crew while the fourth acted as primary capsule comunicator. No compatibility tests were used in crew selection.

Crew Performance During Real-Time Lunar Mission Simulation (19640019292), September 1964

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #102 on: December 18, 2012, 02:12:11 pm »
I don't, but this quote might help:

Quote
In order to approach this problem area more realistically, the four crew members participating in the NASA-Martin experiment were all NASA research pilots. These pilots were mature, experienced, and well-motivated, their average age was 34½ years and their average flight time was about 4,000 hours; each had flown at least 40 different types of aircraft. Three of the pilots comprised the actual crew while the fourth acted as primary capsule comunicator. No compatibility tests were used in crew selection.


...That narrows the possibilities down a bit. This for the most part eliminates either of the two NASA Astronaut groups - save possibly for John Young, if my failing eyesight has any modicum of accuracy, as that does look like the upper back right of his head as well as his nasal profile - as well as any of the Air Farce groups, save for the NASA pilots who worked on the X-15. Again, what's needed is a list of the test pilots that NASA/NACA had on staff prior to and up to the point where this report was released, pilots that were assigned to atmospheric testing, like Bill Dana or John McKay. The groups listed above clearly do not encompass all of those on the Ziggurat that NASA had in their employ.


...So, again, anyone got a source for such a list, or at least a direction to point at towards which queries can be made? Haven't done this kind of Astrobuff gumshoe work in a while, so I'm a bit rusty at it. Serves me right for taking my regular insulin dosages instead of just sticking to good ol' WD-40 :( :( :(

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2012, 09:04:24 am »
How about Astronaut Jimenez from Group 1A ?
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2012, 03:52:59 pm »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #105 on: December 20, 2012, 01:02:39 am »
How about Astronaut Jimenez from Group 1A ?

Is a joke.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Jim%C3%A9nez_(character)



"My name is....José Jimenez...." (Alan B. Shepard from the 1983 movie "The Right Stuff")

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #106 on: December 20, 2012, 05:33:49 am »

Josè Jimenez play by Bill Dana (the comedian, not the test pilot ) in famous his TV-sketch



after that he became best friends with Mercury Astronauts. 


a yes
exclude also Walter Frisbe in second NASA group
he was invention of Lovell and Pete Conrad, to play prank with NASA press corps.
http://www.astronautix.com/astros/frisbee.htm
I love Strange Technology

Offline carmelo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 190
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #107 on: December 20, 2012, 11:14:39 am »

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #108 on: December 21, 2012, 02:34:15 am »
Also don't forget the great Prince Antonio de Curtis (aka Totò) in his "Totò sulla Luna" (Totò in the Moon) of 1958:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tot%C3%B2_nella_luna


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tot%C3%B2

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7188
  • _ \\ //
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #109 on: February 04, 2013, 02:11:32 pm »
Grumman's lunar traverse vehicle from 1962 was another promising project.

Quote
To help solve these anticipated problems, Grumman envisioned equipping its proposed 3000-pound lunar traverse vehicle with four six-foot-diameter metal-elastic (“metalastic”) wheels weighing 120 pounds each. Each wheel would include a hub housing the wheel’s motor and transmission. The metalastic wheel, Markow reported, would take on an elliptical shape under the vehicle’s weight, providing the favorable ground contact characteristics of a caterpillar tread without its mass and complexity. The rim would deform when it struck a bump (for example, a rock), preventing the vehicle from bouncing off the ground.
 
Grumman found most promising a metalastic wheel consisting of flexible spiral spokes and a rim with evenly spaced cleats (image at top of post). This design the company tested beside a rigid metal wheel on two simulated lunar surfaces: Long Island beach sand (presumably collected near Grumman’s headquarters in Bethpage, Long Island, New York) and crushed shale. Not until April 1967 would a robot lander (Surveyor III) provide detailed data on the texture and bearing strength of the moon’s surface, so Grumman based its simulated lunar surfaces on best guesses; a “granular” model proposed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and a “rock froth” model based on data gathered by bouncing radar pulses off the moon.
 
Markow reported that, compared to the rigid wheel, the flexible metalastic wheel needed 50% less energy to roll over the simulated lunar surfaces and provided 60% more traction. It also pulled a trailer 40% more efficiently and demonstrated improved “obstacle climbing performance.”
To the Stars

Offline royabulgaf

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 367
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #110 on: February 04, 2013, 03:17:00 pm »
So this was the Oscar Meyer Vienna Sausagemobile?

Offline SAustin16

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Bravo to All Brave Test Pilots
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #111 on: February 07, 2013, 10:47:17 pm »
Just a note in regards to OM's list of MISS Candidates on pg 7, Al White of North American Aviation (NAA) is listed in the first group. 


I had seen this list around the year 2000 (or perhaps slightly earlier), and mentioned the list to my Dad.  Dad and Al were very close friends, and when Al was asked about being on the MISS List, he said he did not recall every hearing about being a candidate.  Perhaps the "candidates" were never contacted by NASA or any other agency, and I wonder if if decisions were made to proceed in other directions. 


I find this time period very interesting.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7188
  • _ \\ //
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #112 on: April 28, 2013, 08:49:28 am »
Model of early Grumman LEM concept on display at The Museum of Flight in Seattle.

Source:
http://www.freewebs.com/aeroscale/mof.htm

Below, via the old Paleofuture blog, is an artist's impression of this design in action. It was one of the illustrations found in The Official Souvenir Book of the 1964 New York World's Fair.
To the Stars

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #113 on: April 28, 2013, 11:00:54 pm »
Martin Nova Direct Flight Rocket Lunar Lander Model
already $571 at eBay


 Very cool. Thanks for that.

  Bob Clark

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #114 on: April 29, 2013, 04:31:03 am »
Just a note in regards to OM's list of MISS Candidates on pg 7, Al White of North American Aviation (NAA) is listed in the first group. 

I had seen this list around the year 2000 (or perhaps slightly earlier), and mentioned the list to my Dad.  Dad and Al were very close friends, and when Al was asked about being on the MISS List, he said he did not recall every hearing about being a candidate.  Perhaps the "candidates" were never contacted by NASA or any other agency, and I wonder if if decisions were made to proceed in other directions.


...Possible. I compiled that list from several sources online, and I can't find my notes on the links to the sources at the moment. However, after consulting the [Censored] Asylum known as Wikipedia, I find that both the MISS article and the one for Al White both cite him as being selected for MISS. However, it's possible that he might never have been told about the selection, as he was also in the running at the time for the XB-70 program, for which he was selected in 1961.


...What was interesting about MISS was that in June of 1958 the Air Farce conducted a prelim analysis of their MISS choices, and made another list based on the weights of the pilots; there were issues regarding payload limits, and the lighter the pilot the more fuel could be carried. And probably use budget seating instead of First Class. Damn airline cheapness existed before deregulation, natch  :P


...But I digress. The pilots were broken up into two groups:


150-175 lb Class:
===========
 Joe Walker
 Scott Crossfield
 Neil Armstrong
 Robert Rushworth


175 to 200 lb Class:
===========
Bill Bridgeman
Al White
Iven Kincheloe
Bob White
Jack McKay


...Of this list, only Bob White and Jack McKay from the "heavier" list ended up flying the X-15. Since pilot weight was a consideration, one has to wonder if White and McKay had gone through their own SWIP in order to be under some similar weight restrictions applied to X-15 pilots. Questions like this make it more of a disappointment that most, if not all of the MISS candidates have passed on, especially Neil Armstrong. Still, it would be interesting to see if the project went on long enough to generate enough history for a fair-sized book. God/Yahweh/Roddenberry knows it couldn't be as bad as Larry Lamb's self-pity ego-trip of an autobiography was. Hell, to vent a little, it wasn't even worth the three minutes in the head spent each day reading that mess, and I speed read!At least Deke didn't live long enough to see it.


I'm venting. Mea culprit.


...Oh, for the record, I also used EA as a source, where Mark Wade also lists Al as one of the MISS candidates. In fact, it should be noted that his exact phrase is "Mentioned as candidate for Man In Space Soonest programme (sic) in 1958." I may fire off a note to Mark and see if he recalls whether Al was confirmed as a candidate, and what his source was. Also, the list Mark has mentions a "Robert Walker", which he notes is probably a mistake as =Joe= Walker was a MISS candidate. Another small reason for an official MISS introspective.


...Finally, for the younger members of our home audience, Al was also the sole survivor of the Valkyrie mid-air collision that killed Carl Cross in the crash and probably killed Joe Walker instantly when his F-104 got caught in the Valkyrie's wake and flipped through the starboard rudder. His history is worth reading up on, starting with the short form over on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_S._White

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #115 on: April 29, 2013, 06:48:44 pm »
 Great article here that shows as early 1965 NASA was studying continuing on after Apollo with a lunar base:

The Proper Course for Lunar Exploration (1965)
BY DAVID S. F. PORTREE01.17.1311:43 PM
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/the-proper-course-for-lunar-exploration-1965/

 I like the lunar rover they were considering then called the Mobile Laboratory (MOLAB), a pressurized rover with a 50 mile range that would allow two astronauts to work inside in a shirt-sleeve environment.
 Interestingly NASA is now building such a rover that would have a range of 150 miles:

Space Exploration Vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle

 A version to be used in space without the wheeled chassis is expected to be tested by 2017 at the ISS:

Inside NASA's New Spaceship for Asteroid Missions.
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing EditorDate: 12 November 2012 Time: 02:30 PM ET
http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html


  Bob Clark

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #116 on: April 30, 2013, 09:14:05 am »

 A version to be used in space without the wheeled chassis is expected to be tested by 2017 at the ISS:


There is no such plan or timeline

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #117 on: April 30, 2013, 01:29:46 pm »

 A version to be used in space without the wheeled chassis is expected to be tested by 2017 at the ISS:


There is no such plan or timeline

Don't confuse him with facts.

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #118 on: April 30, 2013, 09:26:59 pm »
Photos: NASA's Space Exploration Vehicle for Asteroids & Beyond.
by Space.com, staff Date: 03 October 2011 Time: 11:48 AM ET

SEV Use Comparison
Credit: NASA
NASA's new Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), in development, has a flexible architecture, allowing it to be used as a rover or as a space vehicle.

http://www.space.com/12950-photos-nasa-deep-space-exploration-vehicle-mars-asteroids.html

Inside NASA's New Spaceship for Asteroid Missions.
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor Date: 12 November 2012 Time: 02:30 PM ET
Quote
A mockup of NASA's next generation moon rover, the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV), on display at the agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The SEV has since been converted into a wheel-less vehicle designed for visiting asteroids.
The re-election of President Barack Obama has kept NASA on track to send human explorers to an asteroid, and that means work on a 21st-century spacecraft to fly astronauts to the target space rock and hover nearby — or maybe even pogo off its surface — will go ahead as well.
As of 2010, Obama has challenged NASA to get astronauts to an asteroid by 2025, and on to Mars by the mid-2030s. Whether or not the space agency can stick to that schedule largely depends on its future budget, experts say, but regardless of the pace, work on the asteroid mission is already under way.
The Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV) is a prototype that began its design life as a wheeled moon rover. When the president shifted NASA's focus from the moon-oriented Constellation program set up by the Bush administration, the space agency adapted the SEV to meet the needs of an asteroid mission instead.
That meant taking off the wheels and converting the vehicle into two parts: a robotic sled that will be used for propulsion and guidance, and a detachable crew cabin that can be fitted on top.
...
Many of the design features of the vehicle are in the early stages, and the details still need to be tested. If the current schedule holds, NASA could test-drive a version of the SEV at the International Space Station in 2017.
http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html


  Bob Clark
« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 08:52:46 am by RGClark »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #119 on: May 01, 2013, 12:34:38 pm »
Yeah, that's all malarkey. When I took my group on tours of the NASA field centers last year we did a visit to JSC. I got to sit in their mockup of the asteroid rendezvous vehicle and rode in the electric Moon rover and all that (didn't get to drive it, alas). To an outside observer it presented the impression that NASA was actively working on these things. But we asked where the money was coming from. It wasn't in the budget, it was center director discretionary funding, and it was going away. My guess is that their money has evaporated by now. In fact, they may have stopped all that work months ago.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #120 on: May 01, 2013, 12:49:37 pm »


Inside NASA's New Spaceship for Asteroid Missions.
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor Date: 12 November 2012 Time: 02:30 PM ET
Quote
...
Many of the design features of the vehicle are in the early stages, and the details still need to be tested. If the current schedule holds, NASA could test-drive a version of the SEV at the International Space Station in 2017.
http://www.space.com/18443-nasa-asteroid-spacecraft-sev.html


Not a valid source.  Show the NASA budget and planning for it and not some marginal space website.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #121 on: May 01, 2013, 02:56:59 pm »
Here's some pics that I took last year of the JSC asteroid simulator and the Lunar Electric Rover. The asteroid simulator had an accurate gravity model in their computer, so they could simulate maneuvers around such a body. Lockheed Martin apparently has a more advanced version that has accurate gravity and albedo data for an asteroid. Unfortunately, during a visit to their facility south of Denver a few weeks ago I didn't have time to see it (although I did see their 3D model of an X-Wing, for what it's worth...).

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1878
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #122 on: May 02, 2013, 01:30:59 am »
Top Gear's James May drives SEV:

Offline luke strawwalker

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #123 on: May 22, 2013, 05:42:32 am »
Exactly... lots of "cool ideas" and experimental hardware, but no funding to develop operational hardware out of any of it... and there's a big difference between a "battleship" version toodling around JSC and flight hardware...

That's what makes the entire program so incredibly frustrating right now as to seem almost a joke... all the money is going to SLS development, virtually nothing being spent on what its supposed to carry... and without payloads, no missions can be done.  Carrying expenses to maintain SLS capabilities after its completed are going to eat up a lot of money that could have gone to develop and pay for payloads later on, further delaying the program when we could have been doing missions...

It's about like having a shiny new RV sitting in the driveway-- on blocks, because we cannot afford tires or fuel to go anywhere...

Later!  OL JR :)

Offline archipeppe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2013, 05:57:04 am »

That's what makes the entire program so incredibly frustrating right now as to seem almost a joke... all the money is going to SLS development, virtually nothing being spent on what its supposed to carry... and without payloads, no missions can be done.  Carrying expenses to maintain SLS capabilities after its completed are going to eat up a lot of money that could have gone to develop and pay for payloads later on, further delaying the program when we could have been doing missions...



In this sense history is repeating all over again, it seems that SLS at the end will behave like its predecessor Shuttle.
It will eat a lot of money to fly leaving very few for its possible payloads. In this sense SLS seems even worst than Shuttle, since STS could (at least) carry crew to LEO or ISS while SLS without Orion is useless for human flight applications....


 >:(

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2013, 08:58:28 am »
I'm not sure that shuttle ate a lot of money that could have gone to its payloads. There were still quite a few payloads for shuttle to carry, both real ones (Spacelab) and manufactured ones (i.e. payloads that could have flown on expendable rockets, like TDRSS and commercial comsats).

The situation with SLS is somewhat different. You could argue that what is really eating up the money for SLS payloads is the International Space Station. Cancel that (and by extension, commercial crew) and you could spend that money for SLS payloads. That was in fact what was proposed back in 2004.

The problem today is that we have two human spaceflight programs and we cannot fund both. So commercial crew is short-changed, and SLS has a low flight rate and no payloads.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2013, 10:53:04 am »
The Space Shuttle  program had cost of $196 billion. spend over period of 1972 to 2011.
in comparison The Apollo program cost $170 billion, spend over period of 1961 to 1972.
a Apollo Lunar landing mission cost each US$14.8 billion in 2011
while Skylab program include 3 missions, cost $10 billion in 2010

So with no Space shuttle program what option NASA had ?
They could use the Money to restart the Saturn V / LM / CSM production and try to make Titan III M/F ready to launch Apollo CSM.
with on shuttle program cost they could launch 19 Skylab station or 13 Apollo lunar landing...

I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2013, 12:04:09 pm »
The Space Shuttle  program had cost of $196 billion. spend over period of 1972 to 2011.
in comparison The Apollo program cost $170 billion, spend over period of 1961 to 1972.
a Apollo Lunar landing mission cost each US$14.8 billion in 2011
while Skylab program include 3 missions, cost $10 billion in 2010

So with no Space shuttle program what option NASA had ?
They could use the Money to restart the Saturn V / LM / CSM production and try to make Titan III M/F ready to launch Apollo CSM.
with on shuttle program cost they could launch 19 Skylab station or 13 Apollo lunar landing...

You have to be careful with those kinds of comparisons. Keep in mind that the Apollo program built the VAB and LC-39 and a lot of other infrastructure (like tracking and communications). So you cannot simply take the cost and divide it by the number of missions. Shuttle got a lot of help from Apollo.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #128 on: May 27, 2013, 09:16:46 am »

That's what makes the entire program so incredibly frustrating right now as to seem almost a joke... all the money is going to SLS development, virtually nothing being spent on what its supposed to carry... and without payloads, no missions can be done.  Carrying expenses to maintain SLS capabilities after its completed are going to eat up a lot of money that could have gone to develop and pay for payloads later on, further delaying the program when we could have been doing missions...



In this sense history is repeating all over again, it seems that SLS at the end will behave like its predecessor Shuttle.
It will eat a lot of money to fly leaving very few for its possible payloads. In this sense SLS seems even worst than Shuttle, since STS could (at least) carry crew to LEO or ISS while SLS without Orion is useless for human flight applications....


 >:(

It's worse than that... SLS and Orion are being developed for "deep space missions" (now that lunar missions are off the table, which presumably will mean an asteroid mission (despite NASA and the scientists apparent lack of enthusiasm for such a mission) and perhaps lagrange point missions or lunar orbit or something of that sort) and without payloads, SLS and Orion are basically useless... Shuttle at least made no pretense of planning for anything more than "cheap transportation to Low Earth Orbit" (which of course it never was and never could be).  Shuttle at least would work for the intended mission, even if it cost many times what was originally planned. 

SLS and Orion, on the other hand, are completely useless without a host of supporting hardware, none of which is funded at this point.  While technically SLS and Orion COULD provide transportation to LEO and to ISS, it's FAR too expensive to use for such a role... and without the habs, cryogenic space propulsion stages, etc. necessary to perform these "deep space" missions, SLS and Orion are just very expensive cancellation bait IMHO...

It's almost like SLS and Orion continue, without a viable plan to use them, simply because NASA and Congress have no idea what to do instead...  it's a placeholder to maintain the status quo.  The problem is even if SLS and Orion continue to completion, it's going to be a VERY expensive system to maintain the capability for, so it's going to eat up a LOT of funding while the remaining budget is reallocated to developing payloads and in-space propulsion stages for SLS and Orion, during which time basically little/nothing is actually being flown, simply because without the habs and stages and equipment, SLS/Orion simply cannot do anything particularly useful.  Shuttle's overhead costs were enormous, and that was with, compared to the anemic projections for SLS flight rates, a very robust flight rate for shuttle (excepting the stand-downs post Challenger and Columbia...)  SLS's "one flight every year or two" is going to make it on a per-mission basis the most expensive launch vehicle ever conceived, and the overhead costs to even maintain the capability are going to be staggering...

I guess we'll see what we'll see... but I'm in no way optimistic about the likelihood of a vigorous deep-space program-- and Mars seems to me very much a pipe-dream... Congress is choking on the vehicle development costs alone, and developing the hardware and infrastructure, and paying for the actual missions is going to be very much more expensive...  IOW, if we can't afford lunar missions, what makes ANYBODY *seriously* believe we'll ever afford MARS missions that will cost many times more?? 

Time will tell... Later!  OL JR :)

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #129 on: May 28, 2013, 08:09:26 am »
It really is very simple to summarize, although nearly impossible to solve:

-the administration wants to do ISS, commercial crew, and R&D. It has no interest in beyond low Earth orbit.
-Congress wants ISS to continue, has limited interest in commercial crew, and does not want open-ended R&D (i.e. with no clear goals). It is interested in beyond low Earth orbit.

Neither side wants to spend more money than is already being spent. The result is stalemate and so commercial crew is underfunded and the SLS and Orion are only funded at a low level that will (eventually) lead to them getting built, but without a destination or payloads.


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #130 on: May 29, 2013, 04:53:23 pm »
We're getting a little OT here.
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #131 on: September 09, 2013, 08:23:25 pm »
Back to Topic

NTRS is now 75% back online
during test of search engine on "Apollo application Program"
i found this

ALTERNATE APOLLO MISSIONS - LIBRATION POINTS
by John T.Wheeler, April 1967
his proposal to fly the Apollo CSM&LM to L1 point and store CSM there, while LM goes to lunar surface and back
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700028191_1970028191.pdf
I love Strange Technology

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #132 on: September 10, 2013, 01:27:08 am »
 Thanks for that. I had been looking for some articles on that server.

  Bob Clark

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #133 on: September 10, 2013, 04:31:08 am »
Back to Topic

NTRS is now 75% back online


But the original links are all dead, right?



Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #134 on: September 10, 2013, 04:38:45 am »
Back to Topic

NTRS is now 75% back online


But the original links are all dead, right?


yes they are death, because they pull from server and add a disclaimer on PDF first page
and stored them on another server.
I love Strange Technology

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
I love Strange Technology

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #136 on: October 16, 2013, 07:43:33 am »
Of course, with NASA websites down, it's not possible to check if those are even the current NTRS links.

Offline circle-5

  • Concept Models Guy
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #137 on: December 15, 2013, 05:53:22 pm »
Republic Aviation LEM proposal model, on display at the Cradle of Aviation museum.

(Smaller examples of these photos were posted earlier in this thread).


Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2048
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #138 on: December 15, 2013, 06:57:01 pm »
Wow! Did the USSR have a mole at Republic?  :P
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #139 on: December 16, 2013, 11:45:47 pm »
Wow! Did the USSR have a mole at Republic?  :P


...No more than they probably did at GE. These images popped up around the same time Mark Wade posted the first pages regarding the GE Modular Apollo proposal that, difference in shapes aside, was functionally identical to the Soyuz basic design, and all of a sudden there was a flurry of discussions - some of which deteriorated into ~CT/Stuff4/Guthball "wanking nutjob troll" threads very quickly - as to whether or not Sergei Pavlovich's design team were being fed documents swiped from GE, Republic, Grumman and North American by the KGB. IIRC, Mark, Henry Spencer, Jim Oberg and several of the other regulars - Charles Vick may have been involved from the outside as well - started connecting the dots and ruled out the Soyuz being a GE swipe, but the Republic LM and the Soviet LK designs came about as being a bit too close for comfort. Especially when those post-LK designs started leaking out where it was *very* obvious that Mishin's post-Korolev team had outright swiped Grumman's design for the LM lander legs, most likely by just walking up to the one of the many mockups being shown off after A11, whipping out a cloth tape measure, and copying down the numbers without anyone being the least bit suspicious.

"Da. Ve vork vor Revell. Ve vant to make better model kit of Lunar Module than Monogram. So ve take measurements, nyet?"

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #140 on: September 09, 2014, 10:44:11 am »
All the documentation I linked to in Posts 93 and 95 of this thread can now be downloaded from Box.net via the link below.

https://app.box.com/s/rsaernej3apvtuxkwo1s



Offline Bill S

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #141 on: July 04, 2015, 09:34:00 am »
Vought Astronautics Apollo Solar Array


Here are three images of the "Apollo Solar Array" from the VAHF archives.




Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 19433
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 05:00:00 am by hesham »

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #143 on: November 10, 2015, 05:50:33 pm »
Just posted by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) among the latest group of Atlas photos uploaded to their Flickr site is this photo of an early Convair Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) mock-up:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/22909643782/
"Atlas Details: LEM Mockup; Phase A; Exterior of Crew Compartment Without Instrument Case Date: 06/06/1962"

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #144 on: December 15, 2015, 12:17:23 pm »
Just posted on Flickr by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM), photos of models what appears to be proposed Convair / General Dynamics Apollo hardware. Currently, the captions with these most recently posted photos are a bit out of phase, so they can't be relied upon.

Models of Apollo Command Module and Service Module proposal:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/23726540196/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/23125852923/


And these photos of what should have the caption, "Bossart and Culbertson with Upper Stage Vehicle Model Date: 01/22/1964." Given the proportions and shape, this appears to be the Service Module for the Apollo hardware posted above, but I may be mistaken. "Bossart and Culbertson" are Convair/GD's Karel "Charlie" Bossart and Philip Culbertson.  The model (I wish they posted these photos at a larger resolution) features Apollo SM'esque quad RCS nozzles, General Dynamics'-then logo, and wording that reads "Manufacturing Proof Hardware - Dept. 190".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/23456982820/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/23125860753/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/23456986290/


Any corrections to my assumptions are welcome.


Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
Re: Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been
« Reply #145 on: December 07, 2016, 03:01:51 am »
San Diego Air & Space Museum had uploade more picture
Xmas is early this year

Apollo M-1 models
 
I love Strange Technology