Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been

starviking said:
That’s a lot of antennas!

Also, the Wayback Machine stalls on asking me for donatations - can’t download the files. Anyone else got the same problem?
Click to expand...

There's a very (very :) ) tiny "x" in the upper right corner of the banner. Clicking it continues the download.

Randy
 
Dynoman said:
Pictures of Apollo lifting body Command Module mockup:
Click to expand...
I love that cockpit and the service module.
The Apollo we got was a simple build though. Not sexy, but it worked.

The sunburst pattern solar panels would have spared Lovell a heartbreak.

On blunt bodies
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

The Return of the Apollo Shape

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Skybolt said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Yes , especially the GD Apollo proposals.
 
DarkLord said:
Skybolt said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Yes , especially the GD Apollo proposals.
Click to expand...

Since you responded to a post that is nearly 14 years old, I assume he'll get right on it.
 
Hey folks, I've discovered something funny and interesting.

From the beginning NASA always planned 10 landings
- 1*G-class: the first one, became Apollo 11
- 4*H-class: 12 13 14 plus the "original Apollo 15" that was swapped
- 5*J-class: should have been 16 17 18 19 20: we all know how that ended.

Now, Wikipedia LM page tell me, the last H-class LM was LM-9.

And thus this mean...

LM-10 = J-1
LM-11 = J-2
LM-12 = J-3
LM-13 = J-4
LM-14 = J-5

Except the last LM was really, LM-15.

According to Google books NASA 1969-70 Hearings, that one was passed to AAP: George Mueller doomed program that ended savaged - and salvaged into Skylab.

Now this begs a whole bunch on questions, some pertinent, some not.

- WTH did NASA ordered LM-15 if the J-missions had enough with LM-14 ?
- Ok, most logicial explanation: it was a redundant / surplus in case of the five J-class LM exploded or burned during ground testing.
- And then it was passed to AAP
- According to the Hearings: it was to be turned into the pre-Skylab ATM
- the one to be build eviscerating a LM into an ATM
- delivered by a Saturn IB to the wet workshop canned in spring 1969 for Skylab

I can't help to think
- "Hey, some bit of Apollo 21 existed after all"
- "Same for those wet workshop 1967-69 plans"
- Also: AAP had some vague lunar landings planned in the 1967-68 era: they vanished early 1968 with SA-516 and SA-517 cancellations

I wonder if George Mueller at AAP had some kind of "Plan A / Plan B" for LM-15

Plan A "Yeah, sure, LM-15 will ride a Saturn IB to Earth orbit, as AAP wet workshop's ATM-1"

Plan B "LM-15 is surplus to Apollo, beyond Apollo 20 and J-5. Now it is AAP tiny foothold into lunar landings... AAP's Apollo 21, kind of."
 
Boxman said:
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)
6996880246_3c342aa233.jpg


Convair Lunar Excursion Module (LEM)
6996879946_a91c186c41.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Hey folks, I've discovered something funny and interesting.

From the beginning NASA always planned 10 landings
- 1*G-class: the first one, became Apollo 11
- 4*H-class: 12 13 14 plus the "original Apollo 15" that was swapped
- 5*J-class: should have been 16 17 18 19 20: we all know how that ended.

Now, Wikipedia LM page tell me, the last H-class LM was LM-9.

And thus this mean...

LM-10 = J-1
LM-11 = J-2
LM-12 = J-3
LM-13 = J-4
LM-14 = J-5

Except the last LM was really, LM-15.

According to Google books NASA 1969-70 Hearings, that one was passed to AAP: George Mueller doomed program that ended savaged - and salvaged into Skylab.

Now this begs a whole bunch on questions, some pertinent, some not.

- WTH did NASA ordered LM-15 if the J-missions had enough with LM-14 ?
- Ok, most logicial explanation: it was a redundant / surplus in case of the five J-class LM exploded or burned during ground testing.
- And then it was passed to AAP
- According to the Hearings: it was to be turned into the pre-Skylab ATM
- the one to be build eviscerating a LM into an ATM
- delivered by a Saturn IB to the wet workshop canned in spring 1969 for Skylab

I can't help to think
- "Hey, some bit of Apollo 21 existed after all"
- "Same for those wet workshop 1967-69 plans"
- Also: AAP had some vague lunar landings planned in the 1967-68 era: they vanished early 1968 with SA-516 and SA-517 cancellations

I wonder if George Mueller at AAP had some kind of "Plan A / Plan B" for LM-15

Plan A "Yeah, sure, LM-15 will ride a Saturn IB to Earth orbit, as AAP wet workshop's ATM-1"

Plan B "LM-15 is surplus to Apollo, beyond Apollo 20 and J-5. Now it is AAP tiny foothold into lunar landings... AAP's Apollo 21, kind of."
Click to expand...
I thought it had more to do with ordering 15 of each. There was 15 CSM for the Apollo missions (excluding Skylab) and 15 Saturn Vs. Somewhere when the schedules were jumbled up, probably with Apollo 8 flying without one, LM-15 lost its slot and was pushed to AAP before it was cancelled.
 
There was a great missed opportunity stuck between wet workshops (unworkable) and dry workshop (much better, but takes a Saturn V).
See Bellcomm document attached.

It was the SLA : Saturn Launch Adapter. It was a fat cone that linked the 6.6 m diameter S-IVB to the 3.9 m diameter Apollo CSM, and provided a home to the folded Lunar Module. That fat cone was 200 m3 in volume, which is twice a Salyut (100 m3) and almost two-third of Skylab (330 m3).

The Soviets created the first generation of Salyuts (DOS-1 to DOS-4) by stuffing Almaz hulls with Soyuz ECLSS guts.

NASA could have done something similar: stuffing Apollo ECLSS guts into a SLA, let's call this SLA-station or SLA-S. The whole thing launched by a Saturn IB, of which a surplus existed post Apollo 7, which expanded booster 205. AAP has ordered Saturn IB up to -216, so 11 boosters were available. Although from 212 onwards they were uncomplete or not even assembled.

SLA-S would have a multiple docking adapter for ATM later. Baseline mission: two launches, one for the SLA-station, one for the Apollo crew. The SLA dry, pressurized module stays attached to the spent S-IVB. Why ? because wet workshop will return. The S-IVB outfitting however would be done from a 200 m3 SLA rather than an Apollo 6 m3 ... should be a little easier no ? Let's call this SLA-WW.

What truly matters is, even if the wet workshop outfitting fails, the Apollo crew still has 200 m3 of dry SLA module. But if it works, the LOX and LH2 tanks add enormous volume to SLA-WW.

Skylab turned the S-IVB's LH2 tank into an habitat but the LOX tank was used as a giant trash can.

This link tells me a S-IVB hydrogen tank was 10500 cubic feet and the LOX one, 2830 cubic feet. That's 297 m3 and 80 m3 respectively.

https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/RPE08.30/RPE08.30.shtml

Skylab 330 m3 is the LH2 tank volume plus additional MDA and ATM pressurized modules.

So the SLA-LH2-LOX combined volumes should be approximately 650 cubic meters. Not too far from the ISS as a whole : 1000 m3.

By evenly splitting the 11 Saturns between five Apollos and five SLA-WW, five missions could be done. The 11th Saturn would be in standby for rescue.
 

Attachments

  • 19790072044_1979072044 SLA Bellcomm.pdf
    2.4 MB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Some very early thoughts from the Fleming commission on what a direct flight Apollo might look like. On the plus side, this approach solves the 'getting down from the capsule' problem. On the other hand, horizontal takeoff seems like it would be horribly impractical.
 

Attachments

  • 1-015 Project Apollo Possible Configurations.png
    1-015 Project Apollo Possible Configurations.png
    1,004.2 KB · Views: 4
  • 1-019 Lunar Landing.png
    1-019 Lunar Landing.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 4
  • 1-021 Lunar Takeoff.png
    1-021 Lunar Takeoff.png
    971.9 KB · Views: 4

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom