• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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 ?
 

Attachments

  • Martin-and-GD-Apollos.jpg
    Martin-and-GD-Apollos.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 2,049

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
Skybolt said:
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?

YES !

i look for the moment my data for another Solid Nova Consept
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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).
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
i found this on Flickr Blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22948295@N02/2217192111/

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.
 

Attachments

  • 2217192111_daa7248b2e.jpg
    2217192111_daa7248b2e.jpg
    75.9 KB · Views: 1,724
  • 2218008144_edf960f94a.jpg
    2218008144_edf960f94a.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 1,642
  • 2218016676_26410f5b78.jpg
    2218016676_26410f5b78.jpg
    100.1 KB · Views: 1,624

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
145
I think we need an official forum invite for that chap!

Starviking
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684

Attachments

  • 2222792091_355ef8027a.jpg
    2222792091_355ef8027a.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 1,642
  • 2222792187_e956b207e5.jpg
    2222792187_e956b207e5.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 301

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed LEM.jpg
    Lockheed LEM.jpg
    642.4 KB · Views: 413

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
This the final internal NASA LEM concept for the July 24th 1962 Lunar Excursion Model Statement of Work.
 

Attachments

  • NASA-LEM-Jul-1962.jpg
    NASA-LEM-Jul-1962.jpg
    59.4 KB · Views: 213

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,910
Reaction score
1,141
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Michel Van said:
Skybolt said:
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?

YES !

Barrington Bond said:
Ditto to the highly detailed please!

pometablava said:

robunos said:
yes please!!,

Archibald said:
Yes ye yes please!!

archipeppe said:
Definitely YES!!!!!

Please...please......

BAH!



Enough talk!
 

Attachments

  • refuel1.jpg
    refuel1.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 246
  • Martin.gif
    Martin.gif
    44.2 KB · Views: 271
  • Image23.jpg
    Image23.jpg
    33.1 KB · Views: 277
  • GE Apollo 04.gif
    GE Apollo 04.gif
    51.2 KB · Views: 266
  • Apollo 04.gif
    Apollo 04.gif
    40.7 KB · Views: 564
  • Apollo 03.gif
    Apollo 03.gif
    36.6 KB · Views: 587
  • apollo 1.gif
    apollo 1.gif
    40.6 KB · Views: 631
  • Apollo 01.gif
    Apollo 01.gif
    86.5 KB · Views: 674

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
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
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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 ;)
 

Attachments

  • GD-Apollo-Baseline.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Baseline.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 216
  • GD-Apollo-baseline-transp.jpg
    GD-Apollo-baseline-transp.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 319

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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).
 

Attachments

  • GD-Apollo-extensible-airloc.jpg
    GD-Apollo-extensible-airloc.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 186
  • GD-Apollo--rendezvous-metho.jpg
    GD-Apollo--rendezvous-metho.jpg
    109.9 KB · Views: 220
  • GD-Apollo-Paraglider.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Paraglider.jpg
    139.8 KB · Views: 198
  • GD-Apollo-Alternate-Reentry.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Alternate-Reentry.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 190

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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.
 

Attachments

  • GD-Apollo-Lander-alternates.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Lander-alternates.jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 128
  • GD-Apollo-Lander-takeoff.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Lander-takeoff.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 144
  • GD-Apollo-Lander-on-Moon.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Lander-on-Moon.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 169
  • GD-Apollo-Lunar-Lander.jpg
    GD-Apollo-Lunar-Lander.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 170

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
306
SUPERCOOL Scott!!!!!!

And thank Skybolt too.

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

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
Wait, we are only starting up....
GD Apollo advanced configurations, first batch, with six-place M-2 reentry vehicle.
 

Attachments

  • GD-Apollo-M-2-config.jpg
    GD-Apollo-M-2-config.jpg
    175.1 KB · Views: 226
  • GD-Apollo-M-2-reentry.jpg
    GD-Apollo-M-2-reentry.jpg
    178.2 KB · Views: 268

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
Last of the GD advanced configuration. A six-place M-3 reentry vehicle with foldable wings.
 

Attachments

  • GD-Apollo-M-3-config.jpg
    GD-Apollo-M-3-config.jpg
    360.4 KB · Views: 273

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
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
 

Attachments

  • Mcdonnell_Apollo_interior.png
    Mcdonnell_Apollo_interior.png
    91.2 KB · Views: 181
  • mcdonnell_Apollo_capsul.png
    mcdonnell_Apollo_capsul.png
    138.1 KB · Views: 221
  • Mcdonnell_Apollo_Study.png
    Mcdonnell_Apollo_Study.png
    54.2 KB · Views: 172
  • mcdonnell_lunar_gemini-.png
    mcdonnell_lunar_gemini-.png
    124.9 KB · Views: 179

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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).
 

fredgell

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
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.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
here Langley LEM from year 1963
 

Attachments

  • LEM-Langley.jpg
    LEM-Langley.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 208

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
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
 

Barrington Bond

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
Lunar Logistics vehicle and a Boeing Lunar Rover.
 

Attachments

  • scan0007 (2).jpg
    scan0007 (2).jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 194
  • scan0008 (2).jpg
    scan0008 (2).jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 176

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,046
Reaction score
873
Martin Nova Direct Flight Rocket Lunar Lander Model
already $571 at eBay
 

Attachments

  • f1d4_1.JPG
    f1d4_1.JPG
    9.1 KB · Views: 74
  • f4cc_1.JPG
    f4cc_1.JPG
    12.7 KB · Views: 79
  • fe01_1.JPG
    fe01_1.JPG
    17.6 KB · Views: 393
  • 00af_1.JPG
    00af_1.JPG
    12.7 KB · Views: 393
  • fb10_1.JPG
    fb10_1.JPG
    13.7 KB · Views: 399
  • f7ed_1.JPG
    f7ed_1.JPG
    12.1 KB · Views: 417
  • ef5f_1.JPG
    ef5f_1.JPG
    13.1 KB · Views: 451

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
684
a zilion thanks from my side

(its first time i see the Martin Lunar Direct proposal)
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
156
A few more.
 

Attachments

  • ConvairApollo9.JPG
    ConvairApollo9.JPG
    142.6 KB · Views: 138
  • ConvairApollo8.JPG
    ConvairApollo8.JPG
    157.9 KB · Views: 122
  • ConvairApollo5.JPG
    ConvairApollo5.JPG
    49.5 KB · Views: 130
  • ConvairApollo4.JPG
    ConvairApollo4.JPG
    103.9 KB · Views: 156

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
156
GE's proposals.
 

Attachments

  • GE1.JPG
    GE1.JPG
    362.9 KB · Views: 182
  • GE2.JPG
    GE2.JPG
    205.8 KB · Views: 196

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
128
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
 

Attachments

  • McD Apollo Direct.gif
    McD Apollo Direct.gif
    41 KB · Views: 131

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
55
Some interesting Apollo and post-Apollo concepts

http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion
 
Top