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

Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
36

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
6
yes please!!,

cheers,
Robin.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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).
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
26
Skybolt said:
BTW, anyone interested in highly detailed early Apollo proposals drawings ?
Definitely YES!!!!!

Please...please......
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
946
Reaction score
14
I think we need an official forum invite for that chap!

Starviking
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
This the final internal NASA LEM concept for the July 24th 1962 Lunar Excursion Model Statement of Work.
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
182
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com

Attachments

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
26
SUPERCOOL Scott!!!!!!

And thank Skybolt too.

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

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
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

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
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
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
a zilion thanks from my side

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

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
68
ahh wounderfull picture
THX skybolt
 

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
10
Some interesting Apollo and post-Apollo concepts

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