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

Other Apollo Projects: What Should Have Been

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
755
Reaction score
2
RGClark said:
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
...
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.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
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...).
 

Attachments

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
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 :)
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
75
luke strawwalker said:
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....


:mad:
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
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...
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Michel Van said:
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.
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
archipeppe said:
luke strawwalker said:
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....


:mad:
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 :)
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
R

RGClark

Guest
Thanks for that. I had been looking for some articles on that server.

Bob Clark
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
blackstar said:
Michel Van said:
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
103
found this you tube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QFn4EJI38g
labeled: Apollo Command Module Rotary Recovery System

and those links on the program

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710007058_1971007058.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710007059_1971007059.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710007060_1971007060.pdf
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,684
Reaction score
13
Of course, with NASA websites down, it's not possible to check if those are even the current NTRS links.
 

OM

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Website
www.io.com
XP67_Moonbat said:
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?"
 

Boxman

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
285
Reaction score
25
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"
 

Boxman

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
285
Reaction score
25
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.
 

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
640
Reaction score
208
NASA Saturn Apollo capsule drawing

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-NASA-SATURN-APOLLO-CAPSULE-RENDERING-B-W-8-X10-GLOSSY-MSFC-M-MS-G-102-61-/122415799292?hash=item1c808cdbfc:g:KrIAAOSwWxNYm8lE
 

Attachments

Boxman

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
285
Reaction score
25
Posted to YouTube by Jeff Quitney, here is a film featuring the Convair / General Dynamics Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) proposal. It includes footage of the mock-up partially demonstrating the unique "probe & drogue" docking system it was designed to use (at the 19-minute, 11-second mark).

YouTube - "Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) Proposal 1962-09-12 General Dynamics Convair; Project Apollo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-x8NO2bw40
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,029
Reaction score
204
A bit on the General Motors MOLAB can be found in this vid (6.43 - 9.30):
 
Top