Project Apollo - 50 years
Discussion
Thought I'd start a specific thread on this as 2018/19 represents a significant historic anniversary in regards to the Apollo project. For example. on this day Apollo 8 entered orbit around the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxDNyJPwcxE
I'll try and keep the thread running over the next few years as we pass each milestone. Contributions welcome of course - but can we try and keep conspiracy nonsense to a minimum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxDNyJPwcxE
I'll try and keep the thread running over the next few years as we pass each milestone. Contributions welcome of course - but can we try and keep conspiracy nonsense to a minimum.
Beati Dogu said:
First men in space in 1961 to putting men on the moon in just 8 years was incredible.
The Space Race was a proxy war - so the methods used to develop the technology required to get to the moon was funded on more or less a war footing.This day (24th December), Apollo 8 did indeed enter lunar orbit.
The irony is that this was a mission that was never envisaged in the original mission planning. None of the mission manifest that had been carefully laid out prior to the summer of 1968 included a mission where a Command/Service Module (CSM) would travel to the moon and enter orbit without a Lunar Module. Problems with the Lunar Module and fear that the Soviets would try to send a single cosmonaut around the moon sometime in the last quarter of 1968 encouraged NASA to revise their mission schedules and attempt a CSM lunar orbit only flight
Just a few points. The Command Module was not completely redesigned after the Apollo 1 fire. Apollo 1 was using an original Block 1 design of CSM. In 1962 it was realised that the original Block 1 design could not be used for the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous technique.It was decided that the CSM needed a makeover. After the fire the decision was made not to use Block 1 craft for manned flights - only Block 2s. In addition, more care was to taken in fire proofing the interior and a restriction was put on introducing flammable materials into the cockpit.
It also allowed simple EVAs without the need for an airlock. All you had to do was depressurise the vehicle and open the door. If you use an air mix in the cabin, you have to pre-breath oxygen for hours in advance of the EVA and then you need an airlock to negate the need to depressurise the whole spacecraft. Fitting an airlock on Gemini or Apollo was just not feasible.
Even today EVA suits use pure oxygen at low pressure. But it means that the astronauts/cosmonauts have to spend a few hours acclimatising to the oxygen only atmosphere before they can commence the EVA.
There was a lot of good engineering sense sticking to a pure oxygen atmosphere PROVIDED strict safety procedures were followed. The problem with Apollo 1 was that they had got awfully sloppy and careless in regard to the pure oxygen atmosphere - especially as they were pumping the capsule up to 14psi when it was sitting on top of the rocket on the launch pad - effectively turning it into a bomb.
There was a lot of good engineering sense sticking to a pure oxygen atmosphere PROVIDED strict safety procedures were followed. The problem with Apollo 1 was that they had got awfully sloppy and careless in regard to the pure oxygen atmosphere - especially as they were pumping the capsule up to 14psi when it was sitting on top of the rocket on the launch pad - effectively turning it into a bomb.
gl20 said:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuRCwsGugg
Found this on my suggested YouTube videos (amongst lots of other Apollo Concorde stuff!). What makes this different is it’s a documentary made before rather than after the event. Filmed just 3 years before Apollo 11 when there was clearly so much to still work out (And so much to change, like having just one astronaut walk on the moon (3:30)) that it makes it seem all the more incredible than the many retrospective documentaries. You can imagine watching it at the time and feeling sceptical about them hitting the ‘end of the decade’ target.
Off to watch some of the others now.
The idea of having one astronaut out on the surface whilst the other kept watch inside the Lunar Module was considered an essential safety aspect of the original mission plan. Once NASA began to be put under pressure by the scientific community that Apollo should carry out extensive science work on the moon - and later carry a rover and stay more than a few hours on the moon, the notion that only one astronaut should leave the LM at a time was abandoned.Found this on my suggested YouTube videos (amongst lots of other Apollo Concorde stuff!). What makes this different is it’s a documentary made before rather than after the event. Filmed just 3 years before Apollo 11 when there was clearly so much to still work out (And so much to change, like having just one astronaut walk on the moon (3:30)) that it makes it seem all the more incredible than the many retrospective documentaries. You can imagine watching it at the time and feeling sceptical about them hitting the ‘end of the decade’ target.
Off to watch some of the others now.
I'm a few years older and I remember ALL the Apollo missions. In fact, one of my first clear "news headline" memories is that of the Apollo 1 fire in January 1967.
So I was following Apollo even before they had flown any missions.
In Christmas 1967, I was given this annual -
I've still got it.
So I was following Apollo even before they had flown any missions.
In Christmas 1967, I was given this annual -
I've still got it.
kuro said:
Eric, maybe you can answer this.
I've seen a lot of conspiracy loons picking up on the photos of the LEM looking like it was knocked up in someones shed. They conveniently overlook the photos of the internal construction but why was the exterior panelling so poorly finished?
What is your definition of "poorly finished"? I've seen a lot of conspiracy loons picking up on the photos of the LEM looking like it was knocked up in someones shed. They conveniently overlook the photos of the internal construction but why was the exterior panelling so poorly finished?
It was not designed to look good. It was a piece of technology of which the shape, structure and appearance was 100% based around what it was designed to do. One of the main considerations was weight so nothing was put into the design that added unnecessary weight and every component, including the external aluminium, was pared to the absolute minimum. That is why the ascent section has a slightly buckled look to it - the aluminium was so thin it wasn't much more than heavy duty foil.
The external skin is as much to do with internal temperature regulation as anything. The only properly enclosed space was the pressurised section that housed the two astronauts.
At one point, they did look at an "open platform" type lander, which would have had no external skin at all.
And if you look at the design of the current Chang'e series of robot landers, you can see a strong resemblance between them and the Lunar Module descent stage - although the Chang'e is quite a bit smaller,.
At one point, they did look at an "open platform" type lander, which would have had no external skin at all.
And if you look at the design of the current Chang'e series of robot landers, you can see a strong resemblance between them and the Lunar Module descent stage - although the Chang'e is quite a bit smaller,.
Most books on the Apollo programme will contain a history of the development of the Lunar Module - and all the associated trials and tribulations.
Outside of books, the Discovery documentary series, "Moon Machines", has an entire episode devoted to the Lunar Module.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaWwxKavhL8
Also, the drama series "From the Earth to the Moon", which is available as a box set, also devotes one episode to the Lunar Module.
One of the problems facing the contractor, Grumman, was that they were only awarded the contract in 1962, well after the other major contractors. This was because the decision to use a lightweight lunar lander was only made in 1962. As a result, Grumman found themselves up against a much more intense set of time pressures than the other Apollo contractors. This was doubly difficult for them because nobody had designed a manned machine for landing on another world before.
Outside of books, the Discovery documentary series, "Moon Machines", has an entire episode devoted to the Lunar Module.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaWwxKavhL8
Also, the drama series "From the Earth to the Moon", which is available as a box set, also devotes one episode to the Lunar Module.
One of the problems facing the contractor, Grumman, was that they were only awarded the contract in 1962, well after the other major contractors. This was because the decision to use a lightweight lunar lander was only made in 1962. As a result, Grumman found themselves up against a much more intense set of time pressures than the other Apollo contractors. This was doubly difficult for them because nobody had designed a manned machine for landing on another world before.
ALL of the victorious allies made use of German scientists and engineers postwar - the UK was no exception. It just so happened that America, for obvious reasons, was a more attractive proposition for Germans seeking to leave the war (and their Nazi pasts, if relevant) behind them.
I am pretty sure that Von Braun, had he lived beyond 1977, might have found himself the subject of even more scrutiny and, at the very least, could well have faced deportation. Some of the old Army Ballistic Missile Agency team WERE deported in later life.
Rather than engage in a big debate on the moral dubiousness of Von Braun (which is no doubt a genuine discussion topic), I would highly recommend a listen to this - which is contemporary (1969) and shows that even in-period, many Americans were uneasy about his involvement -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
I'd also recommend this book -
I am pretty sure that Von Braun, had he lived beyond 1977, might have found himself the subject of even more scrutiny and, at the very least, could well have faced deportation. Some of the old Army Ballistic Missile Agency team WERE deported in later life.
Rather than engage in a big debate on the moral dubiousness of Von Braun (which is no doubt a genuine discussion topic), I would highly recommend a listen to this - which is contemporary (1969) and shows that even in-period, many Americans were uneasy about his involvement -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
I'd also recommend this book -
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff