|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Path to the moon without Apollo 1 fire
|
Scottvirgil
New Member Posts: 9
From: London UK
Registered: Aug 2019
|
posted 04-16-2021 04:56 PM
   
I was wondering the other day what would have been the path to the moon had the Apollo 1 fire not happened. Assuming it had been called Apollo 1, and it had been a practical, working spacecraft, what were the subsequent mission plans? If Apollo 1 had flown the flight that later became Apollo 7, what next? Presumably Apollo 2 would not have necessarily been a version of Apollo 8 as there would have been no CIA photos of a potential Soviet lunar flight, and there couldn't have been an Apollo 9 as the lunar module wasn't ready for another two years. So what was the plan if all had worked on Apollo 1? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1645
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 04-16-2021 05:09 PM
At the time of the fire, the sequence for crewed flights was the C, D, E, F missions leading up to the G mission, which was the first lunar landing.What I question is that the fire notwithstanding, the lunar module wasn't ready for its first crewed test until the first quarter of 1969. I assume that would have been the case regardless. That presumes a large gap between flights. Maybe I'm wrong and the stand down after the fire also affected LM development. |
randy
Member Posts: 2422
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-16-2021 06:05 PM
My question is regarding the stand down after the fire and how that affected the LM. Did that give Grumman time to refine the design and work out any bugs in the LM? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1645
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 04-16-2021 06:28 PM
At the time of the fire, Jim McDivitt, David Scott and Rusty Schweikart were scheduled to fly the next mission after Apollo 1, the "D" mission. This was the first crewed flight test of the LM, in low Earth orbit. Would that mission have been delayed until early 1969 if Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee had flown a successful Apollo 1 mission? That's a two-year gap between the first two manned Apollo flights. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1645
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 04-16-2021 06:50 PM
- C mission, aka Apollo 1, with Grissom, White and Chaffee.
- D mission, test flight of LM in low Earth orbit with McDivitt, Scott and Schweikart.
- E mission, test of the LM in high Earth orbit, first manned Saturn V launch, with Frank Borman, Michael Collins and Bill Anders.
- F mission, first crewed lunar flight and test of LM in lunar orbit. I'm guessing with Tom Stafford, John Young and Gene Cernan (Deke Slayton was not planning on recycling Wally Schirra, Donn Eisele and Walt Cunningham into a prime crew slot, even though his rotation system would've put them on the F mission.)
- G mission with Pete Conrad, Dick Gordon and C.C, Williams making the first lunar landing.
That was a possible projection before the fire, from everything I've seen. Although Deke also considered recycling one of the early crews for the first landing, skipping his rotation system. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1645
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 04-16-2021 07:44 PM
I'm wondering if Deke might have assigned Grissom, White and Chaffee to the G mission, maybe with McDivitt, Scott and Schweikart as the backup crew. Then resumed his rotation system with Conrad's crew on the second landing. We'll never know for sure. |
oly
Member Posts: 1205
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 04-16-2021 11:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by randy:
Did that give Grumman time refine the design and work out any bugs in the LM?
Yes and no. The post fire investigation findings determined that the electrical system components were a fire risk, required modification or replacement with hermetically sealed units.The lunar module was undergoing a weight reduction program for most of its development, one reason why the common bulkhead was introduced to the second stage of the Saturn V tanks, to save weight. Post fire, Grumman introduced sealed switches and components, and were able to redesign the wire routing to make the wiring looms shorter, and use smaller gauge wire to save weight (testing had determined that the original wire gauge could be reduced in some areas). The changes introduced new problems, the Apollo 14 abort switch is an example of the issues Grumman experienced with the sealed switches. The small gauge wire was also prone to breaking at the terminal ends. The fire was an opportunity to reset, re-evaluate, and address some of the issues that had been identified. But the program was still behind schedule. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 987
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-17-2021 12:28 PM
I recall that shortly before the Apollo 1 fire, there was at least one article in Aviation Week & Space Technology indicating NASA had penciled in, in the most general terms, a mid-1968 lunar landing attempt. Unfortunately I no longer have this issue, nor do I recall when it was published (1966?). Crew assignments were not addressed. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1067
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-18-2021 11:19 AM
Why NASA did not think of fill the gap between Apollo 1 in early 1967 and the first crewed test of LM in low Earth orbit (presumably in late 1968 to early 1969) with some Apollo AAP missions?Three or four manned missions with long duration, rendezvous with target vehicles, EVA, maybe rendezvous and inspection of a satellite. A sort of bridge between the Gemini and the Apollo missions. I mean, for example: - Apollo 2- rendezvous and docking with Agena target vehicle, EVA with AMU unit.
- Apollo 3 - rendezvous and docking with Agena target vehicle, long duration mission (two weeks)
- Apollo 4 - rendezvous and inspection by EVA with an artificial satellite.
- Apollo 5 - first Lunar module test in low Earth orbit.
| |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2021 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
