|
Author
|
Topic: Stafford 1st man on moon?
|
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 678
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 10:45 AM
  
Perhaps this is a sacriligious subject but why did NASA feel that they really needed the 'full dress rehersal' of Apollo 10? Nasa was certainly taking bold steps. It had 4 Saturn V flights under its belt, including the lunar orbit mission, and the LEM performed flawlessly on Apollo 9. So did they really need 10 as a precursor to the actually moon landing attempt? What was it exactly that they felt needed to be 'tested'? Or was ther some hardware/software issue I'm not aware of that they felt they had to have before a landing attemp. Or was it something else - like Stafford was military and Armstrong was not? So could 'Comrade Staffordsky' have been the most famous of them all??? Thanks,
Paul [This message has been edited by Paul78zephyr (edited May 01, 2006).] |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2913
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 10:59 AM
Paul-The first thing that comes to mind is the LM. They wanted to test all rendezvous and landing systems prior to actually landing. Also the LM was too heavy to land on Apollo 10. "Houston...Tranquility Base here, Snoopy has landed" doesn't have the same ring to it. Tim [This message has been edited by KSCartist (edited May 01, 2006).] |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-01-2006 11:18 AM
I was thinking about the 1201 and 1202 alarms on Apollo 11... I wonder what state the software would have been in for powered descent for Apollo 10. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 05-01-2006 12:05 PM
Among other problems (including the potential software issues mentioned above), my understanding is that LM-4 was too heavy for a successful lunar landing and return. I do not believe that there was any conspiracy behind 11 getting the landing rather than 10, merely a matter of NASA testing all of the systems on a dry run before the actual lunar landing. Gene Cernan seems understanding of the process in his autobiography. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 05-01-2006 02:22 PM
Not to mention the Mascons (mass concentrations) that were affecting lunar orbiting vehicles. |
TRS
Member Posts: 721
From: Wellington, New Zealand
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 05-01-2006 02:24 PM
I have a memory of reading that another thing they wanted to test was the effect of the mascons on guidance and radar and a reason for the Apollo 10 dress rehearsal was to ensure that the systems would not be impaired as a result of passing over them. Someone else may be in a better position to confirm that than me.
CheersCraig |
TRS
Member Posts: 721
From: Wellington, New Zealand
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 05-01-2006 02:25 PM
JohnFirst itme I've hit two of us typing the same thing on opposite sides of the world simultaneously! |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1647
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 05:57 PM
At a recent panel discussion in Houston hosted by Colletcspace, Rodney Rose expressed the importance of the Apollo 10 mission to map out mascons. In his opinion, without Apollo 10, the risk of Apollo 11 making a successful landing would have been greatly increased. Rodney campaigned hard for the Apollo 10 mission, and was very proud of his stance. Of course this may all have been a moot point as some have already mentioned that the Apollo 10 LM was too heavy to land. |
Michael Cassutt
Member Posts: 358
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 05-01-2006 08:19 PM
I covered this with Gen. Stafford -- George Mueller was hoping to skip A10 (that is, the F mission) and go directly to a landing. But Stafford and other senior astros -- not to mention senior managers like Gilruth and Low -- knew that LM-4 was too heavy, that comm issues had not been explored, that the software was not ready, etc. etc. etc.Stafford says he would have loved to have been first to walk on the Moon, but he also believed then and believes now that A10 was a vital step that needed to be taken. As for the idea that Stafford's military status had anything to do with it, how long is that nonsense going to be bouncing around the universe? Deke Slayton was a proud USAF officer -- he had set up his whole astronaut rotation to put military officers like Borman, McDivitt, Stafford and Conrad in position to command a potential first landing.... yes, along with ex-Navy officer Armstrong. It was luck of the draw. Michael Cassutt
co-author of DEKE! and WE HAVE CAPTURE |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1532
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-01-2006 09:59 PM
Plus, the original plan was to test the LM in low earth orbit (like Apollo 9), then test it in high earth orbit, then test it in lunar orbit (like Apollo 10) before a landing. The Apollo program had already decided to skip the high earth orbit test and go directly to the lunar orbit test on Apollo 10. Had they skipped BOTH the high earth orbit test and the lunar orbit test to go directly to a landing on Apollo 10, that would have been an unacceptable risk in just about everyone's mind. |
advertisement