|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo command module landing on land
|
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 678
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-12-2007 07:27 PM
  
Did NASA even remotely consider what would happen if the Apollo command module came down on land? Could the crew have survived the impact? |
micropooz
Member Posts: 1532
From: Washington, DC, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-12-2007 07:49 PM
It was considered to be very dangerous for the crew to come down on land. The capsule descended at about 25 ft/sec so hitting a solid surface was a huge impact. During Apollo launches they observed some wind direction and speed limits that would ensure that the CM would come down in the water if there was a launch abort. |
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-12-2007 09:19 PM
The angle at which the CM hangs as it descends under the chutes is designed to position it to minimize the effects of a land landing.Additionally, the "leading edge" of the CM in this position employed an "impact attenuation system" (basically a "crumple zone") to absorb some of the energy of impact. Finally, the struts supporting the crew couches would also absorb some of the impact. All of the Little Joe II flights were recovered on land (of course, the boilerplates were of a heavier construction than a flight-ready CM). At least one production CM was flown on a Little Joe II. |
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 03-13-2007 02:53 PM
I just recently discovered an Apollo CSM design that landed horizontally with X-15 like landing gear and extendable swing-wings.In 1967 the North American Rockwell Corp. applied for an Apollo variant patent that was granted in 1971. The patent drawings show an Apollo CSM that has extendable wings and an X-15 like landing gear with forward nose wheel and rear skids. This Apollo shuttlecraft variant also has a cargo bay. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-13-2007 03:15 PM
I wonder if the Apollo 15 crew would have survived a two-chute landing on land. I suspect a three-chute landing on land would be rough enough, but two chutes would have been pretty tough to make.Of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, it appears that Mercury was probably the best-designed to take a land landing, with it's landing bag to absorb some of the impact. |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 03-29-2007 03:35 PM
There were a number of test drops here in Downey at the North American assembly plant, both land and on water. Sure, the first test drops cracked and sank, but somewhere down the line there came a decision that a CM ground landing wasn't survivable. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 06-10-2007 02:18 AM
It is my understanding that an Apollo CM would have a rate of descent of 38 feet per second under two parachutes. 32 feet per second with all three chutes out. The Mercury and Gemini were both designed to land at 30 feet per second. John Glenn reported his speed at 42 feet per second. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4494
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-18-2007 04:58 PM
Comprehensive report of CM land impact tests are also addressed here. |
Explorer1
Member Posts: 180
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Apr 2019
|
posted 12-15-2019 01:09 AM
As early as 1963 I believe, there were drop tests of the Apollo spacecraft to examine the feasibility of the spacecraft making land landings instead of a splashdown. I am not certain if these tests were done with the goal of making safe land landings or whether these test were done to see what the loads would be on a crew having to make a ground landing. In any case, it was determined that the types of crew couches needed for a land landing would add too much weight to the capsule. So any thoughts of the Apollo command module making deliberate ground landings were abandoned. However, apparently in 1968, there were still boilerplate drop tests being conducted on the command module for ground landing impact tests. Does anyone know why these tests were being conducted so late and for what purpose? Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-15-2019 02:47 AM
From NASA, Final Parachute Test Qualifies Apollo Landing System: The drops included nominal entry and a range of off-nominal scenarios including high-altitude abort simulations and single-canopy failures. The July 3 [1968] final drop test simulated a high-altitude launch abort deploying one of two drogue and two of three main parachutes, subjecting the ELS to design limit worst-case conditions. |
taneal1
Member Posts: 237
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted 12-29-2019 04:57 PM
In the event of a launch abort, easterly winds above a specified limit would force the CM to touchdown on land. The Block II couches were designed to better attenuate landing shock, but they were not ready in time for Apollo 7. In the event of a touchdown on land with the Block I couches, serious astronaut injury was expected. Due to this fact, the launch wind limits were lower than had been originally planned. On launch day the wind was out of limits, but due to the reliability of the Saturn 1B Schirra was asked to waive this restriction, which he did. He has stated that after reaching orbit, he was "pissed" at himself for agreeing to this, and that put him in a bad mood even before his cold symptoms appeared. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-31-2019 03:16 PM
Getting back to the original question.NASA conducted some tests of an Apollo capsule equipped with a hydraulic or pneumatic impact attenuation system for landing on land. The heat shield would detach and extend down 10-12 inches as the system prepared for impact. The idea being that the hydraulic or pneumatic shock absorbers would cushion the astronauts from the full effect of the impact. There were several NASA Contractor Reports written about the system. I do not recall the CR numbers of the reports. I believe the additional weight of the system was prohibitive and the efficiency of the system questionable. |
advertisement