|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo Stay-Time Extension Module
|
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 08-22-2008 04:24 AM
  
I've always thought that if the Apollo astronauts had done more on the moon apart from just talk about rocks then maybe the public interest might not have died off so quickly. Geology may have been good science to do there but as a way of engaging the man/woman on the street it was dullsville. Let's face it, it would have been better to have sacrificed a few rocks to have extended the program through to Apollo 19. On Apollo 15, for example, a trip to the north complex giving spectacular views would have been eminently more impressive than a core sample. One such item that could have been carried to the moon was the Stay-Time Extension Module (STEM), an inflatable shelter 13 feet by 7 feet that could have supported two astronauts for up to two weeks. IMO this is the kind of work the astronauts should have been carrying out on the moon. Something that gave the impression of an ongoing program instead of one with a sell-by-date. Does anyone know why the STEM was not used? |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1647
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 08-22-2008 07:45 PM
Oh, you definitely need to get into one of my geology classes! It's not really boring. I can't believe you can't get excited about a coarse-grained porphrytic rock with rounded olivine phenocrysts and subhedral zoned pyroxene phenocrysts set in a matrix of poikilitic plagioclase?
|
Richard Glueck
Member Posts: 15
From: Winterport, Maine, USA
Registered: Sep 2007
|
posted 08-23-2008 10:27 AM
Geology is pretty interesting stuff-consider the rocks which toddlers invariably pick up and bring home because of the interest in texture, morphology, etc. The problem is most adults have little field training. Leaving a permanent moon base, or an inflated structure that could be identified by the casual telescope observer, or an amateur radio repeater, would have all been brilliant additions to Apollo. I think the struggle to get humans up there and get them back alive, even though we were getting good at it, was the real crux of the missions. NASA was interested in opening a new unknown, which they did admirably. Had the public been more savvy and intellectual, the effort might have grown. To be fair, we were bound to lose a crew on one of the successive missions; probability says so. Rather than face that, Congress, Nixon, and NASA went with the flow and canceled Apollo. I'll be thrilled if we land on the moon again in my lifetime, but it's a shame the technology wasn't carried out so I could have gone to the moon in my lifetime.
|
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3160
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-23-2008 04:23 PM
In simple terms, Apollo went to the Moon for 3 reasons:(1) Because it is there;
(2) Because President Kennedy directed NASA to go there (and back);
(3) To find out where the Moon came from, and what makes it tick. The first reason fulfilled a driving genetic imperative, the imperative that makes us human beings. The second reason was political, and thank God for the politics: without the politics (and the Russians) Neil Armstrong would probably be an obscure retired university professor remembered by a few aviation buffs as a great former test-pilot. The third reason was all about geology. Reasons 1 and 2 were fulfilled by the safe splashdown of Apollo 11. Everything after that was about geology, even Apollo 12 which was about proving that later missions could land at the geologically interesting places. Apollo's geology didn't bore me, in fact I became so fascinated by the geology that I almost took up geology as an extra subject in school. I still can't walk through beautiful mountains without saying "Look at that beautiful layering!" to my wife, or to passing strangers, or just to myself. Thanks to Apollo, for me the story of geology is a page-turner. I highly recommend "To a Rocky Moon" by Don Wilhelms, one of the best books ever written about Apollo. You don't need to be fascinated by geology to enjoy it, but if are, you will. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 08-24-2008 12:48 AM
This is a fascinating topic and I also have a strong interest in lunar geology but the original question still stands.Does anyone know why the STEM was not used? Lets face it if they could have extended even the last one or two missions to 2 weeks even more geology could have been carried out more Science of other disciplines also. |
webhamster
Member Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 08-24-2008 01:38 PM
I'll throw out a few ideas on why it wasn't used:1) Too risky. Having achieved their goals, NASA didn't want to take on unnecessary risk that could derail future projects. 2) What's the CMP going to do in orbit for 2 extra weeks? Was the command module even rated to stay active so long? When docked with Skylab it was powered down. What would the extra two weeks have cost in terms of power? Would it last? 3) Weight and consumables. How are you going to get all that stuff down to the lunar surface when you were already pressing against the weight limits? Not to mention the extra food, water, oxygen, etc that would be needed not only for the CM but for the two guys on the surface. All that extra stuff has a cost. In short, there are way too many unanswered questions to have justified even considering it. I think too that the development of the STEM dates to a period where the lunar flights were supposed to continue with a Block III CSM and a new generation LM (pre-budget cuts). I don't think it would have even been possible to use it with the Apollo hardware that made the original landings. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 08-24-2008 09:33 PM
The length of time an Apollo CSM could stay active with fully loaded cryo for its fuel cells was about two weeks, so given the amount of travel time to and from the moon, that still doesn't leave much additional time for surface exploration, given the hardware configuration as it was flown to the moon.You can't power down a CSM like that as once the fuel cells are shut down, they can't power up again. Skylab CSMs got around that by replacing some of the fuel cells with storage batteries, but the craft was docked to another and took energy from it to stay charged. I would say that STEM probably would not have been practical unless work was done to make more radical mission equipment past the J series missions flown by Apollos 15 thru 17. The equipment was stretched to the limit already and it was designed for somewhat short duration use. So a shelter designed for a longer duration mission wouldn't do much good anyway if the rest of the equipment and consumeables couldn't be made to last that long. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 08-25-2008 03:43 PM
I'm not running geology down, I'm just saying that for the average man in the street it's pretty dull and that maybe other things could have been done up there as well as geology.As for the STEM, the CSM would define how long the crew could stay on the surface and that time was pretty limited but it would have been a good experiment to have carried out. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1647
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 08-25-2008 05:53 PM
robsouth, I didn't take your comments as slighting geology; my reply was intended to be sarcastic. I agree with your comments but do believe that the geology could have been made more understandable and fun for the public. |
compass
Member Posts: 42
From: uk
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 08-26-2008 06:12 AM
In Deke Slaytons book 'Deke' he suggests that the Apollo landings ended appropriately at 17, the entire Apollo system NASA employed to land on the moon and return to earth was experimental and to press on with a 19 or 20 was pushing their luck, he was of the view that to do so would have resulted in a disaster sooner or later. Even Gene Cernan reluctantly accepted the 1 additional day in lunar orbit prior to TEI ( for experiments ), he felt they were pressing their luck and inviting something to go wrong. To sum up, the Apollo system was experimental, time and weight limited and purely exploration with its associated dangers and degree of complex difficulty required to accomplish what it was basically all about in the early 60's, place a man on the moon and rtn him safely to earth. Longer duration exploration was difinately something to be left for much later next generation craft |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-27-2008 12:06 PM
Chris Kraft expressed a similar sentiment in his book. In fact, I was surprised to discover that quite a few guys seemed to be waiting for the hammer to fall as they racked up more missions. There was some sense of relief when it ended. I for one wonder how long the flight controllers, for example, could've kept up the pace they had, even with new guys coming along. It didn't seem that anyone was wanting to quite the moon, but rather get on with ostensibly bigger and better things. Cheers, Kevin
|
Orthon
Member Posts: 144
From: San Tan Valley, Arizona 85143
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-27-2008 06:07 PM
I could never understand this thinking. In any pioneering effort people are going to be lost. Did people stop moving westward when someone died? Is it safer to stay in Earth orbit than to land on the Moon? I think not. Didn't we lose 14 people returning from Earth orbit?
|
webhamster
Member Posts: 106
From: Ottawa, Canada
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 08-27-2008 08:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Orthon:
I could never understand this thinking. In any pioneering effort people are going to be lost. Did people stop moving westward when someone died? Is it safer to stay in Earth orbit than to land on the Moon? I think not. Didn't we lose 14 people returning from Earth orbit?
I think you also have to put it in context with the times. They'd been to the moon and fulfilled their goal. They were starting to see shrinking budgets, less and less public interest, and many people were looking forward to "the next thing" thinking that it would bring them technology and knowledge that would enable them to *safely* make the next big step involving lunar exploration and space living. We're talking about long stay times on the moon here and the longest flight to date by the time of Apollo 17 was only about 14 days. Skylab was needed to explore other questions, so was the Shuttle, and we'd probably be back on the moon by now if the money had been there and the space station had been built in the 80's instead of the 2000's. Today's not much different. The Shuttle is shutting down in 2010, something mandated right after Columbia which was only 5 1/2 years ago. By the time of Apollo 17, the Apollo 1 fire wasn't quite yet 6 years old. It's all about the perspective of the time, not looking back on it 40 years later. I suspect in 40 years people will be asking the same questions about the Shuttle. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 08-28-2008 06:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Orthon:
I think not. Didn't we lose 14 people returning from Earth orbit?
I think we lost 7 returning from Orbit and 7 going to orbit. But the Space truck keeps on going up. |
barnstormer
Member Posts: 105
From: South Boston VA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-28-2008 01:18 PM
I have an April, 1966, Grumman report, titled, "LEM Utilization For Extended Orbital Mission"... Purpose: Describe what must be done to a LEM to install and operate the Apollo Telescope Mount and/or Experiment for two 14 Day Missions, Separated by a period of Unmanned Orbital storage. It describes taking a Lunar Landing LEM configured as delivered from Bethpage, then adding equipment, removing equipment, add equipment (larger water tanks and MANY other needed items) and expendables for the mission to perform a 14 day mission in Earth Orbit while docked to CSM, then STORE the LEM in quiescent mode for 3-6 MONTHS - unmanned. At the end of the storage period rendezvous and docking, reactivate the LEM, reuse the LEM for another 14 days and MUCH more.The report is on 20 one-sided pages with drawings, charts and lists and text, plus another three pages which appear to be revisions of three earlier pages. Drawings show many of the added and deleted items and special parts and where they go and why etc, crew transfers, etc., etc. I WAS about to put this report (and another two dozen relatively rare and original reports and Apollo documents on the "bay" auctions.. but I had to cancel putting them up, in case Hurricane Gustav hits our (Gulf) area and we lose Internet and power for who knows how long? With any luck, I can put them up next week. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 678
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 08-28-2008 07:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
In simple terms, Apollo went to the Moon for 3 reasons:(1) Because it is there;
(2) Because President Kennedy directed NASA to go there (and back);
(3) To find out where the Moon came from, and what makes it tick.
I respectfully disagree. The real reasons we went to the moon:(1) To beat the Soviets
(2) To beat the Soviets
(3) To beat the Soviets Paul |
advertisement