Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Weight constraints on lunar return samples

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Weight constraints on lunar return samples
moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-05-2010 10:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Something that's been puzzling me concerning the amount of samples returned from the Moon.

Bearing in mind the weight constraints when launching the Apollo stack, i.e. payload versus fuel required, what limits were placed on the lunar crews as to how much they could gather for return to Earth? If there were limits, how did the crews weigh their samples and what degree of latitude did they have?

To put this another way - obviously there was a balance between what was jettisoned after the EVAs, but did the weight of the samples bear a relationship to the fuel available in the ascent stage?

jasonelam
Member

Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-05-2010 12:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jasonelam   Click Here to Email jasonelam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From the Apollo 17 chapter of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ):
[Comm Break. The crew has a small spring scale which gives them terrestrial weights. That is, on Earth, a two-pound (Earth-weight) rock would register twelve pounds on the scale while, on the Moon, it would register two pounds. The actual weight of rocks collected during this EVA is given in the Mission Report as 31 pounds (14 kg). The 48-pound (21.8 kg) total given here includes the weights of the individual sample bags, the two 1.7 pound (0.8 kg) SCBs, and the 14.7 pound (6.7 kg) SRC. Weights are measured so that the flight engineers can adjust the stowage for center-of-mass control, if necessary.]

This also would determine how much gear (Backpacks, Overshoes, Food Bags,etc) would be jettisoned prior to launch.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-05-2010 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for answer however, it still leaves my main query. Were the crew given target weights to collect and how much leeway did they have?

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1647
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-05-2010 07:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I spoke with Alan Bean in 2008 about a comment that Jack Schmitt made to me in 2006; when I asked him why he threw his rock hammer away he claimed it was so he could bring back more rocks. Alan doubted that Gene and Jack could have weighed the rocks that accurately. So I wonder if Alan and Pete did not have an instrument to weigh their rocks, or if he just forgot about it. I do know that most geologists on earth often do a poor job of planning how many rocks (weight) they can bring home. I recall a professor ordering me to throw away a big bag of rocks; it's a hard thing to do!

moorouge
Member

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 08-06-2010 02:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
1975 figures from NASA give the returned sample weights as -
  • 11 - 19.9kgs;
  • 12 - 34kgs;
  • 14 - 44.5kgs;
  • 15 - 78.5kgs;
  • 16 - 95.4kgs;
  • 17 - 114.8kgs.
This means, does it not, that from '15' on the sample weight was considerably in excess of any equipment left behind so there must have been some constraint on the amount of samples collected. [This seems to be suggested by Schmitt's comment.]

One other query occurs to me. Are the weights quoted Earth weights or Moon weights? It seems to be an added complication if crews had to worry about conversion tables.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 08-06-2010 12:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Keep in mind that from 15 on, they were leaving behind the lunar rover as part of the jettisoned equipment. I don't know its weight, but I'm sure it exceeded the masses of the rocks you cited.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-06-2010 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kr4mula:
Keep in mind that from 15 on, they were leaving behind the lunar rover as part of the jettisoned equipment. I don't know its weight, but I'm sure it exceeded the masses of the rocks you cited.

The argument is getting a little far afield. The Descent Engine bore the weight of the Rover, and the Rover was never intended to be lifted by the Ascent Stage.

What was interesting to me about the Ascent Engine was that it was not powerful enough on its own to take the Ascent Stage into orbit. The RCS thrusters also fired during lunar liftoff to give the LM enough of a boost to achieve orbit.

Does anyone have statistics on exactly how much "wiggle room" there was in the Ascent Stage mass related to the available thrust to get to lunar orbit rendezvous? I know that fuel was precious, but I assume that storage space was also an issue (e.g., where would you store 2 PLSS's in the CM on the way home, and why would you bother, if you didn't need them?).

The extra mass of the J-series LM (including the Rover) was compensated for by the CSM taking the stack down to 50,000 feet before the LM needed to fire its engine. This strategy was not used in the early flights. Was a similar strategy also used in lunar ascent in J missions?

jasonelam
Member

Posts: 691
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-06-2010 03:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jasonelam   Click Here to Email jasonelam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
1975 figures from NASA give the returned sample weights as
  • 11 - 19.9kgs;

  • After a lot of searching, I found that the Apollo 11 maximum sample allocation was 50 lbs, or about 23 kg. I would assume then that the weights are Earth weights.

    The ALSJ also states that the "rock sample limit" on Apollo 16 was 215 lbs.

    SpaceAholic
    Member

    Posts: 4494
    From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
    Registered: Nov 1999

    posted 08-06-2010 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by ilbasso:
    What was interesting to me about the Ascent Engine was that it was not powerful enough on its own to take the Ascent Stage into orbit. The RCS thrusters also fired during lunar liftoff to give the LM enough of a boost to achieve orbit.
    Don't think this is correct - can you advise source of your info? The Ascent stage wet weight was about 10K pounds (1650 pounds on the lunar surface); the Ascent engine had a rated ISP of 15.5 KNewtons (3500 pounds in a vacuum) more then sufficient to independently address ascent impulse requirements.

    ilbasso
    Member

    Posts: 1522
    From: Greensboro, NC USA
    Registered: Feb 2006

    posted 08-07-2010 01:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Ah, Scott, thanks for the opportunity to correct my failure to remember properly!

    Page 292 of "How Apollo Flew to the Moon" states that the RCS thrust was about 1/10 that of the Ascent Engine, and that the RCS could have been used to supplement the Ascent Engine if it was under-performing.

    Since the Ascent Engine was not gimballed, the RCS had to steer the Ascent Stage during liftoff. It used only the downward-facing engines to do so, and that resulted in the 2- to 3-second oscillations you see in the films taken from within the LM during ascent.

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-08-2010 06:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
    the Ascent engine had a rated ISP of 15.5 KNewtons (3500 pounds in a vacuum) more then sufficient to independently address ascent impulse requirements.
    Did they either upgrade the ascent engine or carry more fuel to allow for the increased weight of the return samples? The '17' crew brought back very nearly double the weight of the '15' mission - almost 250lbs worth or the equivalent of a third crew member.

    And how close did this push the capability of the ascent stage to its limit?

    SpaceAholic
    Member

    Posts: 4494
    From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
    Registered: Nov 1999

    posted 08-08-2010 07:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Rather then providing the answer(s) outright, I suggest reviewing SP-4029. Here's a clue though - the lunar ascent thrust to weight ratio differences between the G/H/J mission's were essentially negligible.

    Larry McGlynn
    Member

    Posts: 1267
    From: Boston, MA
    Registered: Jul 2003

    posted 08-08-2010 10:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Here is the "Collection Weight Summary" page that Cernan and Schmitt used on Apollo 17 (click to enlarge).

    Hopefully, this will give you an idea of how the "rock boxes" were distributed in the Ascent Stage as well as the weight of the rocks carried up from the lunar surface.

    I know from talking to Dick Gordon that he needed the weights of the "rock boxes" so he could establish the proper CG for reentry.

    That LM ascent engine was the little engine that could.

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-08-2010 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
    Rather then providing the answer(s) outright, I suggest reviewing SP-4029.
    I've had a look and it just complicates the problem. According to the numbers and using Apollo 11 as a base, what they reveal is '12', '14' and '15' had less fuel than '11' available in the ascent stage. Apollo 16 had 6 lbs more and '17' had just 25 lbs more fuel than '11'. Yet '17' lifted over 200 lbs more samples than '11' from the lunar surface using just 92 lbs more fuel.

    What it does show is that it would seem that there was a wide margin of latitude for sample collection. Unless that is I've missed something.

    SpaceAholic
    Member

    Posts: 4494
    From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
    Registered: Nov 1999

    posted 08-08-2010 01:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Pop quiz: Which lunar landed LM Ascent stage possessed the heaviest dry weight?

    Larry McGlynn
    Member

    Posts: 1267
    From: Boston, MA
    Registered: Jul 2003

    posted 08-08-2010 03:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    I have written to a couple of people who might know exactly how the weight issue. Jim Head was a geologist at NASA during Apollo and Gene Cernan. I want to see if they know what the weight limitations were for lunar samples.

    Might as well find out instead of just guessin'

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-08-2010 05:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
    Pop quiz: Which lunar landed LM Ascent stage possessed the heaviest dry weight?
    It depends on how one defines 'dry' weight. The heaviest LM at lunar lift-off less the fuel was Apollo 15 at 5681 lbs.

    The heaviest fueled LM was Apollo 17 at 10,997 lbs (5634 lbs less fuel).

    Am I close?

    SpaceAholic
    Member

    Posts: 4494
    From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
    Registered: Nov 1999

    posted 08-08-2010 05:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Have another look - surprising?:

    Since the RS-18 specific impulse is a fixed capability, the variables are ascent mass (dry, plus propellant/cryo, crew, payload) which in turn impacts total firing time (and propellant consumed) to achieve the required delta-v, altitude and proper position in time/space for rendezvous (different every mission).

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-09-2010 02:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    OK - so it was '11'. However, it raises another interesting question. Why and what were the differences that made the discrepancies between the dry weights of the LM ascent stages?

    Apollo 11 had the heaviest dry weight, Apollo 13 the lightest - a difference of 136 lbs between them.

    robsouth
    Member

    Posts: 769
    From: West Midlands, UK
    Registered: Jun 2005

    posted 08-09-2010 08:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for robsouth     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    To start with, the weight of everything aboard the LM was known with very few variables between earth launch weight and lunar launch weight. Also the weight that could be carried back into lunar orbit was known. Therefore a simple equation can be formed when:

    L =the weight of the LM ascent stage at lift off from earth
    A =the weight of the two LM astronauts (difference between earth launch weight and lunar launch weight is negligible)
    J =jettisoned equipment following moonwalks
    E =equipment brought into the LM ascent stage such as sample return containers and core tubes
    F =RCS fuel (shown by telemetry and astronaut readings)
    C =consumables such as on-board oxygen and water
    S =lunar samples of rock and dirt

    L + A - J + E + F + C + S = X (or known weight of LM ascent stage at lunar lift off)

    Y = Allowable weight of LM ascent stage at lunar lift off dependent on ascent stage engine thrust

    Z = The amount of safety margin or in other words the difference between the possible weight that can be carried into lunar orbit and the allowed weight to be carried back into lunar orbit decided upon by NASA

    So X = Y - Z

    A more precise calculation would have been worked out as illustrated by what Gene Cernan wrote in his book, "The Last Man On The Moon."

    Back inside, we did some last-minute cleaning and tossed a bunch of very expensive gear out of the spacecraft. Cameras, tools, backpacks and other now useless material were flung to the surface. We had to shed weight if we were going to get off the moon safely. Mission planners had worked out the exact balance needed, and every container of rocks we bought aboard was weighed on a handheld fish scale, calibrated for one-sixth gravity before being stored. We had just enough fuel to get us into orbit, with almost no margin for error, so the overall weight of the spacecraft, its passengers and cargo of rocks was critical. We threw out nearly everything that wasn't nailed down.
    In his book, "To Rule The Night," James Irwin wrote,
    Since we were taking 250 pounds of moon rocks and soil back with us, we had to dump everything that we wouldn't need. We carried a kind of fish scale that we used to weigh everything we brought into the spacecraft.
    Charles Duke wrote on this subject in his book, "Moonwalker,"
    ...we weighed our rocks and soil samples. The total came to 44 pounds... we were allowed to bring back 215 pounds, so we had plenty more collecting to do.
    This shows that the crews were given targets and that these targets had been calculated before the mission. It would appear that there was a little leeway because following the final moonwalk Duke went on to write,
    First we weighed our rock and soil samples, because we needed an exact weight at lift-off for our computer to fine tune our ascent trajectory and burn time. After weighing everything, Houston said we had collected a total of 245 pounds during our three day stay. When more accurate measurements were taken later on the earth, it turned out there were actually 213 pounds. They had a little concern about our weight and for a while we thought we might have to jettison some of our rocks, but Houston decided to go with all we had.
    Therefore it would appear that the crews did have targets set for them. There was a little leeway given. Weight was very critical at lunar lift off and wasn't just left to chance but was very carefully calculated. Why did the weight allowance increase? Maybe the added length of time on the surface just allowed for more samples to be collected. Maybe the margin of error was relaxed on later flights.

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-09-2010 02:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by robsouth:
    Why did the weight allowance increase? Maybe the added length of time on the surface just allowed for more samples to be collected. Maybe the margin of error was relaxed on later flights.

    Perhaps the margin of error was relaxed. If one looks at the residuals left after rendezvous they show a small but steady decrease from 402 lbs for '11' to 285 lbs for '17'. The anomaly is '16' which, according to the numbers, had 422 lbs remaining. Why was this one wonders?

    Norman.King
    Member

    Posts: 378
    From: Herne Bay, Kent, UK
    Registered: Feb 2010

    posted 08-09-2010 02:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Norman.King   Click Here to Email Norman.King     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    This is a great discussion. Just out of interest I wonder If any of those Fish Scales made it back to Earth or were they all left behind on the moon?

    Larry McGlynn
    Member

    Posts: 1267
    From: Boston, MA
    Registered: Jul 2003

    posted 08-09-2010 03:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Rob that was an excellent answer.

    I heard from Dave Scott.

    In relation to the other astronauts' comments, he also said that there were limits determined prior to liftoff. If you tie his answer to the book quotes from Cernan, Duke and Irwin, there was a limitation determined prior to the mission. The Apollo 15 crew did notify Mission Control about the total rock weight and was within their weight limits.

    I know of two lunar rock spring scales that returned to Earth after use on the Moon. Apollo 14's is at the Astronaut Hall of Fame and the other is in a private collection.

    There is also one scale that was used in training at the National Air and Space Museum.

    robsouth
    Member

    Posts: 769
    From: West Midlands, UK
    Registered: Jun 2005

    posted 08-10-2010 06:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for robsouth     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    The excellent Apollo Lunar Surface Journal documents the conversation between Young and Duke and Houston at the end of LEVA 3 on the sample return weights.
    171:43:23 Duke: Houston, Orion. Over.

    171:43:25 England: Go ahead, Charlie.

    171:43:30 Duke: Okay. We've got some weights for you, if you're ready to copy.

    171:43:33 England: All set.

    171:43:37 Duke: Okay. The BSLSS rock bag, the big rocks, will weigh 40 pounds; bag 7, SCB number 7, is 33; SCB number 4 is 25; SCB number 6 is 20. I get a total out of that of about 118 (pounds). Over. (Pause)

    171:44:01 England: Okay, we concur.

    [Comm Break]

    171:45:06 England: Okay. We're working those numbers over here.

    171:49:52 England: Hey, fellows, you have 245 pounds of rocks. (Pause) That's not including the weights of the SRCs.

    171:50:05 Young: Okay, has some got to go back?

    171:50:09 England: No, I think we're going to be able to find a way. You got an in-plane launch, so things look pretty good. But we're working it here.

    171:50:20 Slayton: (Joking) Probably have to throw that big one away, John.

    171:50:39 Young: Okay. Well, we don't want to throw away any that don't need to be throwed away. That's for sure.

    ALSJ [They are over the planned limit for samples and, in principle, would be cutting into propellant margins if they kept them all. As Tony mentions, however, the Command Module orbit is perfectly lined up so that John and Charlie wouldn't have to apply any lateral thrust to achieve the rendezvous. Nonetheless, the fact that Houston is taking a long time to make a decision about the over-limit samples is indicative of the pragmatic conservatism that motivated most operational decisions in Apollo.]

    171:56:25 Young: Roger. We're ready to tie up the jett bag.

    171:56:28 England: Okay. We're still trying to get a decision on these rocks down here, if you could hold on one.

    172:05:59 England: Okay, Orion. We're go with the rocks you've got.

    172:06:07 Young: Outstanding. Thank you very much.

    From the ALSJ Cernan makes the following comment.
    [Cernan - "Each pound mattered. I'm not saying that we would have thrown out a pound of rock. There were margins. But, weight translated into less Delta-V(elocity) and into fuel."]
    Hope this helps.

    moorouge
    Member

    Posts: 2458
    From: U.K.
    Registered: Jul 2009

    posted 08-10-2010 10:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    171:50:09 England: No, I think we're going to be able to find a way. You got an in-plane launch, so things look pretty good. But we're working it here.
    Would this explain the anomaly about residual fuel in my previous posting?

    All times are CT (US)

    next newest topic | next oldest topic

    Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
    Post New Topic  Post A Reply
    Hop to:

    Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

    Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





    advertisement