Pdf/131/07/28/6356995/Me-2009-Jul2.Pdf by Guest on 29 September 2021 Hen President John F

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Pdf/131/07/28/6356995/Me-2009-Jul2.Pdf by Guest on 29 September 2021 Hen President John F Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-pdf/131/07/28/6356995/me-2009-jul2.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 hen President John F. Kennedy designs were sometimes risky, but always well thought announced in May 1961 his goal to send a man to the out and, on occasion, elegantly simple. Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-pdf/131/07/28/6356995/me-2009-jul2.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 moon, the United States had accomplished exactly 15 This month we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the minutes of human spaceflight time, Alan Shepard's sub­ achievement of President Kennedy's bold goal-Apollo orbital flight in the Mercury space capsule, Freedom 7. In 11's historic landing on the moon. And while most of the the run-up to that success, the American space program commemorations will feature Armstrong and Aldrin, had absorbed a series of high-profile embarrassments as who went to the moon, it took the efforts of Houbolt, the Soviet Union, with which the U.S. was competing Mueller, Castenholz, McClure, Kelly, Rathke, Carbee, in a so-called Space Race, seemed to remain one step Rigsby, Harms, Sherman, Bales, Garman, and thousands ahead. To declare so publicly the goal to land a man on of engineers just like them to make it possible. the moon before the end of the decade was to risk anoth­ Speaking as an engineer, it is impossible not to be in awe er humbling loss. of what they accomplished in just eight years. 1'd like to "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the share a few stories about their remarkable achievements. other things," Kennedy said in a speech at Rice Univer­ sity in September 1962, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." And it was hard. The motive for Immediately following Kennedy's announcement, the President's goal may have been politics and prestige NASA managers asked themselves, "How do you get during the Cold War, but America's political fortunes were to the moon?" It wasn't the first time that engineers now in the hands of its top engineers. At the moment of had speculated on the problem: In the early 1950s, for Kennedy's announcement, the technology, the infrastruc­ instance, Collier's magazine had published a famous series ture, the hardware, and the technical workforce needed to of articles by leading scientists and engineers detailing a achieve this goal did not yet exist. plan to send men to the moon and Mars. But suddenly At the time, the public spotlight shined on the face of the question had turned from being an academic exercise the space program, the astronauts who had already become national heroes. What most people didn't realize was the massive harness­ ing of America's technological resources that occurred to make the moon landing possible. In all, more than 400,000 engineers, sci­ entists, and technicians working for more than 20,000 companies and universities contributed to Apollo's success. The engineers are not household names. Col­ lectively, however, they overcame ' enormous technological challeng- es with creativity, innovation, and persistence. Their decisions and Burton Dicht is Managing Director of ASME"s Knowledge and Community Sector. His lifelong interest in aero­ space history has made him a fre­ quent lecturer at ASME"s sections and student sections. what he called "back of the envelope calculations." The results to Houbolt were irrefutable. LOR made it possible to use smaller and lighter spacecraft, thus mak­ ing the scale of the entire project simpler. But Houbolt could not convince his own bosses, and he did what most would consider career suicide by going around them directly to NASA's leaders in Washington. Houbolt's stubborn persistence in the face of great opposition and the validity of his engineering calcu­ lations finally won the day. NASA leadership slowly came around, and by the fall of 1962 it had adopted the LOR mission architecture. With the concept set, NASA moved to develop the hardware necessary to make the Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-pdf/131/07/28/6356995/me-2009-jul2.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 lunar flight. The linchpin of the Apollo program was a launch vehicle powerful enough to propel the mother ship · and lunar landing craft to the moon. Without that crit­ ical piece, all other parts of the effort would be useless. Tackling the problem was the brilliant German-born rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his team at the Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Their solution, the engineering masterpiece known as the. Saturn V, was a technological leap over anything the to a matter of national importance. United States had in its inventory at the time. One of the biggest issues to settle was the miSSion Consisting of three stages possessing more than 3 mil­ architecture-the steps through which spacecraft would lion parts in total, the Saturn V would tower some 363 be launched, landed on the moon, and returned safely. feet when fully stacked. As designed, the behemoth For instance, one potential mission architecture involved weighed more than 6 million pounds and its five F-1 launching a single manned vehicle directly to the moon engines would produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust. and returning the entire spacecraft to Earth. Although One day it would be the most powerful rocket ever straightforward, such a mission would be require launch­ launched. But in 1962 it was just a concept on a drawing ing a prohibitively large mass with a single rocket and board. O ver the next five years, von Braun and his team, was beyond the scope of what was possible in the 1960s. along with prime contractors Boeing, North American, Instead, the mission concept initially embraced by NASA Douglas, and Rocketdyne worked to design, manufac­ was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous. EOR involved the ture, and test the Saturn V. It was a massive engineering launch of two rockets with all of the components needed project that pushed the boundaries of the technology and for a lunar mission. In Earth orbit, the two rockets would manufacturing methods. rendezvous and dock, and then· the combined spacecraft In 1963, George Mueller, an engineering manager would continue onto the moon. This entire spacecraft from industry who had helped develop the Minuteman would land on the moon and return to Earth when the mission was completed. The other concept, l hich was not given much credence by the NASA hierarchy, was Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. In that mission architecture, a single launch vehicle would send a mother ship and a landing craft directly to the moon. In lunar orbit, the lander would separate from the mother ship and descend to the surface. On return the lunar lander would rendezvous and dock with the mother ship; the lander would then be discarded and the astro­ nauts would return to Earth in the mother ship. NASA's opposition to LOR centered on the complexity and danger associated with spacecraft that must rendezvous in lunar orbit. But John Houbolt, an engineer at NASA's Langley facility in Virginia, was a passionate advocate for LOR. Houbolt crunched the numbers for both concepts in 30 mechanical engineering I July 2009 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-pdf/131/07/28/6356995/me-2009-jul2.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 turer, worked overtime to deter­ mine the cause of the problem. The J-2 had never failed in any ground tests, and making a diagnosis of the problem next to impossible was the fact that the engineers did not have any hardware to examine. The only clue to work from was some telem­ etry data that pointed to a possible rupture of an auxiliary fuel line. Paul Castenholz, the J-2 project manager at Rocketdyne, led the investigation, and his team tested the engine again Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article-pdf/131/07/28/6356995/me-2009-jul2.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 , and again without failure. Frustrated, and with the weight of the entire Apollo program bear­ ing down on them, Castenholz and his engineers met to see if they were missing something. Marshall McClure, an engineer on the team, posed a simple question that would lead them down the path to an answer-"Would it be different in ballistic missile for the Air Force, was brought in as the space than on the ground?" associate administrator for manned space flight. Muel­ The engineers watched films of their tests and saw that ler conducted a top-to-bottom review of the Saturn V ice' was building up on the lines carrying super -cooled program and grew concerned over von Braun's testing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The fluid lines were plan. Von Braun was meticulous and proposed testing flexible and were susceptible to vibrations. Could the ice, the rocket's first stage by launching it with dummy upper which needed air to form, be protecting the lines during stages. If that flight succeeded, the tests would proceed ground tests? Castenholz and McClure used a special­ incrementally from there with dummy stages being ized test chamber to study the components under a vac­ replaced by live ones. Discounting the additional cost of uum and the fluid lines failed. A simple engineering fix manufacturing multiple test stages, Mueller questioned that involved adding steel mesh around the lines would the time it would take to conduct all of the launches von prevent future failures.
Recommended publications
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program
    Apollo program 1 Apollo program The Apollo program was the third human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States' civilian space agency. First conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a three-man spacecraft to follow the one-man Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961 address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo was in 1968 and it succeeded in landing the first humans on Earth's Moon from 1969 through 1972. Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Lunar Module (LM) on the Moon on July 20, 1969 and walked on its surface while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command spacecraft, and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, and was supported by the two-man Gemini program which ran concurrently with it from 1962 to 1966. Gemini missions developed some of the space travel techniques that were necessary for the success of the Apollo missions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr
    Interviews with Dr. Wernher von Braun Editor's note: The following are edited excerpts from two interviews conducted with Dr. Wernher von Braun. Interview #1 was conducted on August 25, 1970, by Robert Sherrod while Dr. von Braun was deputy associate administrator for planning at NASA Headquarters. Interview #2 was conducted on November 17, 1971, by Roger Bilstein and John Beltz. These interviews are among those published in Before This Decade is Out: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program, (SP-4223, 1999) edited by Glen E. Swanson, whick is vailable on-line at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/sp4223.htm on the Web. Interview #1 In the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology, you are quoted as saying "It is true that for a long time we were not in favor of lunar orbit rendezvous. We favored Earth orbit rendezvous." Well, actually even that is not quite correct, because at the outset we just didn't know which route [for Apollo to travel to the Moon] was the most promising. We made an agreement with Houston that we at Marshall would concentrate on the study of Earth orbit rendezvous, but that did not mean we wanted to sell it as our preferred scheme. We weren't ready to vote for it yet; our study was meant to merely identify the problems involved. The agreement also said that Houston would concentrate on studying the lunar rendezvous mode. Only after both groups had done their homework would we compare notes. This agreement was based on common sense. You don't start selling your scheme until you are convinced that it is superior.
    [Show full text]
  • JULY Roundup Working
    volume Number 43/7 One giant leap for mankind Roundup SPACE CENTER ROUNDUP Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module pilot, is photographed next to the deployed United States flag during lunar surface extravehicular activity at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The highest part of the flag appears to point toward our planet Earth in the distant background. This picture was taken by Astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 17 commander. While Astronauts Cernan and Schmitt descended in the Lunar Module to explore the Moon, Astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules in lunar orbit. NASA AS11-40-5880 NASA AS17-134-20384 Space Center Roundup PRSRT STD One small The Roundup is an official publication of the U.S. POSTAGE “Here men from the planet Earth first set foot National Aeronautics and Space Administration, PAID Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, and is WEBSTER, TX step for upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in published by the Public Affairs Office for all Space Permit No. G27 peace for all mankind.” Center employees. The Roundup office is in Bldg. 2, Quote from the plaque affixed to the Lunar Module Rm. 166A. The mail code is AP121. Visit our Web site at: www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/weekly/ man… and signed by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, For distribution questions or to suggest a story idea, Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin and President Richard Nixon. please call 281/244-6397 or send an e-mail to 35th anniversary coverage of the [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Through Astronaut Eyes: Photographing Early Human Spaceflight
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Purdue University Press Book Previews Purdue University Press 6-2020 Through Astronaut Eyes: Photographing Early Human Spaceflight Jennifer K. Levasseur Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_previews This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. THROUGH ASTRONAUT EYES PURDUE STUDIES IN AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS James R. Hansen, Series Editor Purdue Studies in Aeronautics and Astronautics builds on Purdue’s leadership in aeronautic and astronautic engineering, as well as the historic accomplishments of many of its luminary alums. Works in the series will explore cutting-edge topics in aeronautics and astronautics enterprises, tell unique stories from the history of flight and space travel, and contemplate the future of human space exploration and colonization. RECENT BOOKS IN THE SERIES British Imperial Air Power: The Royal Air Forces and the Defense of Australia and New Zealand Between the World Wars by Alex M Spencer A Reluctant Icon: Letters to Neil Armstrong by James R. Hansen John Houbolt: The Unsung Hero of the Apollo Moon Landings by William F. Causey Dear Neil Armstrong: Letters to the First Man from All Mankind by James R. Hansen Piercing the Horizon: The Story of Visionary NASA Chief Tom Paine by Sunny Tsiao Calculated Risk: The Supersonic Life and Times of Gus Grissom by George Leopold Spacewalker: My Journey in Space and Faith as NASA’s Record-Setting Frequent Flyer by Jerry L. Ross THROUGH ASTRONAUT EYES Photographing Early Human Spaceflight Jennifer K.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII
    America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII Course No: B05-005 Credit: 5 PDH Dominic Perrotta, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 076 77 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] America’s Greatest Projects & Their Engineers-Vol. VII The Apollo Project-Part 1 Preparing for Space Travel to the Moon Table of Contents I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight A. The Three Lives that Were Lost B. Investigation, Findings & Recommendations II. Beginning of the Man on the Moon Concept A. Plans to Land on the Moon B. Design Considerations and Decisions 1. Rockets – Launch Vehicles 2. Command/Service Module 3. Lunar Module III. NASA’s Objectives A. Unmanned Missions B. Manned Missions IV. Early Missions V. Apollo 7 Ready – First Manned Apollo Mission VI. Apollo 8 - Orbiting the Moon 1 I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight Everything seemed to be going well for the Apollo Project, the third in a series of space projects by the United States intended to place an American astronaut on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s decade. Apollo 1, known at that time as AS (Apollo Saturn)-204 would be the first manned spaceflight of the Apollo program, and would launch a few months after the flight of Gemini 12, which had occurred on 11 November 1966. Although Gemini 12 was a short duration flight, Pilot Buzz Aldrin had performed three extensive EVA’s (Extra Vehicular Activities), proving that Astronauts could work for long periods of time outside the spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Hack the Moon Bibliography
    STORY TITLE SOURCES General Sources for Many Topics and Stories - the following books served Digital Apollo by David A. Mindell as sources of both specific and general information on the Apollo Project and were utilized in many places across the website. Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer by Eldon C. Hall Apollo 13 by James Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir by Don Eyles Apollo 8 by Jeffrey Kluger Left Brains for the Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith Apollo by Zack Scott Ramon Alonso's Moon Mission Grammar Ramon Alonso Interview MIT Science Reporter:The Apollo Guidance Computer -- https://infinitehistory.mit.edu/video/mit-science-reporter%E2% 80%94computer-apollo-1965 Apollo's Iron Man: Doc Draper https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/27/obituaries/charles-s-draper-engineer-guided-astronauts-to-moon.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/07/28/charles-draper-dies-at-age-85/4bdedf80-c033-4563-a129- eb425d37180a/?utm_term=.ab5f7aaa7b19 http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloffame/detail.php?id=6 http://news.mit.edu/2015/michael-collins-speaks-about-first-moon-landing-0402 https://www.nap.edu/read/4548/chapter/7#126 Digital Fly-By-Wire Left Brains For The Right Stuff by Hugh Blair-Smith www.nasa.gov https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/july/flight-training-magazine/fly-by-wire www.aircraft.airbus.com aviationweek.com/blog/1987 http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/t_5.html The Amazing DSKY: A Leapfrog in Computer Science E-2567 -- Operations & Functions of the MINKEY
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lunar Architecture
    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited
    Student Session II Paper No. GT-SSEC.E.2 The Apollo Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Architecture Decision Revisited David M. Reeves1 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Michael D. Scher2 University of Maryland National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Alan W. Wilhite3 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 Dr. Douglas O. Stanley4 Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, ABSTRACT The 1962 Apollo architecture mode decision process was revisited with modern analysis and systems engineer tools to determine driving selection criteria and technology/operational mode design decisions that may be used for NASA’s current Space Exploration program. Results of the study agreed with the Apollo selection of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mode based on the technology maturity and politics in 1962. Using today’s greater emphasis on human safety and improvements in technology and design maturity, a slight edge may be given to the direct lunar mode over lunar orbit rendezvous. Also, the NOVA direct mode and Earth orbit rendezvous mode are not competitive based any selection criteria. Finally, reliability and development, operations, and production costs are major drivers in today’s decision process. 1Graduate Research Assistant, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 2 Graduate Research Assistant, University of Maryland, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Student Member. 3 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Associate Fellow. 4 Langley Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, 100 Exploration Way, AIAA Member. Page 1 of 12 Pages Student Session II Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Early Research and Development Programs on Apollo, Saturn, and Legacy System Development
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20200002742 2020-05-24T04:41:34+00:00Z Paving the way: The influence of early research and development programs on Apollo, Saturn, and legacy system development. Charles E. Cockrell, Jr.* and Robert Wyman** NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA Introduction As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first successful human landings on the surface of the Moon in 1969, it is insightful to review the many historic accomplishments that contributed to this astounding human achievement. While the Apollo Program officially began following the charge by United States President John F. Kennedy in 1961, much of the foundation for Apollo was already underway with early research and development that began as early as the close of the second World War. Innovations and key decisions prior to the formal initiation of the Apollo Program, and even prior to the formation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), enabled the relatively rapid development of the Saturn V rocket, the Apollo capsule, and the Lunar Lander systems needed to achieve the goal of landing humans on the Moon and returning them safely to Earth by the close of the 1960s. The history of aerospace research and development in the United States of America (USA) begins with the establishment of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1915. At the dawn of World War I, prominent scientists and engineers in the United States became concerned about the lack of advancement in aviation just a few short years following the historic flights of the Wright brothers.
    [Show full text]
  • JSC-66136 Revision 1
    JSC-66136 Revision 1 1 This page intentionally left blank. 2 JSC-66136 Revision 1 Space Shuttle Guidance, Navigation, and Rendezvous Knowledge Capture Reports October 2011 By: Original Signed by: John L. Goodman Flight Design and Dynamics United Space Alliance, LLC Approved By: Original Signed By: Christine M. Reichert Chief Orbit Dynamics Branch Flight Dynamics Division Mission Operations Directorate NASA Johnson Space Center 3 This page intentionally left blank. 4 Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8 Observations on Documentation Quality and Research Challenges ...................................... 11 Programmatic Histories Compared to Technical Documentation ............................................ 12 Relative Quality of Apollo and Space Shuttle Documentation ................................................ 14 Apollo and Space Shuttle Research Challenges ....................................................................... 17 Knowledge Capture via Software Documentation ................................................................... 21 Orion Knowledge Capture Challenges ..................................................................................... 26 Space Shuttle Knowledge Capture Approach .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Gavin Jr. and His Contributions to American Aerospace
    68th International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia. Copyright ©2017 by the International Astronautical Federation. All rights reserved. IAC-17-E4.1.6x41602 JOSEPH G. GAVIN JR. AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO AMERICAN AEROSPACE ACHIEVEMENT Dr. Andrew S. Erickson* Professor of Strategy, United States Naval War College Associate in Research, John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University [email protected] * The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, who welcomes all possible comments and suggestions for improvement via <http://www.andrewerickson.com/contact/>. They do not represent the estimates or policies of the U.S. Navy or any other organization of the U.S. Government. Joseph G. Gavin Jr. had an extraordinary aerospace engineering career in an extraordinary age For American aerospace achievements. His employment coincided exactly with the Cold War era of lofty defense spending and aerospace programs. Following degrees From MIT in 1941 and 1942 and Four years as a naval ofFicer in the U.S. Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics, Gavin spent his entire career with the Grumman Corporation, rising From design engineer in 1946 to president and Chief Operating OFFicer in 1976 before his retirement in 1985. He was directly involved in the development of naval aircraft, a core Grumman product. He headed development multiple aerospace programs, including the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory as Grumman’s chief missile and space engineer, a precursor to the Hubble Space Telescope. OF greatest historical signiFicance, From 1962-72, Gavin oversaw 7,500 employees as director of the Apollo Lunar Module program. NASA awarded him the Distinguished Public Service Medal For his role in saving the Apollo 13 mission; and in 1974 he was elected to the National Academy oF Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • NTR Systems Assessment for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Scenario
    NASA Technical Memorandum 106748 AIAA-92-3812 l "Fast Track" NTR Systems Assessment for NASA's First Lunar Outpost Scenario Stanley K. Borowski and Stephen W. Alexander Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio .- / " ./ Prepared for the 28th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by AlAA, SAE, ASME, and ASEE Nashville, Tennessee, July 6-8, 1992 National Aeronautics and •Space Administration ---_.. _-- _.... _---_ ... _-- "FAST TRACK" NTR SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT FOR NASA'S FIRST LUNAR OUTPOST SCENARIO Stanley K. Borowski* Stephen W. Alexander** Nuclear Propulsion Office Advanced Space Analysis Office NASA/Lewis Research Center NASA/Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road 21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135 Cleveland, OH 44135 ABSTRACT engine/stage configurations, and examines the impact on engine selection and vehicle design Integrated systems and mission study results resulting from a consideration of alternative are presented which quantify the ratio'nale and NTR fuel forms and lunar mission profiles. benefits for developing and using nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) technology for returning humans to the Moon in the early 2000's. At present, the INTRODUCTION Exploration Program Office (ExPO) is considering chemical propulsion for its "First Lunar Outpost" The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) outlined (FLO) misSion, and NTR propulsion for the more by President Bush on July 20 , 1989, the 20th demanding Mars missions to follow. The use of an anniversary of Apollo 11, calls for a return to the NTR-based lunar transfer stage, capable of Moon "to stay" early in the next century, followed evolving to Mars mission applications, could by a journey to Mars using systems "space result in an accelerated schedule, reduced cost tested" in the lunar environment.
    [Show full text]