DOCSLIB.ORG

America's Aims in Space

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
America's Aims in Space 906 FLIGHT, 14 December 19C Missiles and Space flight . AMERICA'S AIMS IN SPACE 2. The Launch Vehicles and their Operation By KENNETH OWEN VERSHADOWING all else on the United States space-flight scene is Project Apollo, the accelerated manned lunar pro- O gramme called for as a major national goal by President Kennedy on May 25 last. The President said, "No single space pro- ject will be more exciting or more impressive, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." Within six months, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had selected Massachusetts Institute of Technology as associate contractor for Apollo guidance and control, and were negotiating with North American a S400m prime contract for two of the three main sections of the actual spacecraft. Most of the difficulty and expense referred to by President Kennedy in connection with Apollo will arise in the developmeni of the launch vehicles needed to transport the three-man spacecraft to the Moon and back to Earth. Not that this is confined to Apollo, for vehicle development is an obvious key factor in accomplishing all the space missions on which, as described in last week's issue, NASA is currently engaged. The environment in which these launch-vehicle systems are being developed was described at the recent American Rocket Society meeting in New York by Mr Willis M. Hawkins, vice-president and general manager of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, who listed four main points of overall design philosophy. First, Mr Hawkins commented, "What we are doing now is just barely possible and just barely reliable. And on this basis, we are making highly ambitious plans." Secondly, it was true that dollars were available—but only one year at a time. Thirdly, the USA did not possess the initiative in space; and finally, a new and better idea was often discovered halfway through a project, i.e., one had to face America's heavy workhorse for space will be change. Saturn. The eight-engined first stage (below right) Among the tasks ahead, Mr Hawkins listed three in particular: was fitted with dummy upper stages for a 0) reliability must be improved, (2) costs must be matched to the successful first flight on October 21. Be/ow, budget by using the "building block" principle, and (3) changes the Saturn blockhouse at Cape Canaveral should be recognized as being desirable and honourable. There 907 FLIGHT, 14 Decembe. 1961 These three vehicles have important roles in the US space programme: from the left, the four-stage, all-solid Scout; the three-stage Delta (with Thor as first stage); and the two-stige Centaur (Atlas first stage) now being developed were in fact three areas of reliability, termed by Mr Hawkins rei- Canaveral, described in Flight of November 9. 1961]. The heavy back reliability (a multi-engined safety standard should he aimed at), service gantries and reinforced blockhouses were typical of the long-life reliability (the fewer the components the longer the life), massive facilities which had evolved. and stay-sane reliability (it would be much simpler if men could The purpose of the servicing tower was for assembly and pre- hibernate during journeys to the Moon or Mars). Failure rates paration of the vehicle (and for protection against hurricanes, which could be reduced and reliability improved, he concluded, by made it very expensive); the tower was necessary because assembly- attention to simplifying system design. building tests were not considered valid when the vehicle was For long-range manned missions, nuclear rocket engines have subsequently moved to the launch-pad. As for the blockhouse, this more potential than the liquid and solid chemical systems, and in was separated from the vehicle by a minimum distance because of particular have a greater potential specific impulse. To obtain this the required transfer of intelligence. Ground support equipment specific impulse, the basic problem is one of materials capable of had to be as close as possible, hence all the reinforced concrete. operating at the required high temperatures. A preparation time of approximately two months, plus one Project Rover, under which nuclear rocket engines are being month to re-prepare the pad after each successful firing, was typical developed, is directed by the joint NASA/AEC Space Nuclear for a Saturn-class vehicle in this type of launch complex—i.e., the Propulsion Office established last year. It should result in an oper- limit was four equally spaced shots per year. The complex repre- ational nuclear rocket engine, i.e., one capable of carrying out an sented an investment of some S45m, plus real estate. actual manned mission in space, "within about a decade.'" according Mr Debus went on to describe a possible Saturn C-3 complex, to Dr Glen T. Seaborg, chairman of the US Atomic Energy which contained neither service tower nor blockhouse. A fixed, Commission, with test flights in 1965-67. Although Dr Seaborg four-bay vertical-assembly building would be employed, with the has expressed his opinion that the space funds budgeted for nuclear launch vehicle and umbilical tower mounted on rails or on a propulsion are adequate, this view was obviously not shared by barge. After the vehicle had been checked out in the assembly bay. Mr R. W. Bussard of the Nuclear Propulsion Division of Los it would be moved on rails to an arming tower, where escape rockets Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who maintained vigorously at the would be fitted. Then by rail again a distance of, say, 10,000 fr ARS meeting that the US was not nearly as diligent as she might be to one of about five launch pads. For solid-propellant vehicles. in this new field. a second assembly building could be used in order to double the Mr KrafTt Ehricke, Centaur programme director for General launch rate. The same equipment would be used for both checkout Dynamics/Astronautics, joined Mr Bussard in urging an accelerated and launch, so that a blockhouse would not be needed. nuclear-propulsion programme. Both maintained that the budget Although such an installation would cost an estimated SI90m for this should be increased: Mr Bussard suggested that more money compared with the S45m for Complex 34, it would permit a much could perhaps be justified if the military use of snace were recon- higher rate of launching. To obtain a comparable rate of 32 shots sidered; if, however, the total for space remained fixed and some per year, one would need eight conventional pads, amounting to other programme had to cut to provide more funds for the nuclear S360m plus real estate—and a larger area would be covered. For work, he would suggest reducing the amount of pure scientific Saturn C-3 and C-4 vehicles. Mr Debus suggested the new scheme research in space carried out by unmanned vehicles. described above. Two other ARS speakers had important comments to mike on Costs and Vehicles Before continuing from the above general other aspects of vehicle development. Mr Kurt H. Debus, director comments to details of specific vehicles, it is interesting to note the of NASA's Launch Operations Directorate at Huntsville and Cape expenditures involved in four of the major programmes—Saturn. Canaveral, spoke on launch operations; and Mr Norris F. Dow of Rover, the F-l engine and solid propellants. NASA's estimated General Electric's Space Sciences Laboratory, on special vehicle costs up to and including the budget for the current 1962 fiscal problems. Mr Dow discussed the radiation hazard in manned snace year (Julv I, 1961 to June 30, 1962) are: Saturn, $558m; Rover, flights (if 20,000 volts/cm could be generated in space, shielding S58.lm; F-l engine, SI60.2m and solid propellants, $6.8m. When weight could be reduced markedly), the re-entry problem (the Defense Department and Atomic Energy Commission figures are paraglider or Rogallo wing concept should be considered as a added, the overall totals are Saturn, S659.3m, Rover S24l.2m. re-entry aid); and the rendezvous problem (rendezvous could be F-l engine $16Im and solid propellants S68.8m. made, not only in Earth orbit, but also "at the other end." i.e., in NASA's development of the F-l 1.5m lb thrust liquid-propellant iunar orbit, using ferry vehicles). engine for use in Nova is being augmented by a parallel Defenre On the subject of launch operations, Mr Debus claimed that a Department programme leading to large solid boosters. The current quantum jump" was necessary to meet the challenge of the lunar tentative plan is for a segmented solid-propellant motor weighing programme. "The present launch-system concept is a victim of the some 375 tons and providing 2-3m lb thrust for 60sec, which could evolution which created it," he said; "Now we have reached the end be clustered as required to give the desired total first-stage thrust, of evolution, culminating in Complex 34" [the Saturn pad at Cape and used if necessary also in the second stage. 'Continued overleaf 908 FLIGHT, 14 December 196! likely that both the C-3 and C-4 versions of Saturn would be buil and the choice would be between Saturn C-3 plus Nova, and Satur C-4 alone (since the performance of Nova was markedly bettc; than the C-3, but not so much better than the C-4). Dr von Braun and NASA Administrator James E. Webb bot i emphasized that orbital rendezvous would be developed in am case as a general spaceflight technique, whether or not it was employed to accomplish Project Apollo.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Victor Or Villain? Wernher Von Braun and the Space Race
    The Social Studies (2011) 102, 59–64 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.484444 Victor or Villain? Wernher von Braun and the Space Race JASON L. O’BRIEN1 and CHRISTINE E. SEARS2 1Education Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA 2History Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA Set during the Cold War and space race, this historical role-play focuses on Wernher von Braun’s involvement in and culpability for the use of slave laborers to produce V-2 rockets for Nazi Germany. Students will grapple with two central questions. Should von Braun have been allowed to emigrate to the United States given his affiliation with the Nazis and use of slave laborers? Should the U.S. government and military have put Braun in powerful positions in NASA and military programs? This activity encourages students to hone their critical thinking skills as they consider and debate a complex, multi-layered historical scenario. Students also have opportunity to articulate persuasive arguments either for or against von Braun. Each character sketch includes basic information, but additional references are included for teachers and students who want a more in depth background. Keywords: role-play, Wernher von Braun, Space Race, active learning Victor or Villain? Wernher von Braun and the Space Role-Playing as an Instructional Strategy Race By engaging in historical role-plays, students can explore In 2009, the United States celebrated the fortieth anniver- different viewpoints regarding controversial topics (Clegg sary of the Apollo 11 crew’s landing on the moon.
    [Show full text]
  • An Early Manned Lunar Landing Q
    . ' - ,, ,, ,, . ... , " X64 80440 O~s7!- A FEASIBLE APPROACH FOR AN EARLY MANNED LUNAR LANDING Q PART I SUMMARY REPORT OF AD HOC TASK GROUP STU6Y (u) JUNE 16, 1961 Restriction/Classification Cancelled NA§A HEADQUARTERS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ' I ------AD HOC TASK .GROUP . William A. Fleming - Chairman, Hq. Facilities Addison M. Rothrock - Deputy Chairman, Hq.· Albert J. Kelley - Hq. Samuel Snyder - Hq. Berg Paraghamian - Hq. Robert D. Briskman - ·Hq. Walter W. Haase - Hq. Secrest L. Berry - Hq. Spacecraft Llle Sciences . ..John H. Disher - Hq. James P. Nolan, Jr. - ·Hq • Merle. G•. Waugh - Hq. A.H. Schwichtenberg - Lovelace Foundation. Kenneth Kleinknecht - STG Alan B. Kehlet - STG Advanced Technology Launch Vehicles Ernesto. Pearson, Jr. - Hq. Eldon W. Hall - Hq. Space Sciences Melvyn Savage - Hq. Heinz H. Koelle .- MSFC · William Shipley - JPL William L. Lovejoy_~_Hq. Robert Fellows - Hq •.. Norman Raf el - Hq. Alfred M. Nelson - Hq. The effort: or the Ad Hoc Task Group were supplemented very signllicantly by major contributions in each technical area from a large number or other staff members at the various NASA Centers and at NASA Headquarters. Although these· added participants are too numerous to mention individually, their contributions are a vital part of the study results. i Restriction/Classification Cancelled lil TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ~ Purpose and Study Approach 1 Ground Rules and Guidelines 2 Program Elements 3 Use of the Sequenced Milestone System 4 Approach to Program Funding 5 PROGRAM PLAN ·objectives 6 Program Scope 8 Mission Approach 12 Spacecraft Requirements 24 Launch Vehicle Development 32_ Facilities 48 ' Supporting Research 62 Early .Managemen:b·;_ Actiort:s.
    [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]
  • A LOOK BACK at USING NUCLEAR PROPULSION to POWER SPACE VEHICLES in the 1960’S
    39th AIANASMWSAWASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit A I A A-2003-4588 Von Braun Center, Huntsville, Alabama July 20-23,2003 MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER AND THE REACTOR-IN-FLIGHT STAGE: A LOOK BACK AT USING NUCLEAR PROPULSION TO POWER SPACE VEHICLES IN THE 1960’s Mike Wright NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama ABSTRACT ~ This paper examines the Marshall Space Flight Center’s role in the Reactor-In-Flight (RIlT) project that NASA was involved with in the early 1960’s. The paper outlines the project’s relation to the joint NASA-Atomic Energy Commission nuclear initiative known as Project Rover. It describes the justification for the RIFT project, its scope, and the difficulties that were encountered during the project. It also provides as assessment of NASA’s overall capabilities related to nuclear propulsion in the early 1960’s. INTRODUCTION Ideas about harnessing nuclear energy to propel everything from cars to locomotives to rockets have been around for more than 50 yr. In May 1940, The Boston Globe ran the headline: “Just add cold water, fly to the stratosphere. One pill of U-235, miracle substance just announced, would drive an automobile for a ye ar...” Six years later, The Associated Press reported that the “The Buffalo Machinery Co. eventually expected to power locomotives from coast to coast at a cost of less then $1.” After ‘World War 11, engineers began serious studies regarding how to propel rockets using nuclear propulsion. In June 1946, the Division of Reactor Development for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of The Johns Hopkins University to study the feasibility of nuclear propulsion.
    [Show full text]
  • Day 6: Comparing Themes Across Texts English Language Arts
    Day 6: Comparing Themes Across Texts English Language Arts • Analyze the primary source quotes of Apollo 1 astronauts prior to their tragic deaths. Attempt to find a common theme that relates to the previous themes • Additional Resource Video: Apollo 1 Mission Results in Space Changes https://bit.ly/2DXV9gs The Apollo 1 Mission Videos of Quotes from the Apollo 1 Astronauts: https://ctm.americanexperience.org Directions: Consider the words of the following NASA astronauts who were scheduled to lift off in Apollo 1 on February 21, 1967. Virgil “Gus” Grissom: There's always a possibility that you can have a catastrophic failure, of course. This can happen on any flight. It can happen on the last one as well as the first one. You just plan as best you can to take care of all these eventualities, and you get a well-trained crew, and you go fly. Ed White: "I think you have to understand the feeling that a pilot has, that a test pilot has, that I look forward a great deal to making the first flight. There's a great deal of pride involved in making a first flight." (The New York Times, January 29, 1967, p. 48.) Roger Chaffee: “Oh, I don’t like to say anything scary about it. Um, there’s a lot of unknowns of course and a lot of problems that could develop, might develop. And they’ll have to be solved and that’s what we’re there for.” During a test launch approximately a month before their scheduled launch into space, these men suffered a tragic death when they were locked inside of their command module when a fire broke out aboard the ship.
    [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]
  • Apollo Rocket Propulsion Development
    REMEMBERING THE GIANTS APOLLO ROCKET PROPULSION DEVELOPMENT Editors: Steven C. Fisher Shamim A. Rahman John C. Stennis Space Center The NASA History Series National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA History Division Office of External Relations Washington, DC December 2009 NASA SP-2009-4545 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Remembering the Giants: Apollo Rocket Propulsion Development / editors, Steven C. Fisher, Shamim A. Rahman. p. cm. -- (The NASA history series) Papers from a lecture series held April 25, 2006 at the John C. Stennis Space Center. Includes bibliographical references. 1. Saturn Project (U.S.)--Congresses. 2. Saturn launch vehicles--Congresses. 3. Project Apollo (U.S.)--Congresses. 4. Rocketry--Research--United States--History--20th century-- Congresses. I. Fisher, Steven C., 1949- II. Rahman, Shamim A., 1963- TL781.5.S3R46 2009 629.47’52--dc22 2009054178 Table of Contents Foreword ...............................................................................................................................7 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................9 Welcome Remarks Richard Gilbrech ..........................................................................................................11 Steve Fisher ...................................................................................................................13 Chapter One - Robert Biggs, Rocketdyne - F-1 Saturn V First Stage Engine .......................15
    [Show full text]
  • Birth, Life and Death of the Saturn Launch Vehicles
    1 ILR Mitt. 351 (2001) 5.5.2001 Learning from the past: Birth, Life and Death of the Saturn Launch Vehicles H.H.Koelle Technical University Berlin Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Marchstr.14, D-10587 Berlin 2 Birth, Life and Death of the Saturn Launch Vehicles H.H.Koelle Abstract The SATURN launch vehicle family is the classical story of the evolution and life cycle of a space transportation system. Its official history is well documented by historians or journalists. The author, in his function of Chief, Preliminary Design Branch, U.S.Army Ballistic Missile Agency, and after joining NASA, as Director, Future Projects Office, has had a key position during the years of developing this transportation system in the Huntsville team headed by Dr.Wernher von Braun. However, this was several decades ago and in retrospect, it may be useful now to reflect on this historical development with respect to the lessons learned. The evolution of the development from the JUNO 5 booster, to the SATURN I, IB and finally SATURN V is discussed in some detail from the viewpoint of the author. Excerpts of the autors weekly notes to Dr.v.Braun shed some light on the gyrations and problems the development team had to overcome. The life cycle of the SATURN's began in 1958, production stop was ordered in 1968, and it ended with the last launch of a SATURN IB in 1975. This report comprises 2 tables, 12 figures, 26 references on 38 pages. Key words: SATURN, launch vehicles, space transportation systems lifecycle Table of Contents: 1.Introduction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • PROJECT APOLLO the Tough Decisions
    NASA SP-2007-4537 Robert C. Seamans, Jr. PROJECT APOLLO The Tough Decisions Monographs in Aerospace History Number 37 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations History Division Washington. DC 2007 Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii Acknowledgments ix Foreword 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Eisenhower’s Legacy 11 Chapter 3: The Kennedy Challenge 57 Chapter 4: Johnson’s Solid Support 83 Chapter 5: NASA Management 107 Chapter 6: The Grand Finale 117 Chapter 7: The Aftermath 127 Appendix 1 131 Appendix 2 139 Appendix 3 143 About the Author 145 Acronyms and Abbreviations 149 NASA Monographs in Aerospace History Series 151 Index iii List of Figures Page 13 Figure 1 Results of a study commissioned on 6 January 1961 and chaired by George Low. These findings were available on 7 February 1961. Page 14 Figure 2 NASA Management Triad in the office of James E. Webb (center). He and Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr. (right), listen as Dr. Hugh Dryden (left) has the floor. (NASA Image Number 66-H-93) Page 15 Figure 3 Sergey P. Korolev, founder of the Soviet space program, shown here in July 1954 with a dog that had just returned to Earth after a lob to an altitude of 100 kilometers on an R-1d rocket. Page 21 Figure 4 President John F. Kennedy congratulates astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr., the first American in space, on his historic 5 May 1961 ride in the Freedom 7 spacecraft and presents him with the NASA Distinguished Service Award. (NASA Image Number 1961ADM-13) Page 22 Figure 5 Formation of USSR and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight to the Moon Spacecraft Attitude Control, MIT IAP 16.S585
    1/17/21 Earth-Moon Orbit Orbital Period: 27-1/2 days One side of Moon always faces Earth Flight to the Moon Spacecraft Attitude Control, MIT IAP 16.S585 Robert Stengel Princeton University There is no “Dark Side” January 14, 2021 1 ALL SIDES are dark once a month 2 1 2 The Earth and the Moon December 17, 1958 Earth mass = 81.4 x Moon mass Orbit eccentricity = 0.05 1st Cosmonaut Mercury 7, 1959 Class, 1959 3 4 3 4 1 1/17/21 April 12, 1961 February 20, 1962 John Glenn Vostok 1 Friendship 7 Mercury-Atlas Yuri Gagarin 5 6 5 6 Project Gemini [1965-66] Lunar Missions 10 crewed Titan II missions June 1961 Competition among contractors for the spacecraft and launch rockets US takes Space Race Lead 7 8 7 8 2 1/17/21 First Apollo Program Contract MIT Instrumentation Laboratory August 9, 1961 HOWEVER … Lunar landing technique had not been decided 9 10 9 10 Alternative Landers Saturn 3rd Stage 11 12 11 12 3 1/17/21 Proposed Saturn Launch Vehicles July 1962 Two Saturn 5s One or One Saturn 5 Nova Ten Saturn 1s Saturn 1 Saturn 5 Nova (Saturn 8) 13 14 13 14 Saturn Launch Vehicles Saturn 1B Saturn 5 The Apollo Modules Earth Orbit Missions Lunar Missions Service Command Lunar Module Module Module North American Grumman 15 16 15 16 4 1/17/21 First Manned Flight, Apollo 7 Apollo 8, December 21-27, 1968 October 11, 1968 • Earth-orbit mission to test LM planned • More ambitious mission was pursued st Eisele Schirra Cunningham • Repurposed to 1 manned flight to the Moon • 6-day mission, no Lunar Module Coast Reentry Trans- Moon’s Lunar Coast Injection “Sphere
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar Nautics: Designing a Mission to Live and Work on the Moon
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lunar Nautics: Designing a Mission to Live and Work on the Moon An Educator’s Guide for Grades 6–8 Educational Product Educator’s Grades 6–8 & Students EG-2008-09-129-MSFC i ii Lunar Nautics Table of Contents About This Guide . 1 Sample Agendas . 4 Master Supply List . 10 Survivor: SELENE “The Lunar Edition” . 22 The Never Ending Quest . 23 Moon Match . 25 Can We Take it With Us? . 27 Lunar Nautics Trivia Challenge . 29 Lunar Nautics Space Systems, Inc. ................................................. 31 Introduction to Lunar Nautics Space Systems, Inc . 32 The Lunar Nautics Proposal Process . 34 Lunar Nautics Proposal, Design and Budget Notes . 35 Destination Determination . 37 Design a Lunar Lander . .38 Science Instruments . 40 Lunar Exploration Science . 41 Design a Lunar Miner/Rover . 47 Lunar Miner 3-Dimensional Model . 49 Design a Lunar Base . 50 Lunar Base 3-Dimensional Model . 52 Mission Patch Design . 53 Lunar Nautics Presentation . 55 Lunar Exploration . 57 The Moon . 58 Lunar Geology . 59 Mining and Manufacturing on the Moon . 63 Investigate the Geography and Geology of the Moon . 70 Strange New Moon . 72 Digital Imagery . 74 Impact Craters . 76 Lunar Core Sample . 79 Edible Rock Abrasion Tool . 81 i Lunar Missions ..................................................................83 Recap: Apollo . 84 Stepping Stone to Mars . 88 Investigate Lunar Missions . 90 The Pioneer Missions . 92 Edible Pioneer 3 Spacecraft . .96 The Clementine Mission . .98 Edible Clementine Spacecraft . .99 Lunar Rover . 100 Edible Lunar Rover . 101 Lunar Prospector . 103 Edible Lunar Prospector Spacecraft . 107 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter . 109 Robots Versus Humans . 11. 1 The Definition of a Robot .
    [Show full text]
  • The Race to the Moon
    The Race to the Moon Jonathan McDowell Yes, we really did go there... July 2009 imagery of Fra Mauro base from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Sergey Korolev's Program At Podlipki, in the Moscow suburbs, Korolev's factory churns out rockets and satellites Sputnik Luna moon probes Vostok spaceships Mars and Venus probes Spy satellites America's answer: the captured Nazi rocket team led by Dr. Wernher von Braun, based in Huntsville, Alabama America's answer: naturalized US citizen Dr. Wernher von Braun, based in Huntsville, Alabama October 1942: First into space The A-4 (V-2) rocket reaches over 50 miles high – the first human artifact in space. This German missile, ancestor of the Scud and the Shuttle, was designed to hit London and was later mass- produced by concentration camp labor – but the general in charge said at its first launch: “Today the Space Age is born”. First Earth Satellite: Sputnik Oct 1957 First Living Being in Orbit: Laika, Nov 1957 First Probe to Solar orbit: Luna-1 Jan 1959 First Probe to hit Moon: Luna-2 Sep 1959 First intact return to Earth from orbit: Discoverer 13 Aug 1960 First human in space: Yuriy Gagarin in Vostok-1 Apr 1961 Is America losing the Space Race? Time to up the stakes dramatically.... “In this decade...” I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. John F Kennedy, address to Congress, May 25, 1961 1958-1961 MOON PROGRAM – USSR USA SEP 1958: E-1 No.
    [Show full text]