DOCSLIB.ORG

Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous 1961

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

I -J NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION I LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER ZB5·11149 I VOLUME (NASJ\-TM-7Q736) MANNED LUNAR-LANDING THROUGH USE OF LONAB-OREIT BENDEZVOUS ' VOLU�E 1 {NASA) 99 p '-----.,( =HR ,..,.-I -- Y�S"-///</9!ACCESSIONN MBER!U T U «PA.G£.8)<lf iCODEJ 'NASA CR OR TMX OR AD NUMBER) /ICC.A TitQ.ORYJ MANNED LUNAR-LA through u eNo'O'f I i LUNAR·O RENDEZVO E FOREWORD In the course of conducting research on the problem of space ren­ dezvous and on various aspects of manned space mi ssions, Langley Re search Center has evolved what is believed to be a particularly appealing scheme for performing the manned lunar landing mi ssion. The key to the mi ssion is the use of lunar rende zvous, whi ch greatly reduces the size of the booster needed at the earth . More definitely the mi ssion may be described essentially as follows: A manned exploration vehicle is considered on its way to the moon. On approach, thi s vehi cle is decelerated into a low-altitude circular orbit ab out the moon. From thi s orbit a lunar lander descends to the moon surface, leaving the return vehi cle in orbit. After exploration the lunar lander ascends for rendezvous with the return vehicle. The return vehicle is then boosted into a return trajectory to the earth, leaving the lander behind . The significant advantage brought out by thi s procedure is the marked reduction in escape wei ght required; the reduction is, of course, a direct reflection of the reduced energy requirements brought ab out by leaving a sizable mass in lunar orb it, in this case, the return capsule and return propulsion system. Thi s report has been prepared by members of the LangleyRe search Center to indicate the research that has been conducted, and what a complete manned lunar landing mission using this system would entail. For further reference, main contacts are JohnD. Bird, Arthur W. Vogeley, or John C. Houbolt. J.C.H . October 31, 1961 -= --·· i 0 U T LI N EA ND NI D E X Page FOREW O RD ••• i OU TL INE AND INDEX ii SUMMA RY AND CON CLUSION S. 1 I N T R 0 UD C TI 0N • • • • • • • 5 PAR TI PROGRAM FO R MAN NED LUNA R LA ND IN G TH ROUGH USE OF LUNA R RE NDEZV OUS 6 MISIOS N DES CR IPTI ON • • 6 Mission pr ofile and ve hicle conce pt 6 WEIGHT S BOO STER REQUIREMENT S 12 VEHICLE AND PROGRAM SCHEDUL ING • • 21 PLAN AND FlJNDIN'G • • • • • • • . 28 RELIABIITYL SAFETY AND 30 Crew sa fety • • • . • • • )0 Mission acc omplishmen t and deve lopment re liab il ity 32 PR()(;R.AM • • • • • • • • • IlEV'EI.A)� Lunar Lan de r Dev e lopment • • • . • • • Rendezv ous Op e ra tion Dev e lopmen t • • . • • Instrumen ta tion Dev e lopmen t • • • • • • • . Deve lopmen t Fac ilities forLu na r Rendezv ousMissio n •• Ana log dock ing fa cility • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • • Luna r de scen t and take -off re sea rch fa cility . • • • Luna r la nd in g re sea rch fa cility • . • . • . ••• ii Page PART II TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE MI S SI ON 41 GU ID ANCE INTO A LUNAR ORBIT • 41 DESCENT TO LUNARSU RFACE 51 Lunar letdown • • . 51 Lunar landing technique . 55 LUNAR LAUNCH RENDEZVOU S 59 AND General considerations 59 Launch and injection phase of rendezvous 59 Coast phase of rendezvous 60 Simulation studies 61 ABORT IN PH ASES . • 70 ALL INSTR�TION, COMMU NICATIONS, LIFESU PPORT, AND AUXIL IARY POWER . • . 73 Navigation and Guidance 73 Cormnunications 75 Life Support Sy stem • . • • . 76 Auxiliary Power . 79 THERA DIATION 92 HAZARD WEIGHTLES SN ES S 94 REF EREN CES. 95 PARI' III A P P E N D IX ADDITIO NAL FA CILITIES STUDIES - AND UNDERWAY PLANNED IN SUPPORI' OF A MANNED ( AND ) LUNAR LANDING • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • Appears in Volume II iii l SUMMARY AND CONCLU SION S Studies made at Langley ResearchCenter of various schemes for per­ forming the manned lunar landing mission indicate that the lunar rendezvous method is the simplest, most reliable, and quickest means for accomplishing the task. This technique permits a lunar exploration to be made with a single C-3 booster. A first landing is indicated in March 1966, with a possibility of an attempt as early asNovember 1965. These dates do not require changes in previously established Apollo, C-1, and C-3 development schedules. Further, the lunar rendezvous approach contains a number of features which tend to raise the schedule confidence level; the most impor­ tant of these are: (a) TheApollo vehicle, the lander, and the rendezvous experiment can all proceed on an independent parallel basis, thus avoiding schedule con­ flicts; further, the overall development is simplified because each vehicle has only a single function to perform. (b) The lunar rendezvous approach permits complete system development to be done with C-1, which will be available and well developed, and makes the entire C-3 picture exceptionally clean and simple, thus resulting in a minimum cost program. In amplification of these general remarks, the following specific conclusions are drawn from the technical studies which are summarized in the body of this report: A. MissionApproach and Scheduling: l. The lunar rendezvous method requires only a singleC- 3 or C-4 launch vehicle. Earth orbital weights required for various system arrange­ ments are summarized in figure 1. (See also tables VI and VII later in the text.) 2. The lunar rendezvous method schedules the first landing in March 19(56. 3. The lunar rendezvous method does not require that the Apollo vehicle be compromised because of landing considerations. 4. The lunar rendezvous method allows the landing vehicle configura­ tion to be optimized for landing. 5. The lunar rendezvous method requires onlyC-1 boosters for com­ plete system development. 2 The lunar rendezvous method provides for complete lander checkout and crew6. training in the lunar landing, lunar launch, and rendezvous docking operations on the actual vehicle. B. Funding: The lunar rendezvous method results in a program cost which will be less than the cost of other methods for the following reasons: 1. Requires fewer (20 to 40 percent large boosters than other programs. ) 2. Requires no Nova vehicles. ). Requires less C-3 or C-4 vehicles than other programs. 4. Programs most flights on best-developed booster (C- 1). 5. Requires a minimum of booster ground facilities, because large boosters are avoided and because of a low launch rate. The lunar rendezvous method can be readily paralleled with some other program at least total program cost. C. Lunar Rendezvous: The lunar rendezvous under direct, visual, pilot control is a simple reliable operation which provides a level of safety and reliability higher than other methods as outlined below. D. Safety and Reliability: 1. The lander configuration is optimized. 2. The single-lander system permits safe return of the primary vehicle in event of a landing accident. ). The two-lander system provides a rescue capability. 4. Crews can be trained in lunar landing, lunar launch, and rendezvous docking operations in the actual vehicle. 5. Requires fewest number of large booster flights. Provides for most flights on best-developed booster (C-1). 6. 3 E. Abort Capability: 1. abort capability meeting the basic Mercury-Apollo requirements can be providAn ed. 2. This abort capability can be provided with no additional fuel or weight penalties. F. Lunar Lander Development: 1. Lunar lander design is optimized for landing. 2. Being essentially separate from Apollo, development can proceed with a minimum of schedule conflict. 3. Research, development, and checkout can be performed on ground facilities now under procurement and which will be available in time to meet the program schedule. G. Development Facilities: 1. The lunar rendezvous method requires no additional booster ground facilities (see item B-5). 2. The ground facilities required for rendezvous-operations develop­ ment are now being procured and will be ready. 3. The ground facilities for lander development and checkout are now being procured and will be ready. O() +=- =g()� =g()� c! �6()c4 0 c! I 200,000 H/F H/F 10 1 H/F H/0 2- H/F STOR 43 H/F SOL 9 5 H/0 H/D H/ 0 STOR 6 H/0 SOL I // // 7 10 STOR STOR 10 7 160,000- 8 8 STOR SOL. / 4 9 I SOL SOL . ' � r 9 ///// 10 9 f-- // 10 rn 8 a: 8 7 0120000 9 4 ' f- 7 ' 4 fj//: I f­ 8 a: 6 7 6 53 <( � 3 w 4 5 /(/1/ 2 .. 2 ' � I ' ;� 6 I i' / -'/ / 5 f-- 3 ! / W// / / /// 8o,ooo / / /,;:/' $ ,;. I ' f" // 2 G I f-/ //'/ [jJ //� /_,/ / ' ,.f/ ::/ ' ' '''" •/ / J ,.;;.;•/#' 3: /;:1� >/>I v //; �./j'' /:0 /' :.!''f" I / /./ /. <// //; I // / •'/ . /f'/�/ /:·/ ¢"/::;/- : //(/ /)' /;>- f'f'� ',r' v 40,000 SHOEST RING ECONOMY 2-SHOESTRING PLUSH. ------ MAN DOWN 2 MEN ON LUNAR 2 MEN DOWN 2 MEN ON LUNAR 1FO R 2-4 HRS SURFACE UP TO DAY FOR HRS SURFACE UP DAYS I TO 7 2-4 5,000 10,000 15,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 5,CXX) 10,000 15,000 5,000 0 WEIGHT OF RE TURN0 SPA CECRAFT 0 IO,CXXJ 15,CXXJ Figure 1. - Summary of earth orbital weights. 2E 5 I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N For several years Langley Research Center has been actively studying various aspects of the general problem of rendezvous in space. For the past year and a half attention has been focused on using rendezvous to accomplish the manned lunar landing mission, with specific attention being given to the use of lunar rendezvous, because of its attendant benefits.
Recommended publications
  • Astrodynamics

    Astrodynamics

    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
  • Electric Propulsion System Scaling for Asteroid Capture-And-Return Missions

    Electric Propulsion System Scaling for Asteroid Capture-And-Return Missions

    Electric propulsion system scaling for asteroid capture-and-return missions Justin M. Little⇤ and Edgar Y. Choueiri† Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544 The requirements for an electric propulsion system needed to maximize the return mass of asteroid capture-and-return (ACR) missions are investigated in detail. An analytical model is presented for the mission time and mass balance of an ACR mission based on the propellant requirements of each mission phase. Edelbaum’s approximation is used for the Earth-escape phase. The asteroid rendezvous and return phases of the mission are modeled as a low-thrust optimal control problem with a lunar assist. The numerical solution to this problem is used to derive scaling laws for the propellant requirements based on the maneuver time, asteroid orbit, and propulsion system parameters. Constraining the rendezvous and return phases by the synodic period of the target asteroid, a semi- empirical equation is obtained for the optimum specific impulse and power supply. It was found analytically that the optimum power supply is one such that the mass of the propulsion system and power supply are approximately equal to the total mass of propellant used during the entire mission. Finally, it is shown that ACR missions, in general, are optimized using propulsion systems capable of processing 100 kW – 1 MW of power with specific impulses in the range 5,000 – 10,000 s, and have the potential to return asteroids on the order of 103 104 tons. − Nomenclature
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program

    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.
  • Aas 11-509 Artemis Lunar Orbit Insertion and Science Orbit Design Through 2013

    Aas 11-509 Artemis Lunar Orbit Insertion and Science Orbit Design Through 2013

    AAS 11-509 ARTEMIS LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION AND SCIENCE ORBIT DESIGN THROUGH 2013 Stephen B. Broschart,∗ Theodore H. Sweetser,y Vassilis Angelopoulos,z David C. Folta,x and Mark A. Woodard{ As of late-July 2011, the ARTEMIS mission is transferring two spacecraft from Lissajous orbits around Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 into highly-eccentric lunar science orbits. This paper presents the trajectory design for the transfer from Lissajous orbit to lunar orbit in- sertion, the period reduction maneuvers, and the science orbits through 2013. The design accommodates large perturbations from Earth’s gravity and restrictive spacecraft capabili- ties to enable opportunities for a range of heliophysics and planetary science measurements. The process used to design the highly-eccentric ARTEMIS science orbits is outlined. The approach may inform the design of future eccentric orbiter missions at planetary moons. INTRODUCTION The Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moons Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) mission is currently operating two spacecraft in lunar orbit under funding from the Heliophysics and Planetary Science Divisions with NASA’s Science Missions Directorate. ARTEMIS is an extension to the successful Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission [1] that has relocated two of the THEMIS spacecraft from Earth orbit to the Moon [2, 3, 4]. ARTEMIS plans to conduct a variety of scientific studies at the Moon using the on-board particle and fields instrument package [5, 6]. The final portion of the ARTEMIS transfers involves moving the two ARTEMIS spacecraft, known as P1 and P2, from Lissajous orbits around the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point #1 (EML1) to long-lived, eccentric lunar science orbits with periods of roughly 28 hr.
  • Evolution of the Rendezvous-Maneuver Plan for Lunar-Landing Missions

    Evolution of the Rendezvous-Maneuver Plan for Lunar-Landing Missions

    NASA TECHNICAL NOTE NASA TN D-7388 00 00 APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - EVOLUTION OF THE RENDEZVOUS-MANEUVER PLAN FOR LUNAR-LANDING MISSIONS by Jumes D. Alexunder und Robert We Becker Lyndon B, Johnson Spuce Center ffoaston, Texus 77058 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. AUGUST 1973 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No, 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NASA TN D-7388 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date APOLLOEXPERIENCEREPORT August 1973 EVOLUTIONOFTHERENDEZVOUS-MANEUVERPLAN 6. Performing Organizatlon Code FOR THE LUNAR-LANDING MISSIONS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. James D. Alexander and Robert W. Becker, JSC JSC S-334 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address I - 924-22-20- 00- 72 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Houston, Texas 77058 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note I National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. C. 20546 I 15. Supplementary Notes The JSC Director waived the use of the International System of Units (SI) for this Apollo Experience I Report because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair the usefulness of the report or I I result in excessive cost. 16. Abstract The evolution of the nominal rendezvous-maneuver plan for the lunar landing missions is presented along with a summary of the significant developments for the lunar module abort and rescue plan. A general discussion of the rendezvous dispersion analysis that was conducted in support of both the nominal and contingency rendezvous planning is included.
  • Dynamical Analysis of Rendezvous and Docking with Very Large Space Infrastructures in Non-Keplerian Orbits

    Dynamical Analysis of Rendezvous and Docking with Very Large Space Infrastructures in Non-Keplerian Orbits

    DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING WITH VERY LARGE SPACE INFRASTRUCTURES IN NON-KEPLERIAN ORBITS Andrea Colagrossi ∗, Michele` Lavagna y, Simone Flavio Rafano Carna` z Politecnico di Milano Department of Aerospace Science and Technology Via La Masa 34 – 20156 Milan (MI) – Italy ABSTRACT the whole mission scenario is the so called Evolvable Deep Space Habitat: a modular space station in lunar vicinity. A space station in the vicinity of the Moon can be exploited At the current level of study, the optimum location for as a gateway for future human and robotic exploration of the space infrastructure of this kind has not yet been determined, Solar System. The natural location for a space system of this but a favorable solution can be about one of the Earth-Moon kind is about one of the Earth-Moon libration points. libration points, such as in a EML2 (Earth-Moon Lagrangian The study addresses the dynamics during rendezvous and Point no 2) Halo orbit. Moreover, the final configuration of docking operations with a very large space infrastructure in a the entire system is still to be defined, but it is already clear EML2 Halo orbit. The model takes into account the coupling that in order to assemble the structure several rendezvous and effects between the orbital and the attitude motion in a Circular docking activities will be carried out, many of which to be Restricted Three-Body Problem environment. The flexibility completely automated. of the system is included, and the interaction between the Unfortunately, the current knowledge about rendezvous in modes of the structure and those related with the orbital motion cis-lunar orbits is minimal and it is usually limited to point- is investigated.
  • What Is the Interplanetary Superhighway?

    What Is the Interplanetary Superhighway?

    What is the InterPlanetary Suppgyerhighway? Kathleen Howell Purdue University Lo and Ross Trajectory Key Space Technology Mission-Enabling Technology Not All Technology is hardware! The InterPlanetary Superhighway (IPS) • LELow Energy ObitfSOrbits for Space Mi Miissions • InterPlanetary Superhighway—“a vast network of winding tunnels in space” that connects the Sun , the planets, their moons, AND many other destinations • Systematic mapping properly known as InterPlanetary Transport Network Simó, Gómez, Masdemont / Lo, Howell, Barden / Howell, Folta / Lo, Ross / Koon, Lo, Marsden, Ross / Marchand, Howell, Lo / Scheeres, Villac/ ……. Originates with Poincaré (1892) Applications to wide range of fields Different View of Problems in N-Bodies • Much more than Kepler and Newton imagined • Computationally challenging Poincaré (1854-1912) “Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things” Jules Henri Poincaré NBP Play 3BP Wang 2BP New Era in Celestial Mechanics Pioneering Work: Numerical Exploration by Hand (Breakwell, Farquhar and Dunham) Current Libration Point Missions Goddard Space Flight Center • z WIND SOHO ACE MAPGENESIS NGST Courtesy of D. Folta, GSFC Multi-Body Problem Orbit propagated for 4 conic periods: • Change our perspective 4*19 days = 75.7 days Earth Earth Sun To Sun Inertial View RotatingRotating View View Inertial View (Ro ta tes w ith two b odi es) Aeronautics and Astronautics Multi-Body Problem • Change our perspective • Effects of added gravity fields Earth Earth TSTo Sun Rotating View Inertial View Equilibrium
  • Spacecraft Trajectories in a Sun, Earth, and Moon Ephemeris Model

    Spacecraft Trajectories in a Sun, Earth, and Moon Ephemeris Model

    SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORIES IN A SUN, EARTH, AND MOON EPHEMERIS MODEL A Project Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering by Romalyn Mirador i ABSTRACT SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORIES IN A SUN, EARTH, AND MOON EPHEMERIS MODEL by Romalyn Mirador This project details the process of building, testing, and comparing a tool to simulate spacecraft trajectories using an ephemeris N-Body model. Different trajectory models and methods of solving are reviewed. Using the Ephemeris positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun, a code for higher-fidelity numerical modeling is built and tested using MATLAB. Resulting trajectories are compared to NASA’s GMAT for accuracy. Results reveal that the N-Body model can be used to find complex trajectories but would need to include other perturbations like gravity harmonics to model more accurate trajectories. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my family and friends for their continuous encouragement and support throughout all these years. A special thank you to my advisor, Dr. Capdevila, and my friend, Dhathri, for mentoring me as I work on this project. The knowledge and guidance from the both of you has helped me tremendously and I appreciate everything you both have done to help me get here. ii Table of Contents List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION
  • Download Paper

    Download Paper

    Cis-Lunar Autonomous Navigation via Implementation of Optical Asteroid Angle-Only Measurements Mark B. Hinga, Ph.D., P.E. ∗ Autonomous cis- or trans-Lunar spacecraft navigation is critical to mission success as communication to ground stations and access to GPS signals could be lost. However, if the satellite has a camera of sufficient qual- ity, line of sight (unit vector) measurements can be made to known solar system bodies to provide observations which enable autonomous estimation of position and velocity of the spacecraft, that can be telemetered to those interested space based or ground based consumers. An improved Gaussian-Initial Orbit Determination (IOD) algorithm, based on the exact values of the f and g series (free of the 8th order polynomial and range guessing), for spacecraft state estimation, is presented here and exercised in the inertial coordinate frame (2-Body Prob- lem) to provide an initial guess for the Batch IOD that is performed in the Circular Restricted Three Body Problem (CRTBP) reference frame, which ultimately serves to initialize a CRTBP Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) navigator that collects angle only measurements to a known Asteroid 2014 EC (flying by the Earth) to sequentially estimate position and velocity of an observer spacecraft flying on an APOLLO-like trajectory to the Moon. With the addition of simulating/expressing the accelerations that would be sensed in the IMU plat- form frame due to delta velocities caused by either perturbations or corrective guidance maneuvers, this three phase algorithm is able to autonomously track the spacecraft state on its journey to the Moon while observing the motion of the Asteroid.
  • The Following Are Edited Excerpts from Two Interviews Conducted with Dr

    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.
  • America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII

    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.
  • Hack the Moon Bibliography

    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