bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (07/19/89)
In article <8985@chinet.chi.il.us> john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) writes: >Later flights had the ascent modules purposely were impacted into the surface of >the moon to test seismic recording devices with a known force. When the first On the later flights the third stage of the Saturn V was used for the same purpose after the LM had been unpacked. It made a much bigger bang :-> Bob.
wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) (07/19/89)
I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec. 31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit. Here's what I found: Int'l Desig. Catalog # Name Orbit Mission 1969 043C 3948 LM/DESCENT Selenocentric Apollo 10 1969 043D 3949 LM/ASCENT Heliocentric Apollo 10 1969 059C 4041 LUNAR MODULE Selenocentric Apollo 11 1971 063D 5377 SUBSATELLITE Selenocentric Apollo 15 1972 031C 6005 LUNAR MODULE Selenocentric Apollo 16 The LMs from Apollos 5 (unmanned, earth-orbit test of LM-1), 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17 were all listed as decayed (actually, only the ascent stages were mentioned for 12, 14, 15, and 17). Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM. According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from earth. Notes on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10: As has recently been stated, Apollo 10 was the mission that was essentially a lunar dry-run of the Apollo 11 landing. We must be careful, though, in saying that its LM "descended" to within some distance of the lunar surface. Early in the mission planning, an abort from powered descent was considered, but was passed up in favor of a mission that emulated a landing in every regard except for powered descent and subsequent takeoff from the lunar surface. With Young in the CSM (Charlie Brown), Cernan and Stafford in the LM (Snoopy) performed a DOI (descent orbit insertion). This orbit had a perilune of about 15 km above the mean lunar surface -- this was their closest approach to the surface. It was from such an orbit that later LMs began their powered descents. The ascent and descent staging occured, but I don't remember at which point. Also, I believe the descent engine as well as the ascent engine was used for orbital manuevers. Cernan and Stafford spent 8 hours in the LM. Later, upon ground command, the ascent stage expended all its fuel and was put into a heliocentric orbit. One of the other forgotten Apollo mission was 9 -- the earth-orbit test of the LM. Scott stayed with the CSM (Gumdrop) and McDivitt and Schweickart spent 6 hr 20 min in the LM (Spider). They achieved a maximum separation of 185 km and did perform ascent/descent staging. Bill Chiarchiaro N1CPK wjc@xn.ll.mit.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/20/89)
In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes: >I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec. >31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit... Does it state the basis for assuming this hardware is still in orbit? I greatly doubt that it is possible to track the things in lunar orbit; that's difficult even in Clarke orbit unless there's a transponder aboard. >Glaringly absent, however, was any listing of the Apollo 13 LM. >According to one text I have, that LM was never staged (the ascent and >descent stages were kept together) and was jettisoned 18,000 km from >earth. Right. It went into the Pacific as the CM reentered. There wasn't any alternative, since the LM was needed to maneuver the CM into a proper reentry trajectory with the SM dead. -- $10 million equals 18 PM | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/21/89)
In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes: >I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec. >31, 1988 for non-booster Apollo items still in orbit. Here's what I >found: > >Int'l Desig. Catalog # Name Orbit Mission > >1969 043C 3948 LM/DESCENT Selenocentric Apollo 10 ... >1969 059C 4041 LUNAR MODULE Selenocentric Apollo 11 ... >1972 031C 6005 LUNAR MODULE Selenocentric Apollo 16 If 10's descent module was severed before the crew boosted back to high orbit from something with ~ 10km perilune, does this mean that the LM/D is supposed to still be swooping down to 10km AGL several times a day? That would be exciting if true. However I don't believe it. There may be little atmospheric drag to deal with, but those MASCONS discovered from Lunar Orbiter onward must play merry hell with anything in a low orbit. 10's LM/D is splashed. It'd be interesting to know where. Some day a 3-meter Lunar mapping project will come across all the Apollo hardware, I'm sure, plus assorted Zonds and Rangers and Lunar Orbiters[?] and whatnot. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (07/21/89)
In article <1480@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> wjc@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Bill Chiarchiaro) writes: I checked the NASA Satellite Situation Report, Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec. Is there an electronic version of this available somewhere? Maybe on floppy or tape or something? It would make searching and sorting for things easier. Thanks. "The crux of the biscuit, is the apostrophe" -- This is the dog talking... _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- -----