wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) (07/30/88)
Now that we are about to launch the shuttle after a nearly 3 year del`ay, I was prompted to find out the length of the Apollo fire delay. It was almost 2 years. I am wondering if the engineers involved in payload planning allowed for such delays to schedule for Apollo and the impact to the experiments that are still sitting on the ground for Shuttle. Also I am recalling the fact that there was never enough time or money to perform an engineering job but there was always enough money and time to do it over if it was done wrong.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/31/88)
In article <1001@scicom.alphacdc.com> wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes: >Now that we are about to launch the shuttle after a nearly 3 year del`ay, >I was prompted to find out the length of the Apollo fire delay. It was >almost 2 years... 18 months is not normally considered "almost two years". (Note that you do not want to measure from the fire to Apollo 7, because the fire was during a test run somewhat before the actual scheduled launch date.) 18 months is the official NASA figure. >... I am wondering if the engineers involved in payload >planning allowed for such delays to schedule for Apollo and the impact >to the experiments... The Apollo schedule was still a bit too nebulous for such specific plans. One can make a good case that the actual first lunar landing would not have occurred much earlier without the fire: too many other things were not ready, and had a chance to catch up. As it was, the LM was not ready for Apollo 8, so the original Apollo 8 mission slipped to Apollo 9, and a new plan for Apollo 8 was put together on the spur of the moment. (The original plans had not envisioned circumlunar operations without the LM, but it looked like a useful (and exciting) mission that could be flown despite the LM delays.) -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/01/88)
In article <1001@scicom.alphacdc.com> wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes: > >Now that we are about to launch the shuttle after a nearly 3 year del`ay, >I was prompted to find out the length of the Apollo fire delay. It was >almost 2 years. Not really. AS-204 was on track for a late Feburary liftoff when it burned up in the plugs-out test on 1/27/67, killing the crew. AS-205 was to go up a few months later, and several unmanned missions to rate the Saturn V, LEM etc. were to follow. In fact AS-205 flew (as Apollo 4, with Schirra, Cunningham, and Eisele) in 10/68 -- perhaps an 18 month delay overall -- and the unmanned missions flew in 1967 as planned. In effect, priorities were rearranged to keep the Kennedy target (moon landing in '69) on track, while safety changes were made to the Block II manned hardware. Unfortunately the nature of the STS program afforded no such luxuries after the Challenger disaster -- restarting an "operational" program is a different kettle of fish. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
saki@sonia.math.ucla.edu (D. MacLaughlan) (08/02/88)
In article <5827@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >AS-204 was on track for a late Feburary liftoff when it >burned up in the plugs-out test on 1/27/67, killing the crew. As I remember, the launch of Apollo I, headed by Grissom, was scheduled for at least one earlier launch date (Dec. 5, 1966), but glitches in the preliminary checkouts caused delays to early January, then finally Feb. '67. The full-suited exercise (oxygen in the compartment and all) was still a test, as you point out. >AS-205 was to go up a few months later, and several unmanned missions to >rate the Saturn V, LEM etc. were to follow. In fact AS-205 flew (as Apollo >4, with Schirra, Cunningham, and Eisele) in 10/68 -- perhaps an 18 >month delay overall -- and the unmanned missions flew in 1967 as >planned. Wasn't this actually Apollo *7*? (Oct. 11-22, '68). Apollos 2-6 were unmanned, I thought, and Apollo 8 followed in December '68. -------- "There you go--hiding behind a smokescreen of bourgeois cliches." saki/d.l. maclaughlan
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (08/03/88)
As I remember, one of the things that helped the Apollo Project catch up to schedule after the tragic fire, was the combining of lower and upper stage tests. Originally the first few 1st stage tests were to be launched with dummy upper stages (tanks full of water). Instead these firings were made with the complete 3-stage rocket, thus getting 3 tests for the price of one. I think there was one malfunction where we even got a freebie checkout of the escape tower rockets that pull the CM away from the stack. I'm still impressed that no Saturn stage EVER screwed up in a crewed launch! (No, I'm not counting #13's SM).
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (08/03/88)
In article <5827@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > >the Saturn V, LEM etc. were to follow. In fact AS-205 flew (as Apollo >4, with Schirra, Cunningham, and Eisele) in 10/68 -- perhaps an 18 >-- >Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff Tom, Apollo 7 was the first manned Apollo mission with Schirra, Cunningham and Eisele. All previous were unmanned. Peter Jarvis -- CIS 71665,256 -- Spaceforum
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles Lord) (08/03/88)
In article <6081@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: > > I think there was one malfunction where we even got a freebie > checkout of the escape tower rockets that pull the CM away > from the stack. Nope, it was a "Little Joe II" solid rocket used for CM testing that malfunctioned, prompting the escape tower firing. As the CM was saved per intended escape procedures, the test was declared a success by NASA even though the booster failed. Large and clunky, the Saturn series was still the best our program ever produced... -- Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet #include <std.disclamers> #include <cutsey.quote>
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/03/88)
In article <6081@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >As I remember, one of the things that helped the Apollo Project >catch up to schedule after the tragic fire, >was the combining of lower and upper stage tests. >Originally the first few 1st stage tests were to be launched >with dummy upper stages (tanks full of water). >Instead these firings were made with the complete 3-stage >rocket, thus getting 3 tests for the price of one. I don't recall the details of the timing, but I think Von Braun was talked into "all-up testing" well before the fire. It was not just a time issue (although he later admitted that, in retrospect, they could not possibly have made the Kennedy deadline with the traditional approach); there was also a problem with dummy stages in that they are not representative of real upper stages for characteristics like structural vibration. The only way to do a first-stage test with a fully realistic environment was to use real, loaded upper stages, and then one might as well try to test them too, if the first stage worked. >I think there was one malfunction where we even got a freebie >checkout of the escape tower rockets that pull the CM away >from the stack. Not on a Saturn, that I recall, but there was such a malfunction with one of the Little Joe II rockets used for testing the CM and its escape system. >I'm still impressed that no Saturn stage EVER screwed up in >a crewed launch! ... Well, actually there were some minor screwups in the upper stages once or twice, but nothing disastrous. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu