Jump to content

Exploring Apollo Applications Project (AAP): The Moon and Beyond


Recommended Posts

This thread is a compilation of the various efforts I've made at developing and exploring unique Apollo-style hardware and missions. Many of these are speculative in nature and follow "alternate history" styled development. Original posts can be found on the Beyond Apollo: AAP challenge and the Doing it Apollo Style and Doing it Gemini Style - An Alternate History Mun Mission challenges.


Apollo Applications Program - Exploring the "Big Gemini" and LORL

This post explores the aspects of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) that incorporate the "Big Gemini" and the Large Orbiting Research Laboratory (LORL). Based on the Jim Chamberlin design of the original two-crew Gemini spacecraft, the Big G would use an evolution of the Gemini avionics and combined designs of both Gemini and Apollo spacecraft. The idea was to bring large crews and supplies to an orbiting space station. Design plans included crews from 6 to 12 in a single launch and was the first craft designed to have a reusable crew cabin.

Big Gemini with S IV-B

b034YJ5.png

The Big G was not intended for Lunar missions which meant it did not require any more delta-v than would be required to deorbit from the space station. Since it did not require a Saturn 5 to launch, the Big G could rely on other proven low-cost lifters like the S1-B or a boosted Titan III. In this exploration, the Saturn S1-B lifter is the primary launcher for Big G missions.

The idea of the LORL was to place a large crew aboard a space station that was designed to support multiple docking ports and would be re-crewed with "taxi" style launches using the Big G. The initial LORL missions would have been launched with two Saturn 5 launches and assembled in orbit. All other resupply missions would have been performed with the S1-B, leaving the remaining supply of Saturn 5 rockets for Lunar missions. However, since the LORL required two Saturn 5 rockets to be assembled, how could NASA launch the LORL without taking away any Saturn 5's for the Lunar program?

Large Orbiting Research Laboratory Docked with Two Big G's

5aIhbUV.png

What if Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 were done with S1-B rockets?

Although a very powerful and reliable rocket, the Saturn 5 was also the most expensive, by far. In comparison, the cheap and plentiful Saturn S1-B used existing hardware dating back as far as the Mercury program and shared its second stage with the Saturn 5's third stage, enhancing economy.

Apollo 9 Docked with "Spider"'s Ascent Stage

TOovTCL.jpg

Apollo 8 was a Lunar orbit test of the Apollo command module (CM). It also proved the S IV-B stage was capable of a Trans-Lunar Injection with a crewed Apollo CM. Apollo 9 was a test of the Lunar Module (LM) and was performed in low Earth orbit. In order for Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 to have been accomplished with the S1-B rocket, several parameters would require adjustment:

  1. Apollo 8 would use the "Apollo A" configuration of the CM. This lighter version of the CM could be used as there was no requirement to support docking and the CM engine didn't need to carry the extra delta-v to carry around the LM and perform rendezvous maneuvers.
  2. Apollo 9 would be conducted in two launches. The first would launch the LM and the second would carry the CM and the crew. Since rendezvous and docking with the LM was a key part of this mission, a two-launch profile fit the mission requirements perfectly.

Apollo 9 LM Launch

1JkFLxm.jpg

If Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 were launched with Saturn S1-B's, the LORL could have been a reality in the mid 70's, with continuous crews of 10-20 people arriving and departing on Big Gemini spacecraft. This could have been accomplished in parallel to the Apollo Lunar program, without using any hardware from the Lunar program, and would have created the first permanent outpost in space.

Apollo 8 "Earthrise"

XZeO4T7.jpg

The Big G and the LORL

The version of the Big Gemini explored here crews a maximum of 7 and is capable of multiple recovery options including abort procedures and supporting land or water landings. Although not available in KSP, the Big G would have used a parasail and would have navigated pinpoint landings. The Big G used a unique method of docking by having its docking port on what is traditionally the bottom of the spacecraft instead of the top.

Once the mission involving docking is complete, the docking port is jettisoned revealing the deorbit engine. After the deorbit burn is complete and reentry is imminent, the retro package and avionics package can be jettisoned for landing.

Big Gemini Jettisons the Retro Package

IqdYID0.png

The type of LORL explored here is the zero-g type, although rotating designs to simulate gravity were also explored. This LORL is equipped with an Apollo Telescope Mount and has two open docking ports when the telescope is installed. It was launched in two parts: the first was the crew cabin and was sent up with a Big G as the CM aboard a Saturn 5. The second launch carried the avionics, communications array, solar panel and a station-keeping engine and was launched under an Apollo CM.

Once the LORL was assembled in low orbit, the Apollo CM engine was used to boost the LORL to a stationary orbit, where it would remain. The Apollo Telescope Mount was moved to its active position once in its final orbit and two Big G CM's were docked to the LORL. Continuous crew missions could be sustained indefinitely for the lifespan of the LORL.

Completed LORL in Synchronous Orbit

iAY6iRS.png

Conclusion

The Big G and the LORL would have been a relatively low cost approach to a permanent space station. The crew capacity of some Big G's were huge. Some mock-ups of the the Big G show seating for 20 crew, often with everyone having their own ejection seat mechanism. The LORL was equally spacious and could potentially accommodate 20 crew of its own.

Smaller, cheaper space station designs were being pitched that had shorter life spans, but could be launched on a single modified Saturn 5. And, since the smaller space stations couldn't support the massive crews that the Big G could support, there was no reason to pursue the Big G.

At a time when funding was already being cut, the Big G and the LORL were history by 1970.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolloa.htm

bigmodel.jpg

biglorl.jpg

bigskylb.jpg

Big Gemini

Javascript is disabled. View full album

LORL

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 Alternate Missions

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edited by Death Engineering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mdacB23.jpg

Apollo Applications Program - Skylab A/B and McDonnell Douglas' Phase B 12-Man Space Station

This entry for the APP challenge looks at two derivatives of NASA's plans for space stations: Skylab B and McDonnell Douglas' Phase B 12-Man Space Station. The Skylab A mission was to be the first of two Skylab missions. The second would have seen only minor improvements but would have included more capacity for long-term duration missions.

Phase B Space Station with Experiment Modules

KAG40qJ.png

Still serviced by the Apollo CM/SM, a second Skylab could have incorporated the advanced Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) based on an ascent stage from a Lunar Module. This ATM/LM was capable of carrying more science experiments and could carry more consumables to the station to enhance duration.

Skylab B with enhanced ATM/LM

TE9WdTI.png

The second space station, the McDonnell Douglas Phase B, was a design for a 12-man station. Launched on a single Saturn 5, the Phase B was designed for research in microgravity and featured docking ports for interchangable experiment modules. This space station would be parked in high orbit and could also be used for crew training and a port of call for trans-lunar missions. Experiment modules could be installed and replaced as needed, expanding the versatility of the station.

Manned Orbiting Research Laboratory Concept Drawing

lorlbig.jpg

An evolution of the Phase B station explored here is a design that never went beyond the sketchpad. Hardware specifics on the three-module station are lacking, but by adding a docking and logistics module to a Phase B launch could render an expandable space station taking only three Saturn 5 launches to construct.

Phase B MORL Triple-Station with Big Gemini return vehicle

rxa74jD.png

Skylab A with view of ATM

480px-Skylab_4_undocking.jpg

Skylab A and B

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Phase B Space Station

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Next AAP Entry:

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Mars (Duna) Flyby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ruppeFBa-660x288.gif

Using Apollo Hardware to Explore Mars

Before ever landing on the Moon, the Marshall Space Flight Center already had visions of exploring Mars and Venus. The mission requirements would be to use as much Apollo hardware as possible, which meant that a landing was out of the question. However, a manned flyby was definitely within the reach of the current technology.

Mars Flyby Lab/Crew Quarters Launching on S5

IJkUCqw.png

The plan would be to use an Apollo CSM for primary flight avionics and control as well as for the final approach to Earth and landing. However, engineers were concerned about keeping the CSM protected from micrometeorites during the flight to Mars and back, especially since the flight plan would take the crew past Mars' orbit and into the asteroid belt.

Refueling the SII-B OLV

UPDQZf7.png

The plan to keep the CSM protected during the flight was to keep it enclosed inside a pressurized hangar moored atop the lab/crew quarters. The CSM would remain there controlling flight activities until it was time to land. The crew would be able to move between the lab/crew quarters and the CSM through a tunnel between the hangar and the lab. As the spacecraft approached Earth, the crew would move to the CSM, undock from the flyby craft and burn to Earth orbit prior to landing.

As the flyby approached Mars, the crew would deploy probes and landers to further explore Mars. Since this was to be the first serious exploration of Mars, there were a lot of unknowns regarding the Martian atmosphere and surface density. The probes and landers on this trip would largely be designed to gather information on the planet for planning of future missions.

Opening the hangar to reveal the Apollo CSM

TsGtI0m.png

In order to get the rather large, pressurized hangar and spacious lab/crew quarters out to Mars, a modified S-IIB was envisioned, called the S-IIB OLV (Orbital Launch Vehicle). Two of the J2 engines would be removed, leaving three J2's and a large docking port would be mounted on top to mate with the flyby craft already in orbit. An Apollo Instrument Unit would provide navigation and control to get the S-IIB OLV into orbit after which the crew on the flyby craft would use the Rendezvous and Docking engines to meet up with and dock to the OLV.

Once assembled in orbit, modified S-IIB "tankers" would be launched to refuel the OLV. The MSFC planned for up to four tanker launches to refuel the OLV prior to Mars planetary injection. Once the spacecraft was assembled and refueled, a crew for the flyby mission would board the spacecraft to begin the trip.

Mars Flyby Craft Ready for Departure

QUvNF6f.png

Throughout the trip, the crew would perform zero g science and maintain the fleet of probes and automated landers. After the final course correction, the probes would separate from the flyby craft and make their own small course corrections for their Mars encounter. As well as pure science, the probes would help engineers design Mars-specific spacecraft for future missions by testing aerobraking and reentry shielding.

Proposed Flight Profile for Mars Flyby

ruppefbc-660x818.gif

In this exploration, only two tanker launches were required to top up the OLV and even then there was way more delta-v available than was required for this mission. Unfortunately, the sample return lander probe and one of the rovers were lost. The sample return probe was missing struts that were present in the VAB but for some reason were not included in the launch vehicle. Once the chutes opened, the craft tore itself apart and crashed on the surface. The rover problem was a design issue that prevented the rover from getting power once the batteries were drained. With the second rover, care was taken to keep the largely obscured solar panels facing Kerbol until it was time to land. Both of the satellites were launched and used aerobraking to get into Duna orbits.

This type of mission was clearly designed with "worst case scenario" in mind and highlighted using hardware already available. However, this manned mission to Mars could have been accomplished by late 1975 and would have gathered valuable data on Mars as well as a pass through the asteroid field.

Apollo CSM in the hangar

3uaog.gif

Apollo-based Mars Flyby Mission

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Coming in the next AAP entry:

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Venus (Eve) Flyby

References:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/apollotovenusandmars/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

m6DakDf.jpg

Early Manned Planetary-Interplanetary Roundtrip Expeditions (EMPIRE) - Venus (Eve) Flyby

Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T, developed a single-launch mission profile for a Venus flyby in the mid 1960's. The mission would have been launched on a single Saturn 5 for the 1973 launch window. The Apollo CSM would provide the avionics and control for the mission while the crew would occupy a lab/crew quarters mounted on the top of the SIV-B. Instead of dropping the SIV-B as in typical Moon missions, the SIV-B would be converted into a wet-workshop.

Instead of a lunar lander, which would not be needed for a flyby mission, Bellcomm envisioned an Environmental Support Module (ESM). This module would provide the life support and communication needed for the mission and would contain the materials needed to convert the SIV-B into the wet-workshop once the fuel had been expended.

Apollo CSM docked to the Environmental Support Module (ESM)

UBBpEat.png

In order to save weight and reduce consumables needed, the power for the mission would come from solar cells attached to the SIV-B and would be sustained with battery reserves. Other modifications would be to use two LM engines on the CSM instead of the standard Service Propulsion System (SPS) and modifications to communication systems to support the longer duration flight.

Shortly before the Venus encounter, probes would be released from the craft to perform orbital science or possibly even landers to scope out the atmosphere and diverse cloud layers.

Probe in orbit around Eve

Kj7M2s0.png

Due to Venus' strong gravity, only a small burn is required at periapsis to assist the slingshot around Venus to push the craft's orbit into an encounter with Earth. In this exploration, the flyby altitude had to be quite a bit higher than would be done with a Venus flyby due to Eve's massive gravity. Also, since there isn't really a good analog for a two engine cluster that would be similar to a single Poodle, only a single engine is installed on the Apollo CSM. And since there is no way to refurbish a spent fuel tank into a wet workshop, the Kerbals will just have to make due with a single Hitchhiker pod.

They didn't seem to mind.

Apollo-style Eve Flyby

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Coming in the next AAP entry...

Apollo Applications Program - Munar Applications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goals in this challenge resemble the Apollo 15 mission, but I thought it was important to include a proof of concept for the launch escape system (LES) in the fashion of the Little Joe II rockets.

I don't expect any extra points for it, but since I wanted to make sure the LES worked it made sense to replicate the original test vehicle for this concept. During my development of the Saturn 5 style lifter for this challenge, there were several "mishaps" where I actually used the LES and it worked perfectly.. but to use those examples as my challenge entry would not have make a lot of sense. :D

Little Joe II/LES Test Launch

ZZ5EIpF.png

At the landing site.. 30 points for the effort, +15 for landing accuracy.

Wy2M5v6.png

Full Mission Details:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Doing it Apollo Style Challenge:

Main Mission - 30 points

  • Everything has to be started with a single rocket (no building ships in orbit or refueling in orbit)
  • You have to fly a LOR mission (you need a Command Module [CM] and a specialized Münar Module [MM])
  • No mods! All stock, no Mechjeb. (Did Neil and Buzz land by auto pilot?)
  • BYOR (Bring your own rocket) - The rocket must be your own design

Goals

  • 3-man Mission +10
  • 2-man Lander +10
  • 2-stage Lander (leave the decent-engine on the mün) +20
  • Main rocked aspargus'd? -10 (Wernher von Kerman does not like aspargus!)
  • Escape tower? +10
  • Lander stored behind the CM during ascent +20
  • Lander tucked away behind some fairing? +5
  • Free return trajectory to the mün +10
  • Flawless landing (no parts broke off, Neil Armstrong is watching you!) +10
  • Got a Munar Roving Vehicle (MRV) on board? +15
  • After succesfull Mün landing docked CM and MM in Orbit (no swapping ships without docking them first) +10
  • MM disposed by crashing it into the Mün (remove Kerbal first!) +5
  • Plant flag on the Mün (no cumulative, i.e. two flags don't get you 6 points) +3
  • Spashing down on Kerbin (land on water) +5
  • Kerbal dies -20

Awesome new goals:

Keep the CM pilot busy

Deploy münar sub-satellite before returning to Kerbin +10 Points

Landing accuracy

Land within 100 meters of the NAM +15

I was roving on the Moon one day...

Proper shakedown -5 points - Drive beyond 2.5 km of the lander

MSEP - Mün Surface Experimental Package

Science extravaganza! - 15 points - Deploy four experimental packages 2.5km from the landing site (and at least 2.5km from eachother)

Score: 203

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gemini Style Direct Ascent Landing

The inspiration for this challenge came from my attempt to complete the Doing it Apollo Style challenge using a Gemini style mission. Since the Gemini mission didn't really fit into that challenge, and I've always had a soft-spot for the Gemini spacecraft, I felt this challenge would be a good way to explore some real-world technology and how it could have been used in an alternate history.

My attempt at Doing it Gemini Style:

Primary mission objective (+20)

Mission

  • Direct Ascent (+4): Using a single launch, establish a crewed Munar orbit.
  • Landing prestige: One Kerbal on the Mun (+7). Second Kerbal on the Mun (+4).

Capsule

  • Happy together (+3): Both crew members are never separated by more than 10km
  • We're done with that (+3): Detachable support module (Jettison from command module before Kerbin landing at least three of:RCS cells, electrical systems, lighting, legs, retro package)
  • Just in case (+3): Launch Escape System present

Lifter

  • Won't Apollo miss that Saturn 5? (+6): At least one rocket uses a 5 engine first stage and a 5 engine second stage.

Lander

  • Dropping some weight (+3): At least one of the primary or backup Munar surface return vessels leaves behind its Munar descent stage.

Recovery

  • Welcome home (+10): Both crew return to Kerbin
  • We can take it (+3): Be able to safely return to Kerbin on water or land without damage.

Crazy 60's details

  • We are outta here (+3): The Launch Escape System ejects both crew in their own separate crafts. The Gemini had fighter jet style ejection seats.

Total: 69

8ZYXT5kl.png

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...