Alternative Lunar Plan

[gc1ceo]

Somebody tell me that I'm not crazy but I remember some alternative lunar plans, I can't remember the source, where they debated doing the lunar mission in two phases with the LM (Lunar Module) being put into either Earth or Moon orbit by remote to save weight on the main Apollo rocket but obviously in the end they didn't do that. Anybody know anything about this?

[SpaceOddity]

Well, if I remember correctly, the Russians were planning a mission with rendez-vous both in Earth and Moon orbit (remember though that Soviet program was a mess, so they were pursuing several different avenues at the same time, each construction bureau actively fighting others). Americans have considered it as well, but they went with LOR instead, as each additional step would add an unnecessary risk to the mission.

Russians have planned something you could call a lunar surface rendez-vous - two lunokhods and a spare lander would be delivered prior to manned mission (there would be spares at all stages, as they did not really trust their equipment).

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

There were plans for a direct ascent mission to the Moon, but they would require much larger rocket than the Saturn V - not really feasible in 1960s. But for about two years it was the chosen project, and it took some hard work for the Houbolt team to convince von Braun to chang his mind.

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

Edited August 12, 2013 by SpaceOddity

[nettcod]

McDonnell Douglas proposed going to the moon using Gemini.

[Moon Goddess]

There were plans for a direct ascent mission to the Moon, but they would require much larger rocket than the Saturn V - not really feasible in 1960s. But for about two years it was the chosen project, and it took some hard work for the Houbolt team to convince von Braun to chang his mind.

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

It's funny that the craziest plan is the one most often used in KSP.

[DerekL1963]

Somebody tell me that I'm not crazy but I remember some alternative lunar plans, I can't remember the source, where they debated doing the lunar mission in two phases with the LM (Lunar Module) being put into either Earth or Moon orbit by remote to save weight on the main Apollo rocket but obviously in the end they didn't do that. Anybody know anything about this?

There were a whole raftload of alternative plans - but in the end, LOR was chosen because it was the cheapest and most technically feasible.

[SpaceOddity]

It's funny that the craziest plan is the one most often used in KSP.

It's actually quite easy to explain - in KSP we don't pay for parts, so building an enormous rocket is not a problem. We can cram Kerbals into a sardine can for weeks and they don't go insane, we do not have to haul all of the oxygen, food and water along so the crafts are much lighter.

Oh, and the universe is scaled down so your deltaV requirement in KSP is miniscule - in real world Moon trip costs: 8600m/s to LEO, 4100m/s to lunar obit, 2200m/s to surface: total 14900m/s (one way).

[Moon Goddess]

It's actually quite easy to explain - in KSP we don't pay for parts, so building an enormous rocket is not a problem. We can cram Kerbals into a sardine can for weeks and they don't go insane, we do not have to haul all of the oxygen, food and water along so the crafts are much lighter.

Oh, and the universe is scaled down so your deltaV requirement in KSP is miniscule - in real world Moon trip costs: 8600m/s to LEO, 4100m/s to lunar obit, 2200m/s to surface: total 14900m/s (one way).

Oh I know this... I just find it funny.

It's why I always send life support via a mod, (currently using TAC so food water and air are required) and any mission that will take longer than a few days I send a habitat so they arn't spending all that time in a pod. And with all that it's still easier in KSP than real life.

[Drunkrobot]

There were three main plans considered by NASA on how to get to the Moon:

1. Direct ascent. One huge rocket, even larger than Saturn V would launch one craft up to the Moon. This was the simplest mission plan, with the fewest steps that could go wrong, but there were significant downsides. First, the Spaceship would look like this:

It was top-heavy, would've been nearly impossible to land, and required a huge amount of fuel to get back home. The launch vehicle would look like this:

That "C-5" on the left is the actual Saturn V. "Nova" is the direct ascent rocket designed by Werner Von Braun.

Getting the slimmer Saturn V to work was a pain. Nova would've been a nightmare. There was nothing to say Nova could never work, but getting it to work would've taken more than the time NASA had before the 31st December, 1969.

2. Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR). The Spaceship is assembled and fuelled in Earth orbit by several Saturn V launches, then does the mission similar to direct ascent.

This removed the need for the "super-rocket", but the Spaceship design was as difficult to fly, and there was no way Boeing, North American, Douglas, Rocketdyne and others could build the Saturn Vs fast enough to meet the deadline (It wasn't just Apollo 11 that needed the Moon rocket. Effective hardware can only be truly perfected by field tests, Saturn V, and the Spaceship, being no exception.).

The requirements for one EOR mission.

3. Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR). Instead of one, big Spaceship, there are two, smaller craft-a main ship for the astronauts to be in during the trip to the Moon, and the trip back to Earth, and a lander for the astronauts to go to the surface, leaving the main ship in Lunar orbit. Then the lander will climb back into orbit, and dock with the main ship, which would take the astronauts back home. They came to be known as the Command and Service Module, and the Lunar Module.

This mission plan had the risk of performing the rendezvous around somewhere other than the Earth, while astronauts are in a craft that wouldn't have a hope of getting home, or surviving re-entry. The upside is that only one Saturn V is needed per mission, and the lander can be tiny and agile. LOR was the mission plan chosen to bring men to the Moon.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[jwenting]

wasn't there a 4th variety that would launch the LM and SM/CM on separate Saturn 1V rockets, dock them in LEO, fly to the moon, and for the rest behave like the missions we're all familiar with?

[Drunkrobot]

I think that would be a mixture of EOR and LOR. Personally, I think that would be the best form of mission after the initial rush to land before 1970. Having the payload of two Saturn Vs would mean the CSM/LM pair could receive a significant upgrade (more consumables, more scientific equipment, the ability to bring small modules to Lunar orbit and a surface base etc.).

[MajorThomas]

Appropriate for this thread.

[crazyewok]

McDonnell Douglas proposed going to the moon using Gemini.

Yeah I saw those plans.

Could well have been a more cost effective way. I always liked Gemini and think it was never used to its full potential. It had the potential to evolve like the Soyuz.

[Headhunter09]

It's actually quite easy to explain - in KSP we don't pay for parts, so building an enormous rocket is not a problem. We can cram Kerbals into a sardine can for weeks and they don't go insane, we do not have to haul all of the oxygen, food and water along so the crafts are much lighter.

Oh, and the universe is scaled down so your deltaV requirement in KSP is miniscule - in real world Moon trip costs: 8600m/s to LEO, 4100m/s to lunar obit, 2200m/s to surface: total 14900m/s (one way).

Actually, in terms of difficulty KSP is pretty accurate. Parts are much heavier and engines are much less efficient.

I remember seeing a guy who did a Realism Overhaul Apollo mission to the moon and said it roughly equaled the difficulty of doing it in stock KSP, except in the real version you had to be much more precise.

[Motokid600]

All this... It's amazing nothing went wrong. Apollo 13 was a big scare, but other then that Apollo just.. worked. Now the Russian lunar plan was scary. No docking tunnel... Something tells me that if let's say the N1 made it to orbit and sent a pair of cosmonauts to the moon.. I think something would've went wrong. Not to bad talk the Russians, but that plan was a mess. It is ashame the LOK never flew through. ( well it did.. for about a minute and then came down in the largest non-nuclear explosion the world has ever seen. )

[MajorThomas]

Apollo: Worked because there was just enough testing.

N1/LOK: Not enough testing, so didn't work.

[bigdad84]

Yeah I saw those plans.

Could well have been a more cost effective way. I always liked Gemini and think it was never used to its full potential. It had the potential to evolve like the Soyuz.

Gemini was not at all used to its full potential. They even had crazy ideas like this:

Edited February 10, 2014 by bigdad84

[nettcod]

I always liked Gemini and think it was never used to its full potential. It had the potential to evolve like the Soyuz.

I agree, and I think the same could also be said about Apollo. Just google "Apollo Applications Program" if you haven't already.

[bigdad84]

I agree, and I think the same could also be said about Apollo. Just google "Apollo Applications Program" if you haven't already.

There was so much potential for Apollo and Gemini, moreso Apollo, but that got canned by the all-mighty "reusable" shuttle.

[NGTOne]

There was so much potential for Apollo and Gemini, moreso Apollo, but that got canned by the all-mighty "reusable" shuttle.

Problem is, after Apollo, the Americans won the Space Race, hands-down - there was no more POINT to it from an international prestige point of view. While you're right, there was a lot of potential (they'd even almost finished work on an upgraded Saturn V for further missions), the willingness to do it had come and gone with the political winds.

Rather a shame if you ask me.

[crazyewok]

There was so much potential for Apollo and Gemini, moreso Apollo, but that got canned by the all-mighty "reusable" shuttle.

Exactly.

NASA could still be leading manned missions into space today with upgraded and advanced varients of Gemini and Apollo. Instad they went for that piece of crap shuttle that likley held NASA back 30 years.

Better be carefull we will get the rapid shuttle fanbois come down on us like a ton of bricks if we are not carefull lol

Edited February 10, 2014 by crazyewok

[bigdad84]

Better be carefull we will get the rapid shuttle fanbois come down on us like a ton of bricks if we are not carefull lol

That's what I was just thinking!