PDA

View Full Version : Apollo Paper!



Vermonter
2003-Aug-10, 04:48 AM
You folks asked me to make my Apollo paper availible after I wrote it, so here it is.

When I was writing it, I ended up not really concentrating on Apollo itself; more like working on how we got to that point. It might serve as a debunking paper. Read and post comments!

http://www.geocities.com/tenchimod/papers.html

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Aug-10, 04:56 AM
I get a "page not found" error. Is the link correct?

Vermonter
2003-Aug-10, 05:02 AM
Try now! I had to upload the files, and make the page. :oops:

Glom
2003-Aug-10, 10:29 AM
Nice paper. A few nits though.


At 95 3, the Atlas was quite the improvement over the Redstone. This is evidence of progress.

The Atlas was bigger and more powerful, but it was less reliable than Redstone, it is arguable that it ws an improvement over Redstone.


The booster problem was analyzed and corrected for Apollo 7

Apollo 7 used a Saturn IB so the problem didn't need to be corrected for it. It did need to be, and was, corrected for Apollo 8.


Many defects found in the LM nearly stopped the mission.

Apollo 7 didn't involve a LM.


The SPS burned two types of hypergols, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

The fuel for the SPS was Aerozine 50, a 50-50 mixture of hydrazine and 1,1-dimethyl hydrazine.

Otherwise, good very paper.

Eric McLoughlin
2003-Aug-10, 01:34 PM
Good work.

Do you plan on writing on the subsequent missions? Apollo got more exciting and interesting as the missions progressed.

I don't like being picky, especially when it's obvious you've done a lot of research. What I would like to point out is the "myth" that the Apollo "1" fire brought about a wholesale redesign of the Apollo Command Module. Sure there were many many detail design improvements but the main changes were in quality control procedures. Many people don't realise that there were, in effect, two Apollo Command Module designs - Block 1 and Block 2. Apollo had originally been envisaged as the post Mercury general space science manned spacecraft. The idea of conducting EVA's from the capsule was not originally foreseen. When Apollo suddenly became the moon landing programme, the Command Module was already fairly well advanced in design. Straight away a modified Command Module design was put in motion. The original plan was to use Block 1 modules on the early missions and Block 2 for the later. After the fire, the Block 1s were never uded.

Vermonter
2003-Aug-10, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the critique! This is my first draft, so corrections are going to be made anyway. I'll be sure to include those details and corrections in the second draft of my paper.

I was aware of the Block I and Block II designs, however I didn't remember to take that into account when I was writing about the Fire.

I think with all the information I found, I'll end up writing another paper or two that concentrate on one series of missions, like the later Apollo missions.

Thanks again, I hope more people read it.

Vermonter
2003-Aug-12, 04:04 AM
Anyone else? I'm detecting hits, but no comments. :-?