Author Topic: Apollo 10 contingency plans  (Read 33850 times)

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2015, 10:34:45 PM »
When I was a wee lad (well, a teenager) following the Apollo 10 mission on tv, I remember the newscasters repeatedly emphasizing that if the astronauts landed on the moon for any reason whatsoever, that they were dead ducks.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2015, 10:42:19 PM »
With 1,167 m/s Δv, the LM could definitely get into a suborbital trajectory with a high enough apex, but that's not the problem.  For the CSM to rendezvous with them, it would have to slow down and match the LM's velocity.  This would put the CSM on the same suborbital trajectory.  It seems highly doubtful to me that the CSM could rendezvous with the LM, transfer the astronauts, and then get back up to speed all within the brief window of time.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2015, 10:44:49 PM »
With 1,167 m/s Δv, the LM could definitely get into a suborbital trajectory with a high enough apex, but that's not the problem. 
Right. Orbits are all about velocity, not altitude.

Offline Luther

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2015, 12:38:40 AM »
The problem is the CSM would have to match (at least approximately) the sub-orbital trajectory of the LM to do the transfer.  So they'd have to slow down, dock with the LM, do the transfer, cut loose, and then get out of the death spiral they're in.  Furthermore, all this would have to be done in a few minutes, because the sub-orbital trajectory is going to last less than 45 minutes (and half of that is on the way up) before the LM makes a new crater.  And if they stuff it up, that's three dead astronauts instead of two.

I guess they could revert to a stable orbit with the LM still attached, assuming the CSM has enough fuel, but still - not a lot of time to work with, and a lot of potential for an even worse outcome.

Offline Luther

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2015, 12:46:08 AM »
Speaking of stuffing it up, I didn't notice Bob B.'s post, which already said most of what I said  :-[

Offline BazBear

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2015, 12:51:22 AM »
With 1,167 m/s Δv, the LM could definitely get into a suborbital trajectory with a high enough apex, but that's not the problem. 
Right. Orbits are all about velocity, not altitude.
And velocity in the right direction. This needs to be explained to some people. I had to do the whole "common sense" (ETA*) explanation to a good friend and contemporary just the other day...well it was at the same time I got him to watch Saturn V footage (mostly Apollo 4 I'm pretty sure). The pitch over threw him...until I explained why 17,500mph-ish straight up wasn't a good idea.

(*ETA Falling "around" the Earth.)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2015, 01:00:06 AM by BazBear »
"It's true you know. In space, no one can hear you scream like a little girl." - Mark Watney, protagonist of The Martian by Andy Weir

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2015, 05:18:25 AM »
Thanks for the responses - the wealth of information makes this place so valuable.

Offline darren r

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2015, 03:43:40 PM »
What if one of the astronauts had stayed on the surface, in a "I'm just going outside, I may be some time" manner? Would the ascent module have been able to make it then or would the reduced mass not make all that much difference?

A bit dark, I know, I'm just curious!
" I went to the God D**n Moon!" Byng Gordon, 8th man on the Moon.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2015, 05:53:45 PM »
What if one of the astronauts had stayed on the surface, in a "I'm just going outside, I may be some time" manner? Would the ascent module have been able to make it then or would the reduced mass not make all that much difference?

Too little to make much of a difference.  Leaving behind an astronaut would gain less than 30 m/s, which is still far short of what would be needed.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2015, 06:01:35 PM »
Too little to make much of a difference.  Leaving behind an astronaut would gain less than 30 m/s, which is still far short of what would be needed.

That might only be a measly 30 m/s, but it brings it home how lots of little weight reductions here and there made a lot of difference. It amazes me how the engineers adapted to changes of design, and the impact this had on the whole space craft. System integration must have been an utter nightmare.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2015, 06:08:34 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2015, 06:48:17 PM »
What if one of the astronauts had stayed on the surface, in a "I'm just going outside, I may be some time" manner? Would the ascent module have been able to make it then or would the reduced mass not make all that much difference?

Too little to make much of a difference.  Leaving behind an astronaut would gain less than 30 m/s, which is still far short of what would be needed.

Did you use the reduced mass of the half-fueled LM as basis for that? Seems like a very small velocity gain for the loss of 80 kg.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2015, 07:19:20 PM »
Did you use the reduced mass of the half-fueled LM as basis for that? Seems like a very small velocity gain for the loss of 80 kg.

I got exactly the same figures as Bob, a little under 30 m/s is gained in dV for a loss of 80 kg, unless we're both doing something daft. Maybe someone can check both our figures and put up the equations.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2015, 08:17:40 PM »
How much mass had to be lost before the LM could get to any orbit with half fuel? 1000 kg?
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2015, 08:23:20 PM »
Did you use the reduced mass of the half-fueled LM as basis for that? Seems like a very small velocity gain for the loss of 80 kg.

I used the figures in Reply #13, i.e. 8,273 lbm total mass (with 2 astronauts) and 2,631 lbm propellant.  However, I just realized I made a mistake.  I intended to use the mass of an astronaut with his suit and backpack, but I forgot that I was working in pounds-mass instead of kilograms.  An astronauts in his EMU with PLSS backpack had a mass of about 350 lbm.  Therefore the corrected numbers are,

With two astronauts,

Δv = 311 * 9.80665 * LN(8273 / (8273 - 2631)) = 1,167 m/s

With one astronaut,

Δv = 311 * 9.80665 * LN((8273 - 350) / (8273 - 350 - 2631)) = 1,231 m/s

So the difference is 64 m/s instead of 30 m/s.

Now that I think about it, were PLSS backpacks included on Apollo 10?

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Apollo 10 contingency plans
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2015, 08:29:22 PM »
How much mass had to be lost before the LM could get to any orbit with half fuel? 1000 kg?

About half its mass.  Δv is a function of the ratio of the fully fuelled mass to the empty mass.  If you cut the fuel mass in half, then you have to cut the empty mass in half in order the maintain the same ratio.

 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2015, 09:29:18 PM by Bob B. »