|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 6, 2010 22:55:13 GMT -4
This is something I've never come across before - a reference to Apollo 10 as being the mission that will land on the moon:
Source: The Encyclopedia of Space (1968) by Paul Hamlyn
on page 824 accompanying a photograph it says:
"167 miles above Cape Kennedy during their second orbit of the Earth, the astronauts on board Apollo 7 photographed the burnt out final stage of the Saturn rocket which had propelled them into the cosmos. The unfolded side parts of the rocket are intended to form an adapter for the 'moonferry' in which the astronauts of Apollo 10 will land on the moon"
This book was completed between Apollo 8 and 9, but my edition has been updated with 35 pages after the index covering Apollo 9 to 12.
In this section on page vii it covers Apollo 10 and says:
"Inevitably there was some speculation as to whether a landing would be made, but officials at NASA were quite emphatic about this; Apollo 10 was a dress rehearsal , certainly, but not the actual performance"
So, is the first quotation an error, or did something occur which changed NASA's decision to have Apollo 11 land on the moon instead of Apollo 10?
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 7, 2010 1:46:08 GMT -4
To the best of my knowledge, Apollo 10 was never schedule to land on the Moon. The LM fuel margins were unacceptable because of the weight; LM5 was the first that could meet the margins.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 7, 2010 1:57:21 GMT -4
What was the flight schedule before Apollo 8 was turned into a lunar orbit mission?
I think if the LM had been on schedule this is how it would have been:
- Apollo 7 tests the CSM in Earth orbit,
- Apollo 8 tests the LM in Earth orbit,
- Apollo 9 tests the LM in lunar orbit,
- Apollo 10 lands on the moon.
Is it possible the book was written before the change to Apollo 8?
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 7, 2010 4:43:23 GMT -4
I thought Apollo 8 was originally supposed to test the CSM in a high earth orbit, but not lunar orbit. Apollo 7 had been a success, so there wasn't really much point in doing it over in a different orbit. But the LM wasn't ready either.
And since there were reports that the Russians might be close to sending their own manned flight to the moon, NASA got the idea to do something sufficiently different from Apollo 7 to actually be interesting: send it all the way to the moon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 7, 2010 13:40:01 GMT -4
What I'm thinking is that after Apollo 1, NASA got cautious and decided to go with three unmanned launches (4,5 &6) until another manned launch was attempted. Originally Apollo 1 was designated AS-204. Apparently Grissom's widow asked that it be named Apollo 1 - maybe that pushed all the numbered missions behind by one number? Or, was originally the missions to be AS-201, AS-202, AS-203, AS-204 (Apollo 1), AS-205 (Apollo 4) AS-206 (Apollo 5) etc.... BTW what ever happened to Apollo 2 and 3? Did the nomenclature just get screwed up by the Apollo 1 tragedy? Maybe 2 and 3 were covered in AS-202 and AS-203? And what about this? library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00181/apollo-2-t.html EDIT: okay, here's some explanation:
...In February 1966 AS-201 was launched...This mission had been unofficially dubbed Apollo 1, for obvious reasons.In August 1966 AS-202 launched with another set of tests and objectives to prove. AS-202 was called Apollo 2 to those who worked on it.However in June 1966 The Crew of AS-204 (the first manned Apollo-Saturn mission) had requested that AS-204 be renamed Apollo 1 and authorised to have a Mission Patch, Grissom's crew shortly after the request did get approval and a patch was made.
AS-203 had already been launched in July and was really just to test the Command Module.
When the launch of Apollo 1(AS-204) was near, NASA administration was having second thoughts about calling it Apollo 1 and wanted to go back to AS-204. However on January 27, 1967 all that changed.
After the fire NASA Decided to call it AS-204 but the widows of the three astronauts reserved the name Apollo 1 for the flight their husbands would have flown. NASA agreed and Apollo 2 (AS-205) with Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham, to duplicate the Apollo 1 (AS-204) mission was canceled. CM-014 (AS-205) was subsequently disassembled in parallel with the disassembly of CM-012 (AS-204) in the post-fire Apollo 1 investigation.
Mission planners in Houston called the next scheduled launch Apollo 2. In March 1967, the administration decided for historic purposes, the flights should be called Apollo 1 (AS-204), Apollo 1A (AS-201), Apollo 2 (AS-202), and Apollo 3 (AS-203). In April, Julian Scheer, Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, notified the centres that the NASA Project Designation Committee had approved the Office of Manned Space Flight recommendation of Apollo 4 for the first Apollo-Saturn V mission (AS-501), but there would be no retroactive renaming of AS-201, -202, or -203. Much correspondence followed, but the sequence of, and reasoning behind, mission designations has never been really clear to anyone.
So in fact there was an Apollo 2, in fact 3 of them, but they were all renamed or canceled for one reason or another.
Incidentally AS-205 with Walter M. Schirra, Jr, Donn F. Eisele and Walter Cunningham eventually came back as Apollo 7.everything2.com/title/Apollo+2Okay, still none of that answers my original question. Lunar Orbit, the book seems to have been originally published between the Apollo 8 an 9 missions, though of course the part of the text in question could have been written earlier and just wasn't updated in time. There was a lot of new things happening quickly in space exploration at the time and keeping all the information current must have been a challenge. By the way, here's a diagram illustrating the program as just three missions:  from another publication. I'm assuming there would be unmanned flights as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 7, 2010 20:30:44 GMT -4
Regarding the patch and renaming: it was always going to be called Apollo 1. Have a look at the crew during training - they were wearing the Apollo 1 patch on their suits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 7, 2010 21:57:25 GMT -4
Regarding the patch and renaming: it was always going to be called Apollo 1. Have a look at the crew during training - they were wearing the Apollo 1 patch on their suits. It certainly seems so... although I haven't seen a closeup that is good enough to identify the "Apollo 1" text on the bottom of the patch. What's all this about it being renamed later, then? I've come across this a few times - especially the his widow's request. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 7, 2010 22:06:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 7, 2010 22:18:47 GMT -4
Certainly is! Okay, so I've re-read my own posts and figured it out... I must be getting old. Sometimes what I'm looking for is right in front of me.  |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 8, 2010 9:30:54 GMT -4
It's useful to know that the Apollo missions were originally classified by letter, with each letter indicating the type of mission progressing up to the initial landing and then continuing with more elaborate landings that emphasized scientific exploration.
A - unmanned CSM test (2-6 except 5)
B - unmanned LM test (5)
C - manned CSM in low earth orbit (7)
D - manned CSM/LM in low earth orbit (9)
E - manned CSM/LM in elliptical orbit (none)
F - manned CSM/LM in lunar orbit (10)
G - initial manned lunar landing (11)
H - longer lunar landings (12-14)
J - extended lunar landings emphasizing science (15-17)
Apollo 8 was inserted on short notice as a "C-prime" mission mainly to beat the Russians to lunar space before the LM was ready
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Aug 30, 2010 13:06:22 GMT -4
What's all this about it being renamed later, then? I've come across this a few times - especially the his widow's request. I think the simulation that ended so tragically was renamed to Apollo 1. The intended Apollo 1 mission never got a chance to happen. |
|
