Apollo spacecraft feasibility study

Last updated
Robert R. Gilruth (second from left), Director of NASA's Space Task Group, and chief assistants Charles Donlan left), Maxime Faget, and Robert Piland in August 1960 discuss selection of contractors to study feasibility of a crewed circumlunar mission STG discusses 1960 Apollo spacecraft feasibility study.jpg
Robert R. Gilruth (second from left), Director of NASA's Space Task Group, and chief assistants Charles Donlan left), Maxime Faget, and Robert Piland in August 1960 discuss selection of contractors to study feasibility of a crewed circumlunar mission

The Apollo spacecraft feasibility study was conducted by NASA from July 1960 through May 1961 to investigate preliminary designs for a post-Project Mercury multi-crewed spacecraft to be used for possible space station, circum-lunar, lunar orbital, or crewed lunar landing missions. Six-month, $250,000 study contracts were awarded to General Dynamics/Convair, General Electric, and the Glenn L. Martin Company. Meanwhile, NASA conducted its own inhouse design study led by Maxime Faget, intended as a gauge of the competitors' entries. The three companies spent varying amounts of their own money in excess of the $250,000 to produce designs which included a re-entry module separate from the mission module cabin, and a propulsion and equipment module.

Contents

One week after the presentation of the contractors' designs, President John F. Kennedy committed NASA to a crewed lunar landing, giving the Apollo program an immediate, critical focus. NASA decided to discard the study designs and the mission module cabin, and based the lunar landing mission design on Faget's inhouse design, with a cone-shaped command module, supported by a cylindrical service module containing return propulsion and supporting equipment. This would be carried to the lunar surface by a still-to-be-defined landing propulsion module. NASA then launched another competition for the command/service module procurement contract.

In December 1961, GE publicly presented their feasibility study design to the American Astronautical Society . Similarities in the basic mission-command-propulsion module design have been noted to the Soviet Union's Soyuz spacecraft designed by Sergei Korolev and Vasily Mishin. It has been speculated that Korolev and Mishin could have incorporated GE design elements in the existing OKB-1 Sever designs (1959-1962) [1] that eventually became the cancelled Soyuz-A (7K) (1963) and approved Soyuz 7K-OK (1965-1967). [2] [3]

Background

In July and August 1960, NASA's Space Task Group (STG) hosted a series of NASA-industry conferences to discuss post-Project Mercury crewed spacecraft plans. [4] Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden announced at the conference opening that "the next spacecraft beyond Mercury will be called Apollo." [5]

On August 30, NASA presented plans to award three feasibility study contracts for the Apollo spacecraft, conceived as a three-man Earth orbital and circumlunar craft, with growth potential for crewed lunar landings. [5] A Request For Proposal was issued on September 12, and fourteen bids were received by October 9. On October 25, NASA awarded the $250,000, six-month contracts to General Dynamics/Convair, General Electric, and the Glenn L. Martin Company. [6] Meanwhile, members of the Space Task Group performed their own spacecraft design studies, to serve as a gauge to judge and monitor the three industry designs. [6]

An early Apollo Program plan, involving a proposal like the Project Olympus for an Earth orbital laboratory station. Early Apollo Program plan.gif
An early Apollo Program plan, involving a proposal like the Project Olympus for an Earth orbital laboratory station.

All three competitors supplemented the $250,000 contracts with their own money: Convair spent $1 million, GE $2 million, and Martin $3 million. [8] The Manager of GE Space Vehicle Systems (Philadelphia), George Arthur, led the GE proposal team that included Harold Bloom, Charles Bixler, Jacob Abel, and Arnold Cohen. On May 15 to 17, 1961, the contractors presented their study results to NASA. All three designs employed a mission module cabin separate from the command module (piloting and re-entry cabin), and a propulsion and equipment module. Martin studied three different reentry module shapes, including a conical capsule vehicle similar to the STG configuration. GE also studied several reentry module shapes. GD/Convair's proposal employed a lifting body shape. [8]

Designs

GD/Convair

Model of General Dynamics Corporation's proposed Apollo circumlunar mission design Apollo spacecraft feasibility study General Dynamics.jpg
Model of General Dynamics Corporation's proposed Apollo circumlunar mission design

Convair/Astronautics' entry was designed primarily for lunar orbit, with flexibility and growth potential built in to accommodate lunar landing. The company estimated a total program cost of $1.25 billion over about six years.

Convair selected a lifting body for the return vehicle (command module), similar to one conceived several years earlier by Alfred J. Eggers of NASA-Ames. This had an abort tower attached through launch, and nestled inside a large mission module. Convair/Astronautics envisioned a progressive flight development plan, with many Earth-orbital missions before attempting circumlunar, and then lunar-orbital missions. Earth landings would be by glidesail parachute near San Antonio, Texas. The development flights would experiment with space rendezvous, docking, artificial gravity, and maneuverable landing, leading to an eventual lunar landing. The study cost the contractor about $1 million. [8]

GE D-2

Cross section of the GE D-2 submission, showing complete spacecraft and descent module Apollo D-2 Diagrams.jpg
Cross section of the GE D-2 submission, showing complete spacecraft and descent module

GE's design capitalized upon hardware almost ready to fly: a bullet-shaped descent module, carried between a conical mission module cabin containing life support and avionics, and the cylindrical propulsion module. The entire craft was 33.4 feet (10.2 m) long, with one innovation: a cocoonlike wrapping for secondary pressure protection in case of cabin leaks or meteoroid puncture. Had this configuration been selected, the payload sent to the Moon would have resembled the nose cone flown on the early Saturn I rockets. Although GE did not estimate the final costs in its summary, the company was confident of achieving circumlunar flight by the end of 1966 and lunar-orbital flight shortly thereafter. [8]

Seeking professional recognition for their design work on the GE proposal, George Arthur and Jacob Abel publicly presented their papers documenting the GE D-2 design in December 1961 at a special symposium of the American Astronautical Society in Denver, Colorado. [9]

Martin

Employees of the Martin Company display models of their top three command module designs, and proposal materials Apollo spacecraft feasibility study Martin.jpg
Employees of the Martin Company display models of their top three command module designs, and proposal materials

The Martin Company spent about $3 million, employing almost 300 persons for the better part of the six-month term, to produce the most elaborate study of the three, not only following all the Space Task Group guidelines, but also going far beyond in systems analysis. The complete proposal consisted of 9,000 pages. Focusing on versatility, flexibility, safety margins, and growth, this was the only study that detailed the progression of steps from lunar orbiting to lunar landing. Martin's spacecraft would have been similar to the Apollo spacecraft that ultimately emerged. When Martin later entered the Apollo hardware procurement contract competition, NASA scored them highest of all the entrants on configuration design. [8]

Martin recommended a five-part spacecraft. The command module was a flat-bottomed cone with a rounded apex and a tower for a tractor-rocket launch escape system. Behind the flat aft bulkhead were propulsion, equipment, and mission modules. Tradeoffs between weight and propulsion requirements led to the selection of a pressurized shell of semimonocoque aluminum alloy coated with a composite heatshield of superalloy with a charring ablator. Two crewmen would sit abreast, with the third behind, in couches that could rotate for reentry g-load protection and for getting in and out of the spacecraft. Flaps for limited maneuverability on reentry, a parachute landing system, and a jettisonable mission module that could also serve as a solar storm cellar, a laboratory, or even the descent stage for a lunar lander, were also featured. [8]

Spacecraft procurement competition

President Kennedy proposes a crewed lunar landing program to Congress Kennedy Giving Historic Speech to Congress - GPN-2000-001658.jpg
President Kennedy proposes a crewed lunar landing program to Congress

NASA did not get a chance to deliberate long on the study results, due to the pressure placed on America's space program by the Soviet's launching of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, on April 12, 1961. On May 25, one week after presentation of the study results, President John F. Kennedy proposed the Moon landing objective to the US Congress, giving the Apollo program a clear focus and sense of urgency. [10] NASA turned its focus to what relevant data could be mined from the proposals (abandoning the mission module), and launched another competition for the hardware procurement phase, fixing the reentry module configuration to the conical shape designed by Maxime Faget. [11] [12]

NASA awarded the contract for the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) to North American Aviation on November 28, 1961, when it was still assumed the lunar landing would be achieved by direct descent or Earth orbit rendezvous rather than by lunar orbit rendezvous. [13] [14] Therefore, design proceeded without a means of docking the Command Module to a lunar lander spacecraft. In the summer of 1962, the selection of the LOR proposal from NASA's Langley Research Center, [15] plus several technical obstacles encountered in some subsystems (such as environmental control), soon made it clear that substantial redesign would be required. By 1963, NASA decided the most efficient way to keep the Apollo program on track and address technical obstacles encountered in some subsystems such as environmental control, was to proceed with the development of two CSM versions: the preliminary Block I, and the advanced Block II. [16]

Similarity to Soyuz

The Soyuz TMA spacecraft uses a separate orbital (mission) module in front of a descent module shaped similarly to that of the GE D-2. Soyuz-TMA parts.jpg
The Soyuz TMA spacecraft uses a separate orbital (mission) module in front of a descent module shaped similarly to that of the GE D-2.

Similarities have been noted between the GE D2 design and the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which was designed and built after George Arthur and Jacob Abel's AAS presentation (Denver, CO) in December 1961. [9] In particular, Soyuz uses an orbital module located in front of the descent module, which uses a similar sphere-cone-sphere shape.

Victor Minenko, one of the OKB-1 designers with Korolev in 1950s and 1960s, who was active with RSC Energia in 1993, noted that in 1961 there were 40 people in several departments working on early designs and versions of the eventual Soyuz. "We use to read carefully the U.S. literature by the leading astrodynamicists - Ferri, Chapman, Van Driest, Lees, and the top Russians - Sibulkin, Koropkin". Vassily Mishin, chief Soyuz designer after Korolev's death, noted that a logical comparison of the Soyuz was to the US Apollo command/service module, since both were designed for lunar transport. [1]

In 1983, Phillip S. Clark and Ralph F. Gibbons discussed the Russian Soyuz program development (1963-1967) and adaptation of design elements from other programs and studies (Soviet and foreign). [2]

A similar modular design was used in the Russian Progress spacecraft (essentially the uncrewed version of Soyuz), the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft, and the planned Indian ISRO Orbital Vehicle. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo program</span> 1961–1972 American crewed lunar exploration program

The Apollo program, also known as Project Apollo, was the United States human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which succeeded in preparing and landing the first humans on the Moon from 1968 to 1972. It was first conceived in 1960 during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration as a three-person spacecraft to follow the one-person Project Mercury, which put the first Americans in space. Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal for the 1960s of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" in an address to Congress on May 25, 1961. It was the third US human spaceflight program to fly, preceded by the two-person Project Gemini conceived in 1961 to extend spaceflight capability in support of Apollo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soyuz programme</span> Human spaceflight programme of the Soviet Union

The Soyuz programme is a human spaceflight programme initiated by the Soviet Union in the early 1960s. The Soyuz spacecraft was originally part of a Moon landing project intended to put a Soviet cosmonaut on the Moon. It was the third Soviet human spaceflight programme after the Vostok (1961–1963) and Voskhod (1964–1965) programmes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space Race</span> US–USSR spaceflight capability rivalry

The Space Race was a 20th-century competition between two Cold War rivals, the United States and the Soviet Union, to achieve superior spaceflight capability. It had its origins in the ballistic missile-based nuclear arms race between the two nations following World War II and had its peak with the more particular Moon Race to land on the Moon between the US moonshot and Soviet moonshot programs. The technological advantage demonstrated by spaceflight achievement was seen as necessary for national security and became part of the symbolism and ideology of the time. The Space Race brought pioneering launches of artificial satellites, robotic space probes to the Moon, Venus, and Mars, and human spaceflight in low Earth orbit and ultimately to the Moon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo Lunar Module</span> NASA crewed Moon landing spacecraft (1969–1972)

The Apollo Lunar Module, originally designated the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), was the lunar lander spacecraft that was flown between lunar orbit and the Moon's surface during the United States' Apollo program. It was the first crewed spacecraft to operate exclusively in the airless vacuum of space, and remains the only crewed vehicle to land anywhere beyond Earth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soyuz (spacecraft)</span> Series of spacecraft designed for the Soviet space programme

Soyuz is a series of spacecraft which has been in service since the 1960s, having made more than 140 flights. It was designed for the Soviet space program by the Korolev Design Bureau. The Soyuz succeeded the Voskhod spacecraft and was originally built as part of the Soviet crewed lunar programs. It is launched on a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Between the 2011 retirement of the Space Shuttle and the 2020 demo flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon, the Soyuz served as the only means to ferry crew to or from the International Space Station, for which it remains heavily used. Although China did launch crewed Shenzhou flights during this time, none of them docked with the ISS.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo (spacecraft)</span> Saturn V-launched payload that took men to the Moon

The Apollo spacecraft was composed of three parts designed to accomplish the American Apollo program's goal of landing astronauts on the Moon by the end of the 1960s and returning them safely to Earth. The expendable (single-use) spacecraft consisted of a combined command and service module (CSM) and an Apollo Lunar Module (LM). Two additional components complemented the spacecraft stack for space vehicle assembly: a spacecraft–LM adapter (SLA) designed to shield the LM from the aerodynamic stress of launch and to connect the CSM to the Saturn launch vehicle and a launch escape system (LES) to carry the crew in the command module safely away from the launch vehicle in the event of a launch emergency.

A service module is a component of a crewed space capsule containing a variety of support systems used for spacecraft operations. Usually located in the uninhabited area of the spacecraft, the service module serves a storehouse of critical subsystems and supplies for the mission such as electrical systems, environmental control, and propellant tanks. The service module is jettisoned upon the completion of the mission, and usually burns up during atmospheric reentry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">N1 (rocket)</span> Soviet super heavy-lift launch vehicle

The N1/L3 was a super heavy-lift launch vehicle intended to deliver payloads beyond low Earth orbit. The N1 was the Soviet counterpart to the US Saturn V and was intended to enable crewed travel to the Moon and beyond, with studies beginning as early as 1959. Its first stage, Block A, was the most powerful rocket stage ever flown for over 50 years, generating 45.4 MN of thrust. However, each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed in flight, with the second attempt resulting in the vehicle crashing back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff. Adverse characteristics of the large cluster of thirty engines and its complex fuel and oxidizer feeder systems were not revealed earlier in development because static test firings had not been conducted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apollo command and service module</span> Component of the Apollo spacecraft

The Apollo command and service module (CSM) was one of two principal components of the United States Apollo spacecraft, used for the Apollo program, which landed astronauts on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The CSM functioned as a mother ship, which carried a crew of three astronauts and the second Apollo spacecraft, the Apollo Lunar Module, to lunar orbit, and brought the astronauts back to Earth. It consisted of two parts: the conical command module, a cabin that housed the crew and carried equipment needed for atmospheric reentry and splashdown; and the cylindrical service module which provided propulsion, electrical power and storage for various consumables required during a mission. An umbilical connection transferred power and consumables between the two modules. Just before reentry of the command module on the return home, the umbilical connection was severed and the service module was cast off and allowed to burn up in the atmosphere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Space capsule</span> Type of spacecraft

A space capsule is a spacecraft designed to transport cargo, scientific experiments, and/or astronauts to and from space. Capsules are distinguished from other spacecraft by the ability to survive reentry and return a payload to the Earth's surface from orbit, and are distinguished from other types of recoverable spacecraft by their blunt shape, not having wings and often containing little fuel other than what is necessary for a safe return. Capsule-based crewed spacecraft such as Soyuz or Orion are often supported by a service or adapter module, and sometimes augmented with an extra module for extended space operations. Capsules make up the majority of crewed spacecraft designs, although one crewed spaceplane, the Space Shuttle, has flown in orbit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lunar orbit rendezvous</span> Spaceflight maneuver

Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) is a process for landing humans on the Moon and returning them to Earth. It was utilized for the Apollo program missions in the 1960s and 1970s. In a LOR mission, a main spacecraft and a smaller lunar lander travel to lunar orbit. The lunar lander then independently descends to the surface of the Moon, while the main spacecraft remains in lunar orbit. After completion of the mission there, the lander returns to lunar orbit to rendezvous and re-dock with the main spacecraft, then is discarded after transfer of crew and payload. Only the main spacecraft returns to Earth.

The Soviet-crewed lunar programs were a series of programs pursued by the Soviet Union to land humans on the Moon, in competition with the United States Apollo program. The Soviet government publicly denied participating in such a competition, but secretly pursued two programs in the 1960s: crewed lunar flyby missions using Soyuz 7K-L1 (Zond) spacecraft launched with the Proton-K rocket, and a crewed lunar landing using Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK spacecraft launched with the N1 rocket. Following the dual American successes of the first crewed lunar orbit on 24–25 December 1968 and the first Moon landing on July 20, 1969, and a series of catastrophic N1 failures, both Soviet programs were eventually brought to an end. The Proton-based Zond program was canceled in 1970, and the N1-L3 program was de facto terminated in 1974 and officially canceled in 1976. Soviet cosmonauts never orbited nor landed on the Moon. Details of both Soviet programs were kept secret until 1990 when the government allowed them to be published under the policy of glasnost.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moon landing</span> Arrival of a spacecraft on the Moons surface

A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altair (spacecraft)</span> Planned lander spacecraft component of NASAs cancelled Project Constellation

The Altair spacecraft, previously known as the Lunar Surface Access Module or LSAM, was the planned lander spacecraft component of NASA's cancelled Constellation program. Astronauts would have used the spacecraft for landings on the Moon, which was intended to begin around 2019. The Altair spacecraft was planned to be used both for lunar sortie and lunar outpost missions. On February 1, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a proposal to cancel the Constellation program, to be replaced with a re-scoped program, effective with the U.S. 2011 fiscal year budget.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LK (spacecraft)</span> Soviet lunar module intended to be used in the Soviet lunar landing attempts

The LK was a lunar module developed in the 1960s as a part of several Soviet crewed lunar programs. Its role was analogous to the American Apollo Lunar Module (LM). Three LK modules, of the T2K variant, were flown without crew in Earth orbit, but no LK ever reached the Moon. The development of the N1 launch vehicle required for the lunar flight suffered setbacks, and the first Moon landings were achieved by US astronauts on Apollo 11. As a result, having lost the Space Race, both the N1 and the LK programs were cancelled without any further development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soyuz TMA</span> Revision of the Soyuz spacecraft

The Soyuz-TMA is a spacecraft used by the Russian Federal Space Agency for human spaceflight. It is a revision of the Soyuz spacecraft and was superseded in 2010 by the Soyuz TMA-M.(T – транспортный – Transportnyi – meaning transport, M – модифицированный – Modifitsirovannyi – meaning modified, A – антропометрический, – Antropometricheskii meaning anthropometric). The spacecraft features several changes to accommodate requirements requested by NASA in order to service the International Space Station, including more latitude in the height and weight of the crew and improved parachute systems. It is also the first expendable vehicle to feature a "glass cockpit". Soyuz-TMA looks identical to the earlier Soyuz-TM spacecraft on the outside, but interior differences allow it to accommodate taller occupants with new adjustable crew couches.

Advanced Gemini is a number of proposals that would have extended the Gemini program by the addition of various missions, including crewed low Earth orbit, circumlunar and lunar landing missions. Gemini was the second crewed spaceflight program operated by NASA, and consisted of a two-seat spacecraft capable of maneuvering in orbit, docking with uncrewed spacecraft such as Agena Target Vehicles, and allowing the crew to perform tethered extra-vehicular activities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Soyuz abort modes</span> Soyuz spacecraft emergency crew rescue systems

In the event of catastrophic failure, the Soyuz spacecraft has a series of automated and semi-automated abort modes to rescue the crew. The abort systems have been refined since the first piloted flights and all abort scenarios for the Soyuz MS are expected to be survivable for the crew.

References

Inline citations
  1. 1 2 James Harford (1997). Korolev. John Wiley &Sons. pp. 254–256.
  2. 1 2 Clark, Phillip S.; Gibbons, Ralph F. (October 1983). "The Evolution of the Soyuz Program". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. British Interplanetary Society. 36 (10): 443. Bibcode:1983JBIS...36..434C.
  3. Wachtel, Claude (February 1982). "Design Studies of the Vostok-J and Soyuz Spacecraft". Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. 35 (2): 92. Bibcode:1982JBIS...35...92W.
  4. Brooks, Courtney; Grimwood, James M.; Swenson, Loyd S. (2009). "1 - Concept to Challenge". Chariots for Apollo: The NASA History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft to 1969. New York: Dover Publications. ISBN   978-0-486-46756-6 . Retrieved 12 October 2014.
  5. 1 2 "Chariots For Apollo, ch1-6". 2021-03-09. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2023-05-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  6. 1 2 "Chariots For Apollo, ch1-7". 2021-07-24. Archived from the original on 2021-07-24. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
  7. "Project Olympus (1962)". WIRED. 2013-09-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Chariots For Apollo, ch1-8". 2021-09-19. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2023-05-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  9. 1 2 Arthur, George R, "Lunar Spacecraft Designs", Advanced in the Astronautical Sciences, Volume 10, 1963, p. 52.
  10. https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html Kennedy speech
  11. Chariots, ch. 1-9:The Challenge
  12. Chariots, ch. 2-1:May through December 1961
  13. "Chariots, ch. 2-5:Contracting for the Command Module". Archived from the original on 2015-10-05. Retrieved 2013-02-05.
  14. Benson, Charles D.; William Barnaby Faherty (1978). "4-8". Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations. NASA (SP-4204). Retrieved 7 February 2013.
  15. "The Rendezvous That Was Almost Missed: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous and the Apollo Program". NASA Langley Research Center. December 1992. Archived from the original on 6 April 2013. Retrieved 8 June 2012.
  16. "Chariots, ch. 5-1:Command Modules and Program Changes". Archived from the original on 2015-10-05. Retrieved 2013-02-05.
  17. Futron Corp. (2003). "China and the Second Space Age" (PDF). Futron Corporation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 April 2012. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
Bibliography

PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration .