|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What if Apollo 7 had failed?
|
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 01-01-2010 08:40 PM
   
OK. I'll start with the first pointless-but-fun-to-speculate-on-topic of the new year.What, if any, were the contingency plans if Apollo 7 had fallen well short of its objectives (such as major problems with the SPS). It's safe to assume that the next mission wouldn't have flown to the moon, and rather would likely have been a repeat of the earth-orbital CSM test. Would Borman, Lovell and Anders have flown a repeat mission? (Or the Apollo 7 prime or backup crew?) Would it have launched on a Saturn V, or was there a contingency for another Saturn 1B launch? We obviously were very lucky that everything went as well as it did on Apollo 7 through 11 allowing us to achieve the lunar landing goal. Did NASA have an alternate plan to deal with major setbacks, or was it simply a case of crossing their collective fingers and crossing that bridge if and when they came to it? |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-01-2010 09:05 PM
I think it would have depended on the nature of the failure. Many of the Gemini missions had hardware failures or had to call off EVAs before mission objectives were achieved. Nonetheless, NASA didn't back off the goals for the next mission. Barring something really catastrophic on Apollo 7, such as loss of the crew because of some unanticipated problem with the Command Module, I don't think they would have pulled back on Apollo 8. The CSM had already been tested unmanned in orbit on Apollo 4 and 6 and the CM had been vacuum tested on the ground with a crew in 2TV-1, so there was a high degree of confidence in the CSM systems. It's important to remember that each mission had several objectives, achieving any one of which might lead to calling the mission a "qualified success." For example, Apollo 8's first-order goal was to put a manned crew into Earth orbit with a Saturn V. If for some reason there had been a decision not to allow the CSM to go to the Moon, a second-order goal was to keep the CSM in Earth orbit and fire the S-IVB stage on a Moon fly-by. The "home run" was getting the Apollo 8 crew all the way to the Moon and back again. I'm sure there was something analogous for Apollo 7's goals. |
NASAROB
Member Posts: 38
From: Astoria NY
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-02-2010 08:14 AM
I can't see how, if there was a problem with the SP Engine, they could have flown Apollo 8 to the moon. This was the one thing that had to work right. I believe early on there was talk of a high Earth orbit flight (5000 miles) as the follow-up to Apollo 7. Does anyone know had that mission been flown and there was a problem with the SP Engine, could the RCS rockets been used to slow down the craft for re-entry? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-02-2010 09:24 AM
This just wouldn't have happened. As Mike Collins said, "The spacecraft wouldn't dare blow up with Wally (Schirra) on board.". |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1527
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 01-02-2010 01:16 PM
I was really thinking in terms of a major problem, such as with the SPS or something causing the mission to be terminated well before it's major objectives were met. Apollo 7 really had to be successful before the program could move forward, since without confidence in the CSM you couldn't have flights to the moon and/or with a LM. I guess I'm wondering if there was any contingency plan to fly a second CSM test in earth orbit, and if so what launch vehicle would have been used and if there was any thought given as to who would fly it. Since the Apollo 7 prime and backup crews had trained exclusively for that kind of mission, would either have flown a re-flight if deemed necessary? Was the subject ever discussed by NASA management? With a "failed" mission always a distinct possibility, I'd be surprised if there were no plans discussed for such an eventuality, especially with the tight time frame they were working with at the time. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1522
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 01-02-2010 08:21 PM
With the decade fast running out, NASA was basically queuing up Saturn V's for as many shots at the Moon as possible in 1969. Also with the potential threat of the Soviets launching a circumlunar mission in late 1968, I think it would have been a tough sell not to send Apollo 8 there for anything less than a catastrophic failure on Apollo 7.Apollos 4 and 6 proved the SPS engine's reliability, and actually gave the system a much more thorough test than did Apollo 7. In my mind, the biggest gamble in 1968's manned missions was the Saturn V. The Saturn V that launched Apollo 6 had bad pogo problems (which everyone thought had been fixed) in addition to two engines that shut down early and some other structural problems. Had those occurred in a manned mission, they would have resulted in an abort situation. The Apollo 8 crew demonstrated a LOT of faith in Von Braun's team's diagnosis and correction of the issues! |
rasorenson
Member Posts: 101
From: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 01-11-2010 06:01 PM
The decision to send Apollo 8 around the moon was made very late. I don't recall if the decision was made before or after Apollo 7, but I think it was not officially announced until after 7's return. Had Apollo 7 been somehow disabled by a systems malfunction, it would have depended upon how serious the system problem was. NASA would have fixed it with confidence before Apollo 8 went to the moon, or they would have stayed in earth orbit. Obviously a loss of crew situation would have had very serious consequences. But after Apollo 7, two major factors drove the decision for the final Apollo 8 moon mission. First, the LM was not yet ready to fly. The original order of flights had an Apollo 9 version flight testing the CM/LM combination and rendevous maneuvers in high or low earth orbit after the initial CM orbit mission. The Apollo 8 opportunity opened because they had the Saturn/Apollo stack ready to go and they thought the Russians just might be ready to pull off a lunar flight. As an aside, had the Soviets sent a Soyuz to the moon at that time, it would have swung around the moon without entering lunar orbit. Since getting to lunar orbit and back was the next logical technical accomplishment, the decision was to fly to the moon. Had the LM been ready, NASA might have run a high orbit (e.g. 5000 miles) with the LM. Apollos 4 and 6 had already done the high earth orbit routine with the unmanned C/SM. That accomplished the test of high speed return and reentry qualifying the heat shield. The decision to send Apollo 8 to the moon was as much a publicity opportunity (beating the Soviets) as it was a logical step in technical achievement-actually accomplishing lunar orbit and the return to earth. So many major systems and flight requirements had to happen before attempting a landing, the exact order of missions had to remain flexible. At the start of Apollo, probably no one would have bet on reaching the moon on only the 5th Apollo flight. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-12-2010 06:44 AM
The decision to send Apollo 8 to the Moon was hardly a late one. In June 1968 the chances of flying a LM were very slim and planners were looking for way to speed the progress of 'landing a Man on the Moon before the end of the decade'.It was late 1967 that Chris Kraft suggested a lunar orbit flight as a means of gaining more information about deep space communications, tracking, navigation and thermal control. By the spring of 1968 officials were looking to move the then 'E' mission to the vicinity of the Moon. By August it was obvious that there would be no LM to fly, so Gilruth decided that CM103 and Saturn 103 might be used for either a circumlunar or a lunar orbit mission. On 7th August Kraft was asked to prepare plans for such a flight by George Low. Two days later, at Huntsville, there was formulated 'Sam's Budget Exercise' - the code name for these plans to preserve the secrecy until all factors had been fully considered. [Sam was General Sam Phillips the Apollo Programme Director.] By 12th August they had picked 20th December as the earliest daylight launch opportunity. By 17th August the planners were given permission to proceed with preparations for a lunar orbit flight with the earliest launch date of 6th December. It was designated 'C prime' and was to be called Apollo 8. At this time Phillips announced that the LM would not be ready for testing on Apollo 8 and that to minimise time lost the '8' mission would be changed to test the CSM and Saturn V in high Earth orbit depending on the outcome of Apollo 7. At a September news conference Phillips almost let the cat out of the bag when he suggested in response to a question that Apollo 8 " ...could go round the Moon." The final decision was taken on 10th November when the Apollo Executive Committee agreed to commit Apollo 8 to a lunar orbit mission, though one member did express a preference to a circumlunar flight. This was made public on 12th November. A lunar orbit flight raised several problems for Flight Directors. These are discussed by Mike Collins in his book 'Carrying the Fire'. |
rasorenson
Member Posts: 101
From: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 01-12-2010 04:05 PM
Thank you moorogue. Great clarifications. I guess my point was that while the lunar fly around or lunar orbit flight profile had previously been anticipated among options in the flight lineup- the decision as you say was announced in November- after Apollo 7 and the knowledge the LM would not be ready was received in mid-late summer '68. Had the LM been ready for an Apollo 9 "D" type mission, the choice to send the Apollo 8 CM/SM profile to lunar orbit, may have been different. You are correct and I appreciate you sharing the detail. | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
