Re: LM first design
From: Henry Spencer (henry_at_spsystems.net)
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: Henry Spencer: "Re: MSC --> JSC"
- Previous message: Pat Flannery: "Re: New Book on Pioneer"
- In reply to: Bruce Palmer: "Re: LM first design"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:22:26 GMT
In article <dHqEc.47661$OT6.19381855@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Bruce Palmer <BrucePalmerNOSPAM@gmail_dot_com.INVALID> wrote:
>I mean, what has changed with regard to the actual requirements for a
>trip to and landing on the moon?
A requirement for prolonged surface stays and establishment of a permanent
base is likely. That's a big change, actually.
>what's wrong with the basic Apollo designs?
Apollo was optimized for a short surface visit as a digression from a
(relatively) lengthy in-space voyage. Looked at closely, the whole LOR
mission plan is fundamentally based on the assumption that the surface
stay is a relatively minor part of the trip.
There are also a number of things about the Apollo design that weren't
really right even for that requirement -- things that Apollo's designers
themselves would have done differently, had they known in 1961 what they
knew in 1969 (or even 1965).
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net
- Next message: Henry Spencer: "Re: MSC --> JSC"
- Previous message: Pat Flannery: "Re: New Book on Pioneer"
- In reply to: Bruce Palmer: "Re: LM first design"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
