Re: Apollo spacecraft variant that lands like an X-15



On Mar 13, 10:07 am, "John" <pelc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:57 pm, "Rusty" <reuben_bar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 13, 9:23 am, "John" <pelc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:31 am, "Rusty" <reuben_bar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 13, 4:11 am, "surfduke" <surfduke2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 10, 8:35 pm, Cruithne3753

<cruithneThirtySevenFiftyTh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
surfduke wrote:
Looks like a lot of thinking went into this one! Would have been cool
to see it fly, (Back when We had a real space port).

Carl

Hmmm. Wonder if Orion could be fixed up the same way...?

Would not work for Lunar return, (But fine for orbital missions).

Carl

Launch aborts are move complicated than the original Apollo or CEV.
During aborts, the escape rocket pulls the Apollo command and service
modules away from the booster. When the escape rocket burns out the
service module engine fires to give the spacecraft more height and
speed. Finally, the wings extend and the spacecraft glides to a
landing. The RTLS option never looked good for the shuttle and this
doesn't look much better.

Rusty

Rusty,

Are you sure about the part that says the launch escape rocket was to
pull the CM AND the SM away from the rest of the stack. I have only
read and seen information that says the CM would be pulled clear.

The CM weighed about 12,000 lbs and the CM/SM weighed almost 67,000
lbs total. The Launch Escape System (LES) produced 155,000 lbs of
thrust and the SPS would add about another 22,000 lbs of thrust, so it
would seem the thrust/weight ratio would be enough, but I wonder if
the additional 22,000 lbs would be worth 54,000 lbs of mass to drag
away from the stack? I thought the SPS did not come into play until a
Mode II abort, after LES jettison. If I have it wrong . . please let
me know.

Thanks and take care . . .

John

John,

Don't forget, we're talking about an Apollo variant that is a
rudimentary space shuttle.
Not the original Apollo spacecraft.

Once again Patent 3,576,298 was applied for in 1967 and granted in
1971 to
North American Rockwell Corp. for an Apollo variant that was modified
to
perform as a rudimentary X-15 like space shuttle.

Your can view the patent at the following URL.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

From the Patent document - page 9 is a description of an abort by the

modified Apollo Spacecraft (numbers make reference to parts of the
spacecraft shown in diagrams, also included in the patent):

"In case of an emergency on teh launching pad the launch
abort system (#63 FIG. 9) is substantially the same as that used
on the present Apollo spacecraft except that the main solid
propellent motor has a thrust of about 200,000 pounds rather
than 150,000 pounds. In case of a launch abort the aerospace
vehicle comprising both command and service modules are
separated from the launch vehicle adapter and raised within a
few seconds to approximately 3,500 feet altitude. Simultaneously,
a horizontal velocity of approximately 360 feet per
second is imparted to the vehicle. When the launch escape
motors burn out in approximately 4 seconds after initiation of
an abort teh pexended solid propellent motor and its
associated connections are jettisoned along with the expansion
bell (#43) on the main rocket propulsion engine (#42). Simultaneously
this main engine (#42) is ignited providing about 13,000
pounds of thrust for increasing the separation between the
aerospace vehicle and the launch booster. After about 16
seconds the vehicle has reached an altitude of about 3,500
feet and horizontal velocity of about 360 feet per second. At
this time the wings (#16) are extended from the farings (#12) and
the vehicle is flown to a prepared landing site either in a dead
stick glide or with additional propulsion from the rocket
motor (#42)."

Rusty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rusty,

Dang it . . . I certainly wasn't expecting an "I Corrected Rusty" T-
shirt . . . but that's embarrassing!!!

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. I will now return to the
safety of the "Lurking" mode.

Take care and blue skies . . .

John

John,

Welcome to the world of non-lurkers. ;-)

Please continue to post. This group needs more legitimate posters
to counter balance all of the trolls.

Regards,

Rusty

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apollo spacecraft variant that lands like an X-15
    ... the escape rocket pulls the Apollo command and service ... Mode II abort, after LES jettison. ... Not the original Apollo spacecraft. ... vehicle comprising both command and service modules are ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Apollo spacecraft variant that lands like an X-15
    ... the escape rocket pulls the Apollo command and service ... Are you sure about the part that says the launch escape rocket was to ... Mode II abort, after LES jettison. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Apollo spacecraft variant that lands like an X-15
    ... the escape rocket pulls the Apollo command and service ... Mode II abort, after LES jettison. ... "In case of an emergency on teh launching pad the launch ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Why the final years of the shuttle have the most risk;(
    ... cost cutting to attempt to keep the vehicle flying... ... the ascent with high energy a single SSME ... delta-V for abort to orbit). ... spurred significant safety improvements in the reentry/descent phase. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: earliest moon landing
    ... Everyone was surprised that Apollo 6 survived its ... of control was considered almost certain with two adjacent engines out. ... The rules called for an abort, but with no crew on board and no immediate ... That late in S-II burn, ...
    (sci.space.history)