Apollo's 2 - 6 ????
Peter Timmins
OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
Also, I'm reading Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man on the Moon" (it doesn't
answer the above question) and when describing re-entry he says that under
computer control the command module dips and climbs - the climbing being
to allow time for the heat shielding to recover. My question is how? I
mean - it's not really very aerodynamically shaped. How did they control
it to make it climb again? Or does it just sort of skip across the edge
of the atmosphere - like a pebble on a lake - losing speed each time?
Thanks for any help anyone can give me.
___________________________________________________________________________
Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
(An Australian in Exile - or is that England?)
--
Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
Charles Danforth
(Peter Timmins) wrote:
> OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
> was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
> from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
I am as curious as you about the nature of Apollos 2-6 (which I believe
were unmanned tests of the launcher and reentry systems and whatnot).
However, Apollo 7 WAS manned. It was a manned test launched on a Saturn
1-B sent to Earth orbit, tested and landed.
Charles
Charles Danforth <'D / C /
Swarthmore Astrophysics ()-^ --+-\\
danf...@sccs.swarthmore.edu / > | \
610-690-3886 --------------------------------------------------->
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/~danforth/
Sven Knudson
Peter Timmins <pe...@connie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
>was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
>from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
>
>Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
>
Apollo 2 & 3 were given their designations after the flights.
Apollo 4 was the first flight test of the Saturn V rocket. Apollo 5
was the unmanned test of the Lunar Module in earth orbit (it used the
Saturn 1B that was going to be used for Apollo 1, incidentally).
Apollo 6 was the second flight of the Saturn V. Apollo 7 was the
first manned flight of the Apollo program.
>Also, I'm reading Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man on the Moon" (it doesn't
>answer the above question) and when describing re-entry he says that under
>computer control the command module dips and climbs - the climbing being
>to allow time for the heat shielding to recover. My question is how? I
>mean - it's not really very aerodynamically shaped. How did they control
>it to make it climb again? Or does it just sort of skip across the edge
>of the atmosphere - like a pebble on a lake - losing speed each time?
>
>Thanks for any help anyone can give me.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
>
>(An Australian in Exile - or is that England?)
>--
>
>Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
>
The center of gravity of the Apollo capsule was off-center.
This created a bit of lift that was used to control the reentry. The
same technique was used in the Gemini spacecraft.
--
//Sven Knudson | "I am shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling is
//sv...@dtm-corp.com | going on in here" - Captain Louis Renault
Alastair Mayer
: OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
: was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
: from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
^^^^^^^^
Uh, Apollo 7 was manned. Remember the "Wally, Walt and Don Show"?
(Wally Schirra, Walter Cunningham and Don Eisle).
-- Al
: Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
Not me, sorry.
Henry Spencer
>OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
>was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
>from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
>
>Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
There actually aren't quite that many missing. Apollos 4-6 were unmanned
tests preceding Apollo 7. The absence of Apollos 2 and 3 is because of
historical confusion. There were three unmanned tests preceding AS-204,
the Grissom/White/Chaffee flight, so the booster people were calling it
Apollo 4... but the astronauts wanted Apollo 1. Nobody had made any sort
of firm official decision. When G/W/C died in the fire, their wishes on
the naming of their mission were honored posthumously, leaving the earlier
unmanned tests unnumbered. *However*, for some reason that has never been
clear, the first post-fire unmanned test was officially named Apollo 4.
With 1 already taken, it wasn't practical to renumber the pre-fire tests;
some awkward schemes were proposed, but NASA HQ rejected all of them and
ended up leaving the numbers 2 and 3 unassigned.
>...when describing re-entry he says that under
>computer control the command module dips and climbs - the climbing being
>to allow time for the heat shielding to recover. My question is how? I
>mean - it's not really very aerodynamically shaped. How did they control
>it to make it climb again? Or does it just sort of skip across the edge
>of the atmosphere - like a pebble on a lake - losing speed each time?
It was aerodynamic *enough*, at hypersonic speed. It had a small amount
of lift, enough to climb a bit if necessary. Like any glider, it lost
speed while doing so. In fact, not being a particularly *good* glider, it
lost quite a bit, but that wasn't important.
Almost any asymmetric shape -- or a symmetric shape flying tilted, as
the Apollo CSM did -- generates a bit of lift. At low speeds it's
typically insignificant except for things like wings. At high speeds,
it can be quite significant.
--
There is a difference between | Henry Spencer
cynicism and skepticism. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Phillip Clark
: In article <D60yv...@connie.demon.co.uk>, pe...@connie.demon.co.uk
: (Peter Timmins) wrote:
: > OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
: > was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
: > from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
Retrospectively the three Saturn 1B test flights in 1966 became known as
Apollos 1, 2 and 3 but these names never caught on.
The Apollo 1, 2 and 3 designators were originally applied to manned
missions planned for 1967 with Apollo 4 as the first manned Saturn 5.
Out of respect to the Apollo 1 crew, their flight remained Apollo 1 and
officiually Apollos 2 and 3 were not used. Apollo 4 was the maiden
flight of the Saturn 5, Apollo 5 was the maiden flight of the lunar
module and Apollo 6 was the second Saturn 5 flight. Then came the
manned Apollo 7.
Phil Clark
David Wilke
: OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
: was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
: from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
: Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
My undersanding is that they changed they numbering convention after the
Apollo 1 fire. The next "numbered" mission was Apollo 4: the first Saturn
V flight test, which carried a functional spacecraft BTW. I think they
went back and "numbered" previous Saturn 1b tests to account for the
"new" Apollo's 1-3.
Here is a list of the unmanned Apollo flights 4-6:
Mission Designation Date Launch Vehicle Objectives
AS-501 Apollo 4 11/9/67 Saturn V High apogee test of LV/CSM
AS-204 Apollo 5 1/22/68 Saturn IB Orbital test of LM
AS-502 Apollo 6 4/4/68 Saturn V High Oxygen test of LV/CSM
Apollo 7 was the first (successful) manned mission. It was a two week
Earth orbital test of the CSM similar in nature to the Gemini endurance
runs. It was launched 10/11/68. This was also the only manned launch from
pad 34, where the Apollo 1 fire took place.
Apollo 8, the famous lunar orbital flight, followed two months later.
: Also, I'm reading Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man on the Moon" (it doesn't
: answer the above question) and when describing re-entry he says that under
: computer control the command module dips and climbs - the climbing being
: to allow time for the heat shielding to recover. My question is how? I
: mean - it's not really very aerodynamically shaped. How did they control
: it to make it climb again? Or does it just sort of skip across the edge
: of the atmosphere - like a pebble on a lake - losing speed each time?
The pebble is an excellent analogy. The CM was weighted on one side to
give it marginal aerodynamic control. The "skip" was controlled by
rolling the spacecraft at the appropriate time. The angle of attack
between the CM and the atmosphere also played a great part--again, just
like skipping a pebble.
Dave <dave...@netcom.com>
James C. Lawrie
: Phil Clark
Just to add some more info here. Apollo 5, the first flight of the
LM, used the same booster as the Apollo 1 flight would have used.
Jim L.
Lowder and Holl
>
>Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
>: was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
>: from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Uh, Apollo 7 was manned. Remember the "Wally, Walt and Don Show"?
>(Wally Schirra, Walter Cunningham and Don Eisle).
>
We had to listen to him and he made all the money from those damm
commercials afterwards..
Hartmut Frommert
here's what Nasa's SPACELINK has on that:
--- snip
APOLLO 204/APOLLO 1
January 27, 1967. Tragedy struck on the launch pad during a
preflight test for Apollo 204 (AS-204), which was scheduled to be the first
Apollo manned mission, and would have been launched on February 21, 1967.
Astronauts Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee lost their lives
when a fire swept through the Command Module (CM).
The exhaustive investigation of the fire and extensive reworking of
the CMs postponed any manned launch until NASA officials cleared the CM for
manned flight. Saturn 1B schedules were suspended for nearly a year, and the
launch vehicle that finally bore the designation AS-204 carried a Lunar
Module (LM) as the payload, not the Apollo CM. The missions of AS-201 and
AS-202 with Apollo spacecraft aboard had been unofficially known as Apollo 1
and Apollo 2 missions (AS-203 carried only the aerodynamic nose cone). In the
spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr.
George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom
,
White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1, and said that the first Saturn V
launch, scheduled for November 1967, would be known as Apollo 4. The eventual
launch of AS-204 became known as the Apollo 5 mission (no missions or flights
were ever designated Apollo 2 and 3).
The second launch of a Saturn V took place on schedule in the early
morning of April 4, 1968. Known as AS-502, or Apollo 6, the flight was a
success, though two first stage engines shut down prematurely, and the third
stage engine failed to re-ignite after reaching orbit.
--- snap
| OS/2 vs. NT: Better Half than Not Testified
Hartmut Frommert | Warp 3.0 vs. 95: Cheaper, Smaller, Faster
<phf...@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | and finally, it exists..
----------- Get astronomical and space gifs via anon ftp from: -------------
seds.lpl.arizona.edu; explorer.arc.nasa.gov: /pub/SPACE/GIF; ftp.cnam.fr |
images.jsc.nasa.gov; jplinfo.jpl.nasa.gov; ftp.univ-rennes1.fr; | Updates |
Hubble: stsci.edu: /stsci/epa/gif Clementine: clementine.s1.gov | welcome |
- More in SEDS' Astro FTP List: ftp://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/faq/astroftp.txt
The SL9 crash was just a heavenly celebration of Apollo 11 25th anniversary!
Ben Huset
>
>OK. I give up. Someone posted a message recently suggesting that there
>was a reason why Apollo missions 2-6 don't appear. i.e. we go straight
>from the tragic Apollo 1 to the unmanned Apollo 7.
>
>Can someone tell me what happened to the missing missions?
but MOST of the photos you see of the Saturn V ARE from those missions.
The classic movie of the 1st stage and spacer falling away as seen from the 2nd
stage and also the launch of the 3rd stage as seen from the 2nd stage are from
those flights.
If you see a Saturn V photo with the BLACK horiz stripe all the way around the 1st
stage its one of them. The manned flights didn't have the stripe.
After the fire there were MANY test flights to make sure we got it right before
we put people back on board.
One was a test of just the first stage and the 2nd stage just had WATER in the fuel
tanks.
>Also, I'm reading Andrew Chaikin's book "A Man on the Moon" (it doesn't
>answer the above question) and when describing re-entry he says that under
>computer control the command module dips and climbs - the climbing being
>to allow time for the heat shielding to recover. My question is how?
cone. This tipped the cone to the right alignment.
> it's not really very aerodynamically shaped.
How did they control it to make it climb again? Or does it just sort of skip across
the edge >of the atmosphere - like a pebble on a lake - losing speed each time?
>
>Thanks for any help anyone can give me.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
>
>(An Australian in Exile - or is that England?)
>--
>
>Peter Timmins (pe...@connie.demon.co.uk)
>
Ben
Ben Huset
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html
It has lots of info on your 'missing' flights.
AS201, AS203, AS202, Apollo 4, 5 & 6.
Sven Knudson
<benh...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> [munch]
>After the fire there were MANY test flights to make sure we got it
>right before we put people back on board.
>
>One was a test of just the first stage and the 2nd stage just had
> WATER in the fuel tanks.
Not quite. After the fire, NASA decided there wasn't time for
the incremental testing approach used before. So both Saturn V
unmanned test flights were all-up tests. The Saturn 1 test program
before the fire used water as ballast in its dummy upper stage, NOT
the Saturn V.
Alastair Mayer
:[snip]
: The classic movie of the 1st stage and spacer falling away as seen fro the 2nd
: stage and also the launch of the 3rd stage as seen from the 2nd stage are from
: those flights.
I always wondered about that footage. How did they get the cameras (or at
least the film) back? (The pictures are too good to be transmitted video -
the technology of the day wasn't up to that - unless they had some kind
of on-board film development & transmission at a later time.) Enquiring
minds want to know.
-- Al