Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Video Of Ares I And V On Moon Mission....  
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Found this link... good stuff!!

http://webpages.uah.edu/~portersb/CEVremix.wmv

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3131 times:

That is going to be AMAZING. Just amazing.

Very appropriate use of Gustav Holst's music in the background!

[Edited 2006-07-02 23:11:55]


I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

Loved it. Watched several times. I was taken by how it all did seem so...Apollo.

I really look forward to the CEV and the Ares stack to fly.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 2):
I was taken by how it all did seem so...Apollo.

Yes, but it was the 'Non Apollo' aspects that interested me.

Two seperate launches which was an option passed on in the 60's, the slighly changed flight configuration to the moon, and the dry landing. Very interesting.

Thanks for the link thread starter!



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3):
Two seperate launches which was an option passed on in the 60's, the slighly changed flight configuration to the moon, and the dry landing. Very interesting.

One very interesting (for future applications) change:

The CEV/SM is much smaller relative to the Lunar Surface Access Module than the Apollo Command Module and Service Module were relative to the Apollo Lunar Module. Yes, the CEV itself is bigger (nominal crew of six versus nominal crew of three) but the Service Module doesn't hold nearly as much fuel or have nearly as large an engine as Apollo's.

Instead, the LSAM has much bigger propellant tanks and has the big engine(s). The LSAM will be doing the grunt work of braking the stack into lunar orbit. That means the LSAM should be relatively easily converted into an unmanned cargo hauler for a lunar base at some point. Without lugging the heavy CEV around, and by deleting the Crew Module (Ascent Stage), the LSAM can trade fuel for increased payload, so it should have a seriously impressive unmanned cargo landing capability.


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Okay Thorny,

This is my last question; I promise. At least for a while.... Big grin

That's what you get for being such a great resource here!!

In the video, it shows the stack approaching the north east limb of the moon. Is this accurate? For some reason, I always thought that we approached the western edge as in this diagram....

Big version: Width: 7000 Height: 2300 File size: 1738kb


What am I missing?



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 5):
For some reason, I always thought that we approached the western edge as in this diagram....

The diagram is correct. Apollo entered orbit from the leading side of the Moon (The moon gaining on them). After LOI, Apollo was actually in retrograde orbit around the moon (but the moon revolves so slowly it wasn't a big deal.)

Yes, it really did fly the "Figure 8" pattern shown on the Apollo 8 emblem!

I think, but am not sure, that the leading side / retrograde orbit flight plan was a consequence of the desire for the "free return" trajectory, in which Apollo would come back to Earth naturally if they, for whatever reason, didn't brake into lunar orbit. In the end, they never really used free return, but just a close approximation of it for the early missions, and a fairly large departure from free return in the later flights (Apollo 13 had to fire the LM engine to get back on free return after the explosion.)


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Whew!

I thought I was loosing my mind! I know that the new missions will have much more latitude when it comes to landing sites rather than being limited to more equatorial regions, but won't we still want to enter orbit in retrograde?

I believe you're right regarding the retrograde approach being used initially for a free return option and I think it was also done in order to approach the landing sites in the lunar morning for the enhanced contrast created by the long shadows...

I would think that a quasi free return option would still be beneficial and would think that a posigrade? approach might not be optimal because you'd have the sun in your face during powered descent. Plus I wonder if you loose some fidelity when picking up landmarks and avoiding craters/boulders when the lunar shadows are pointed toward you as opposed to the reverse in retrograde.

So - is the video wrong or are we in fact considering a posigrade approach?



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2900 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
The LSAM will be doing the grunt work of braking the stack into lunar orbit. That means the LSAM should be relatively easily converted into an unmanned cargo hauler for a lunar base at some point. Without lugging the heavy CEV around, and by deleting the Crew Module (Ascent Stage), the LSAM can trade fuel for increased payload, so it should have a seriously impressive unmanned cargo landing capability.

So let me get this straight the Lander is used for LOI and decent to the surface and the CEV is for TEI and reentry? That is a neat way to go.

[Edited 2006-07-07 07:29:58]


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 8):
So let me get this straight the Lander is used for LOI and decent to the surface and the CEV is for TEI and reentry?

Correct.

Because the Lander does the Lunar-Orbit Injection, there is the possibility of using the vehicle as an unmanned cargo lander capable of huge payloads. The Apollo system required the CM/SM to place the LM in orbit, but the new lander can opperate independently of the CEV.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2870 times:

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 7):
So - is the video wrong or are we in fact considering a posigrade approach?

The first flight or two will probably mimic Apollo. After that, lunar flights will certainly be sent into lunar polar orbits.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 8):
So let me get this straight the Lander is used for LOI and decent to the surface and the CEV is for TEI and reentry? That is a neat way to go.

I wonder if what we are seeing here is what would have happened if Apollo would not have been so rushed, or if it is a result of newer technology, or both?

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
The CEV/SM is much smaller relative to the Lunar Surface Access Module than the Apollo Command Module and Service Module were relative to the Apollo Lunar Module. Yes, the CEV itself is bigger (nominal crew of six versus nominal crew of three) but the Service Module doesn't hold nearly as much fuel or have nearly as large an engine as Apollo's.

So now the SM only has to break lunar orbit and decelerate once it reaches Earth? IIRC Apollo's SM had to decelerate for LOI right?

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
Instead, the LSAM has much bigger propellant tanks and has the big engine(s). The LSAM will be doing the grunt work of braking the stack into lunar orbit. That means the LSAM should be relatively easily converted into an unmanned cargo hauler for a lunar base at some point. Without lugging the heavy CEV around, and by deleting the Crew Module (Ascent Stage), the LSAM can trade fuel for increased payload, so it should have a seriously impressive unmanned cargo landing capability.

This whole thing is very Moon centric, is this or a similar configuration usable for Mars, or will another vehicle be needed? The whole program was originally seen as modular, using the same components for orbital, Lunar and Martian missions.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
I wonder if what we are seeing here is what would have happened if Apollo would not have been so rushed, or if it is a result of newer technology, or both?

Both. And experience from Apollo. When Apollo started, no one was quite sure just how to get to the moon at all. The big Service Module engine was a holdover from early plans that included the Apollo CSM itself landing on the moon in the Direct Ascent mission mode. After the Lunar Orbit Rendzvous mission mode was chosen, they really didn't have enough time to go back and redesign the CSM.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
So now the SM only has to break lunar orbit and decelerate once it reaches Earth?

No deceleration at Earth, it will be a direct return to re-entry and splashdown/touchdown. Re-entering Earth orbit is far too expensive in terms of mass. The SM will probably just do the TEI, but it might also do some of the course corrections between Earth and Moon on the way out.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
This whole thing is very Moon centric, is this or a similar configuration usable for Mars, or will another vehicle be needed?

The launch vehicles will certainly be adaptable to the Mars mission. So will the CEV. Things such as nuclear reactors to power follow-on moon bases and in-situ fuel production should be applicable to Mars, too. But Mars missions always would have needed an entirely new lander as well as a new habitat module for the flight from Earth to Mars.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Thanks Thorny, your insight is worth the price of admission!


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Video Of Ares I And V On Moon Mission....
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Video Of A Blackhawk Rollover On A Carrier posted Wed Jan 11 2006 22:32:16 by KPDX
Photos And Video Of First SA Gripen posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:13:58 by DEVILFISH
Video Of P-38 Off Of San Diego posted Wed Aug 16 2006 01:45:49 by RichPhitzwell
Video Of A400M's TP400-D6 Engine posted Thu Jul 27 2006 20:20:04 by RAPCON
Nice Demo Video Of Aussi F111, Long Fuel Dumps posted Wed Jun 28 2006 14:46:20 by Keesje
Formation Of Russian And Western Jets posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:16:06 by Sabena340
Any Good Video Of Shuttle Landing? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 00:08:34 by Phxplanes
Fighter Escort Pre 9-11 And On That Day posted Wed Aug 3 2005 01:41:19 by B744F
The Battle Of The X Planes On PBS Tonight. posted Wed Aug 25 2004 02:07:15 by Iowaman
# Of Flight Crews On Air Force One posted Thu Jul 22 2004 10:46:21 by 28S

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format