Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Moon Landing Sites  
User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 230 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

I was playing around on this site http://www.google.com/moon/ just now, and got to wondering, what are the reasons for all the landing sites being so close? (relatively speaking)

I realise orbital mechanics probably plays a big part, but was there other concerns such as terrain etc?

Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Legs

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There were many constraints, terrain (flat - IOW a Mare) certainly being one. Then orbital issues due to the need to support a free (or nearly free) return to earth (which implied a lunar orbit pretty much in-plane to the moon’s orbit). Those limited the landing latitudes because of LEM range limitations and the need for observations from the CM.

Next there were issue with site lighting (they wanted the landing to occur with the Sun 5-13 degrees above the horizon to best illuminate/contrast obstacles on the surface), the site had to be on the earth side and in sunlight for the entire stay, and then there were technical issues with related to the navigation system that required a certain amount of time for alignment during the descent (during which the LEM had to be in communications with mission control, hence around the "edge") which basically ruled out anything further east than 40 degrees.

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some parameters.

Basically this left a section about 90 miles either side of the equator and about 1500 miles long. And the flat spots in that limited it further.

The parameters were planned to be relaxed a bit for later missions, but those never flew.

All of the missions had several possible landing sites, spaced in such a way that you could get several launch windows in during the right part of the lunar day cycle (spaced far enough apart to allow for the two day Apollo/Saturn recycle – IOW, about 12 degrees).


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13045 posts, RR: 78
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2495 times:

Later sites, were terrain wise, much more ambitious. Apollo 15 being a good example.
But, the Apollo/Saturn system was constrained from going too far off the Lunar equator.
Remember, from 15 onwards, they had a more capable LEM, for fuel, consumables.

Scientists wanted a landing at Tycho, in the Southern highlands, the terrain was tricky (though a Surveyor probe had landed there in 1968, which like Apollo 12, could have been the landing target).
But, NASA, in particular Apollo 9 commander Jim McDivitt, who after that flight was a senior manager, ruled it out due to the extra demands fuel wise of going so far off the equatorial region, he feared in an emergency, reserves could be too low.

Some wanted a Lunar North Pole landing, I'm unclear if the Apollo system as it was then, could do that without major modification (anyone on here know?).


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Thanks for the detailed responses, once again, this forum and its members have amazed me.

I kinda figured the list of constraints would be pretty hefty, but I got really curious about the actual technical details involved.

Legs


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2412 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 1):
And I'm sure I'm forgetting some parameters.

The other big one was the need to keep the CSM flying over the target so they could rendezvous after lunar liftoff. Too far from the equator, and that would take more fuel than the CSM could accomodate, at least for the 2-3 day missions they were planning by then.

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
I'm unclear if the Apollo system as it was then, could do that without major modification (anyone on here know?).

No, it couldn't. Later upgrades (with the F-1A engine, for example) probably would have allowed this.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Moon Landing Sites
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...
F-15 Landing With One Wing (video) posted Sat Sep 6 2008 12:55:30 by KLM772ER
Space Shuttle To Moon: Possible? posted Mon Sep 1 2008 20:46:20 by RG828
Strange Picture Of A Romanian Jet Landing posted Sun Aug 31 2008 00:07:02 by N14AZ
Moon-walker Claims Alien Contact Cover-up posted Thu Jul 24 2008 12:27:10 by MadameConcorde
Apollo 11 Landing 39 Yrs Ago Today posted Sun Jul 20 2008 12:39:23 by KDTWFlyer
Navy Pilots Holding Cameras While Landing? posted Thu Jul 17 2008 05:47:13 by AA388
No German Moon Mission posted Sat Jul 12 2008 16:17:52 by TheSonntag
Space Shuttle Landing Speed posted Sat May 24 2008 16:04:02 by Flexo
Phoenix Mars Landing Next Sunday posted Thu May 22 2008 16:56:12 by CURLYHEADBOY
F111 Hits Pelican, Makes Emergency Landing posted Fri Apr 18 2008 18:38:22 by Cpd

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format