Apollo 18 and 19 Proposed landing sites

[bknight]

I have done a search on the proposed 18 and 19 landing sites, but Wiki only is pointing to a number of sites.
Does anyone have more knowledge than Wiki on the proposed sites?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions

[smartcooky]

AIUI, originally, A13 was to go to Fra Mauro, and A14 to Taurus-Littrow, but when A13 had its problems, the Fra Mauro site was allocated to A14, and Taurus-Littrow was bumped to A17; its original site, Marius Hills was dropped altogether. 

A16 was originally Descartes Plains and it remained that way

A18 was to be Copernicus, but it was cancelled.

A19 was to be Hadley Rille, but when it was cancelled in 1970, the site was allocated to A15 (which was upgraded from an "H" mission to a "J" mission); its original site, Censorious Crater was dropped.

A20 was to have gone to Tycho (looking for a big black slab no doubt  )

I'm not sure how far through the planning the later missions were at the time they were cancelled, but since the cancellations were 2-3 years out, I wouldn't think much detail would have been decided on.

There is a little more here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Cancelled_missions

and an interesting discussion here

http://www.livescience.com/15900-apollo-canceled.html

IMO, cancelling those last three Apollo missions was a very big mistake.  Don Wilhelms, a retired USGS geologist who was part of a group vetting possible landing sites, said that cancelling the missions was "a missed opportunity. You had existing technology at the peak of its effectiveness. So it was a waste."

Harrison Schmitt was most outspoken about the issue. ...

"We never should have stopped building Saturn 5s and Apollo spacecraft. Everything that's happened since, including space stations, could have been done with that technology base. In addition, you would have continued to have the ability to reach out into deep space, a capability that included being able to divert asteroids in case one looked like it might be on a collision course with the Earth. For a brief, shining three or four years, we could do that with the Saturn 5."

I am sure I agree with him, and I have little doubt that we would be a lot closer to putting astronauts on Mars if the Apollo and Saturn V programme had been allowed to continue.

[bknight]

Good additional information, as I didn't see the latter site.  I tend to agree with 18 and 19 being cancelled, since the hardware was built and paid for.  I'm not in the political ring and my voice as well as scientists didn't sway the opinion.
Who knows what may have happened.  It seems some of us as always looking back and asking what if.

[Northern Lurker]

Harrison Schmitt was most outspoken about the issue. ...

"We never should have stopped building Saturn 5s and Apollo spacecraft. Everything that's happened since, including space stations, could have been done with that technology base. In addition, you would have continued to have the ability to reach out into deep space, a capability that included being able to divert asteroids in case one looked like it might be on a collision course with the Earth. For a brief, shining three or four years, we could do that with the Saturn 5."

I am sure I agree with him, and I have little doubt that we would be a lot closer to putting astronauts on Mars if the Apollo and Saturn V programme had been allowed to continue.

If production of Saturn 5 would have continued to these days and shuttle never happened, how the project would have coped with advances in materials and electronics? Would Saturn 5 parts stayed in production because of demand? Or would there be gradual improvements or whole new generations of Saturn 5 implementing all new materials and components?

Lurky

[bknight]

No one can say for sure, but I suspect there would have been improvements in the manufactory of the F-1 engines.  From what I have read and Jay has indicated the construction was very complicated.
Referencing the latest Orion, requiring many fewer welds than its previous model.  One can only dream at this point.

[Zakalwe]

Well, the F-1A was developed and it gave a usable increase in thrust.

The F-1B was developed by Dynetics into the Pyrios concept. Similar thrust to the F-1A but at much lower cost.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1

This article gives a fascinating insight into the F-1 production and how the design would be changed using today's materials and manufacturing methods.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

[bknight]

Well, the F-1A was developed and it gave a usable increase in thrust.

The F-1B was developed by Dynetics into the Pyrios concept. Similar thrust to the F-1A but at much lower cost.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1

This article gives a fascinating insight into the F-1 production and how the design would be changed using today's materials and manufacturing methods.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-NASA-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

The second link was fairly informative on what has been done, one aspect I found gratifying, another different group of people indicating that the plans of Apollo are/were not destroyed over the years.  Most of us here know this but the hoaxes still ask "link a blueprint to X component" comments.  I had one a few months ago asked me to link a set of blueprints for the Apollo capsule.  I told him to go to NASA and cross their palms with green and they would produce microfiche copies.  I  don't know if they would but it sounded good to me.
Excellent information.

[smartcooky]

The development of the SLS and Orion indicates a return to "great big rockets" to put astronauts into space. The diversion into the space shuttle has turned out to be a dead end. In the end, there isn't anything the Shuttle did that could not have been achieved at a much lower cost, greater frequency and greater reliability with F1 powered expendable rockets.   

The idea of a Space Shuttle, a reusable space plane seemed sound at the time, but it never really worked the way it was supposed. It failed at almost every feature and advantage it was supposed to have over expendable rockets; it was supposed to be cheaper per pound to orbit, and ended up more expensive, turn around times were supposed to be quick, they were slow.

The Orbiter was supposed to operate like an airliner... lands, is rolled into a hangar, a quick minor servicing like this...



.. before being set up with the launch system and up for another flight within a couple of weeks. Instead, the servicing was a far more complex affair...



The Atlantis Orbiter holds the record for the quickest turn around time... 54 days

More reading here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program



   

[Zakalwe]

The second link was fairly informative on what has been done, one aspect I found gratifying, another different group of people indicating that the plans of Apollo are/were not destroyed over the years.  Most of us here know this but the hoaxes still ask "link a blueprint to X component" comments.  I had one a few months ago asked me to link a set of blueprints for the Apollo capsule.

Rocketdyne had a Knowledge Retention Program that started in 1969, which formalised the various design/development/production phases of the engines. They produced a volume on each major component.
In 1990 NASA formed the Synthesis group to look at proposals submitted under Project Outreach for the Space Exploration Initiative. As part of that, the Synthesis Group asked for Rocketdyne's ability to restart production of the F-1A. Rocketdyne declared it feasible, given their Knowledge Retention Program and that they had access to 5 complete F-1 engines that were in bonded storage in Michoud, all of which had been successfully test-fired. It is utter hokum to suggest that these technologies were lost. For sure, restarting production wouldn't be cheap (estimated at $100M to re-tool and another $500M for non-recurring costs), but do-able.

Don't forget that there is a complete Saturn stack in Kennedy Space Centre. If push came to shove, then that could be, and has been, analysed to see exactly how these things were put together. A few years back, the umbilical connection was stripped and analysed for the Constellation program.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/umbilical_inspection.html

[bknight]

The second link was fairly informative on what has been done, one aspect I found gratifying, another different group of people indicating that the plans of Apollo are/were not destroyed over the years.  Most of us here know this but the hoaxes still ask "link a blueprint to X component" comments.  I had one a few months ago asked me to link a set of blueprints for the Apollo capsule.

Rocketdyne had a Knowledge Retention Program that started in 1969, which formalised the various design/development/production phases of the engines. They produced a volume on each major component.
In 1990 NASA formed the Synthesis group to look at proposals submitted under Project Outreach for the Space Exploration Initiative. As part of that, the Synthesis Group asked for Rocketdyne's ability to restart production of the F-1A. Rocketdyne declared it feasible, given their Knowledge Retention Program and that they had access to 5 complete F-1 engines that were in bonded storage in Michoud, all of which had been successfully test-fired. It is utter hokum to suggest that these technologies were lost. For sure, restarting production wouldn't be cheap (estimated at $100M to re-tool and another $500M for non-recurring costs), but do-able.

Don't forget that there is a complete Saturn stack in Kennedy Space Centre. If push came to shove, then that could be, and has been, analysed to see exactly how these things were put together. A few years back, the umbilical connection was stripped and analysed for the Constellation program.
http://www.NASA.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/umbilical_inspection.html

I seriously doubt the stack at Houston could be used.  I visited MSCC in the late 90's.  There are many corrosion holes in all three stages.  I'm sure it is worse now   Maybe sts60 could comment as it seems he goes there on business.
EDIT:sts60 handle

[ka9q]

I seriously doubt the stack at Houston could be used.  I visited MSCC in the late 90's.  There are many corrosion holes in all three stages.  I'm sure it is worse now

The point isn't to fly the old stack, it's to use it as a reference in building a new design.

You wouldn't want to fly a Saturn/Apollo stack even if you had one in perfect condition. It required a lot of highly specialized crew training. Its ground support required specialized equipment that doesn't exist anymore (not the least of which was the service structure on Pads 39A and 39B).  Checkout required a lot of highly trained people doing highly specialized tasks that today would be much better done with computers (e.g., monitoring and logging pressures and temperatures around the launch vehicle and calling for holds if necessary.) The Apollo spacecraft required much of the same.

From the outside, a modern Saturn/Apollo stack might well look very much like the original, but it would have completely new computing, navigation and communications. The main consoles of the CM and LM would undoubtedly look totally different.

That said, you might want to use Apollo designs or methods where they still make sense. That article about modern-day engineers examining the CM/SM umbilical is a very good example. While a modern design would certainly have far fewer wires (thanks to digital and optical technology) the basic concept of explosively-driven deadfacing connectors and a guillotine cutter might still make a lot of sense in a new design.

[bknight]

I seriously doubt the stack at Houston could be used.  I visited MSCC in the late 90's.  There are many corrosion holes in all three stages.  I'm sure it is worse now

The point isn't to fly the old stack, it's to use it as a reference in building a new design.

You wouldn't want to fly a Saturn/Apollo stack even if you had one in perfect condition. It required a lot of highly specialized crew training. Its ground support required specialized equipment that doesn't exist anymore (not the least of which was the service structure on Pads 39A and 39B).  Checkout required a lot of highly trained people doing highly specialized tasks that today would be much better done with computers (e.g., monitoring and logging pressures and temperatures around the launch vehicle and calling for holds if necessary.) The Apollo spacecraft required much of the same.

From the outside, a modern Saturn/Apollo stack might well look very much like the original, but it would have completely new computing, navigation and communications. The main consoles of the CM and LM would undoubtedly look totally different.

That said, you might want to use Apollo designs or methods where they still make sense. That article about modern-day engineers examining the CM/SM umbilical is a very good example. While a modern design would certainly have far fewer wires (thanks to digital and optical technology) the basic concept of explosively-driven deadfacing connectors and a guillotine cutter might still make a lot of sense in a new design.

You are correct I didn't think about that when I rear the post.

[Northern Lurker]

Well, the F-1A was developed and it gave a usable increase in thrust.

The F-1B was developed by Dynetics into the Pyrios concept. Similar thrust to the F-1A but at much lower cost.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1

This article gives a fascinating insight into the F-1 production and how the design would be changed using today's materials and manufacturing methods.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-NASA-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

Good stuff, thanks 

If Saturn 5 had stayed in production would progress with electronics meant that computers in Instrument Unit would have been changed for smaller and more energy efficient? And would that lead to smaller batteries and finally to shorter and lighter IU?

Or would advances in materials science with newer light weight alloys have led to changes in skin material?

And would those changes been incremental or applied all at the same time for rockets produced from now on?

Lurky

[bknight]

As ka9q has pointed out their would certainly been improvements in electronics, since most of the 60's Apollo electronics were built on  RTL framework, stable but obsolete currently.

[raven]

I believe the next production run of Saturn V would have had no fins on the first stage, which would have actually added a significant amount to the payload. Other, more hypothetical ideas include a Saturn-N with a NERVA third stage, or, far more out there, a 10 metre Orion pulse drive on top.