Photo Anomalies

[Zakalwe]

I don't know. To me there seems a fairly obvious solution: periscopes. It does add some weight, mind, but it could be part of the star sighting system.

And a very, very long set of ladders to get to the ground.....

Look at the difficulties that SpaceX have with trying to get their rockets to land. OK, they are trying to do it autonomously, in a stronger gravity field and with atmospheric effects to deal with, but even so, getting a large rocket to land vertically is always going to be difficult. Would it have been even possible with 1960s technology?

The second big problem with EOR was getting the job done before the end of the decade. That was Kennedy's challenge and EOR would have meant that they would have missed it completely.

[raven]

I think the landing difficulties of Space X's 1st stage and an Apollo direct aren't really comparable, for just the reasons you mention (automated, stronger grav, atmosphere) any more than the crashes of Project Morpheus are proof the moon landing was a hoax, despite what some conspiracy theorists have claimed. Given that this could be made to fly back then, I think this or this could have landed on the moon.

[Zakalwe]

I think the landing difficulties of Space X's 1st stage and an Apollo direct aren't really comparable, for just the reasons you mention (automated, stronger grav, atmosphere) any more than the crashes of Project Morpheus are proof the moon landing was a hoax, despite what some conspiracy theorists have claimed. Given that this could be made to fly back then, I think this or this could have landed on the moon.

Agreed- SpaceX and a direct-to-Moon lander are very different, but I think that the analogy stands. Landing a tail sitter is very, very difficult.
The Volant is interesting, but it is was a single seater, turbojet powered craft that crashed after a couple of flights. There's not much of an analogy to a rocket-powered craft large enough to descend to the lunar surface and be able to take off again.

What is plain to see though, is that an EOR-based Lunar attempt would not have been successful before the end of the 60s.

[raven]

Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!

[Zakalwe]

Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'? I think the biggest problem with an Apollo Direct, at least as initially envisioned, was Nova. The Saturn V was big, but Nova. . . . At least one configuration had a 2nd stage with a bigger diameter 2nd stage than the Saturn V first stage!

Indeed it is, but it is a heck of a lot closer to the ground than a direct return craft would be.

Nova was designed for a direct ascent. An EOR plan would have used rockets about half the size of the Saturn V. Multiple launches of these would be used to get the components of the Lunar lander into LEO, where the lander would be assembled.

[JayUtah]

Isn't the LM as it stands also a 'tail sitter'?

Not really, in terms of how you do the landing-stability math.  Which is to say, it's not magical math.  The geometry of the footprint taken together with the center of mass determines its tendency to trip or topple.  The LM had a very, very low center of mass and a very wide footprint.  Tail-sitter aircraft had "foot" prints that were narrow because of aerodynamic and control concerns for atmospheric flight.  They also had centers of mass that were too far forward from the tail -- also for fixed-wing flight concerns.

[bknight]

Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another.  Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15

[Zakalwe]

Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another.  Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15

That particular LM landed with one footpad in a crater which meant it tilted at nearly 11 degrees.  I would think that it would take a lot to topple the LM given its wide footprint. Of more concern would the maximum allowable angle for the ascent stage to clear the descent stage.  There was a good discussion on the NASA Spaceflight forum about the maximum safe tilt angle....most places seem to say it was 12 degrees..

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32246.0

[bknight]

Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another.  Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15

That particular LM landed with one footpad in a crater which meant it tilted at nearly 11 degrees.  I would think that it would take a lot to topple the LM given its wide footprint. Of more concern would the maximum allowable angle for the ascent stage to clear the descent stage.  There was a good discussion on the NASA Spaceflight forum about the maximum safe tilt angle....most places seem to say it was 12 degrees..

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32246.0

Interesting read and I remember that the bell of the last three  flights was extended to provide  more thrust on landing to allow for the  heavier weight of the rovar.  Also if I remember correctly A15's bell actually  touched the  lunar surface.  I'll have to look at the images agian.

[Allan F]

One of the last 3 missions had a damaged descent engine bell from contact with the surface. Don't remember which one, though.

[Allan F]

Yes, it was A15.

[bknight]

Yes, it was A15.

Damn you're quick, that's the one I was thinking about.

EDIT: Moved my comment to where it belonged!!

[onebigmonkey]

In the book "For all mankind" Irwin recalls the landing:

"Man we hit hard..then we started pitching and rolling to the side. My first thought - Dave's too - was 'Man are we going to get into an unstable position? Are we going to have to abort?'I thought surely we had ruptured something, that something might be leaking, and we were going to have to leave right away. Finally, the vehicle stopped rolling, and we came to rest on the side of a crater"

Irwin's comment of 'BAM' as they touchdown probably summed it up, and it certainly looks like there was a bit of movement:

FF to about 14:15 if you want to skip to touchdown.

[bknight]

Yes, it was A15.

And to think they "faked" this landing!!

[Dr_Orpheus]

Many of the surface images of the LM, show it tilted one way or another.  Landing on NOT A LEVEL surface and the inherent ability to remain upright without toppling over as JayUtah has descirbied as with A15

Would the original large lander needed for direct ascent or EOR been able to land at that angle without tipping over?