6.8 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo spacecraft feasibility study | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_spacecraft_feasibility_study | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T12:33:04.362950+00:00 | kb-cron |
The Martin Company spent about $3 million, employing almost 300 persons for the better part of the six-month term, to produce the most elaborate study of the three, not only following all the Space Task Group guidelines, but also going far beyond in systems analysis. The complete proposal consisted of 9,000 pages. Focusing on versatility, flexibility, safety margins, and growth, this was the only study that detailed the progression of steps from lunar orbiting to lunar landing. Martin's spacecraft would have been similar to the Apollo spacecraft that ultimately emerged. When Martin later entered the Apollo hardware procurement contract competition, NASA scored them highest of all the entrants on configuration design. Martin recommended a five-part spacecraft. The command module was a flat-bottomed cone with a rounded apex and a tower for a tractor-rocket launch escape system. Behind the flat aft bulkhead were propulsion, equipment, and mission modules. Tradeoffs between weight and propulsion requirements led to the selection of a pressurized shell of semimonocoque aluminum alloy coated with a composite heatshield of superalloy with a charring ablator. Two crewmen would sit abreast, with the third behind, in couches that could rotate for reentry g-load protection and for getting in and out of the spacecraft. Flaps for limited maneuverability on reentry, a parachute landing system, and a jettisonable mission module that could also serve as a solar storm cellar, a laboratory, or even the descent stage for a lunar lander, were also featured.
== Spacecraft procurement competition ==
NASA did not get a chance to deliberate long on the study results, due to the pressure placed on America's space program by the Soviet's launching of the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, on April 12, 1961. On May 25, one week after presentation of the study results, President John F. Kennedy proposed the Moon landing objective to the US Congress, giving the Apollo program a clear focus and sense of urgency. NASA turned its focus to what relevant data could be mined from the proposals (abandoning the mission module), and launched another competition for the hardware procurement phase, fixing the reentry module configuration to the conical shape designed by Maxime Faget. NASA awarded the contract for the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) to North American Aviation on November 28, 1961, when it was still assumed the lunar landing would be achieved by direct descent or Earth orbit rendezvous rather than by lunar orbit rendezvous. Therefore, design proceeded without a means of docking the Command Module to a lunar lander spacecraft. In the summer of 1962, the selection of the LOR proposal from NASA's Langley Research Center, plus several technical obstacles encountered in some subsystems (such as environmental control), soon made it clear that substantial redesign would be required. By 1963, NASA decided the most efficient way to keep the Apollo program on track and address technical obstacles encountered in some subsystems such as environmental control, was to proceed with the development of two CSM versions: the preliminary Block I, and the advanced Block II.
== Similarity to Soyuz ==
Similarities have been noted between the GE D2 design and the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which was designed and built after George Arthur and Jacob Abel's AAS presentation (Denver, CO) in December 1961. In particular, Soyuz uses an orbital module located in front of the descent module, which uses a similar sphere-cone-sphere shape. Victor Minenko, one of the OKB-1 designers with Korolev in 1950s and 1960s, who was active with RSC Energia in 1993, noted that in 1961 there were 40 people in several departments working on early designs and versions of the eventual Soyuz. "We use to read carefully the U.S. literature by the leading astrodynamicists - Ferri, Chapman, Van Driest, Lees, and the top Russians - Sibulkin, Koropkin". Vassily Mishin, chief Soyuz designer after Korolev's death, noted that a logical comparison of the Soyuz was to the US Apollo command/service module, since both were designed for lunar transport. In 1983, Phillip S. Clark and Ralph F. Gibbons discussed the Russian Soyuz program development (1963-1967) and adaptation of design elements from other programs and studies (Soviet and foreign). A similar modular design was used in the Russian Progress spacecraft (essentially the uncrewed version of Soyuz), the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft, and the planned Indian ISRO Orbital Vehicle.
== See also == Apollo Command/Service Module Apollo program Soyuz (spacecraft) Soyuz 7K-TM Progress (spacecraft) Shenzhou (spacecraft)
== References == Inline citations
Bibliography Akens, David S. (1971). Saturn Illustrated Chronology. NASA. Retrieved 2013-02-22. Arthur, George R, "Lunar Spacecraft Designs", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Volume 10, 1963, p. 52. Brooks, Courtney G; James M. Grimwood; Loyd S. Swenson (1979). Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. NASA. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-29. Ertel, Ivan D.; Mary Louise Morse (1969). The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology. NASA. Archived from the original on 2008-02-05. Retrieved 2013-02-15. Harford, James (1997). Korolev: How One Man Masterminded the Soviet Drive to Beat America to the Moon. Wiley. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-471-32721-9. This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Martin Proposal (Model 410) (PDF), June 1961 "Volume 9 Apollo program implementation plan" (PDF), Project Apollo : A feasibility study of an advanced manned spacecraft and system., 1961 Project Apollo. (PDF), vol. 2 Data book, General Electric, 1961 Project Apollo. (PDF), vol. 3 Data book (General Electric proposal), 1961 Apollo. Structures and materials. (PDF), vol. 2 Thermal protection system (General Dynamics/Convair/ AVCO proposal), 1961 Apollo (PDF), vol. 4 - Growth and advanced concepts Final report, General Dynamics/Convair/AVCO, 1961 Apollo (PDF), vol. 5 Implementation plan. Book 1 Systems analysis, schedules and costs, General Dynamics/Convair/AVCO, 1961 Apollo Guidance and control system (PDF), General Dynamics/Convair/AVCO, June 1961 GE Apollo D-2 proposal: Aerodynamics, configurations, heating, structures, and materials (PDF), 1961 GE Feasibility Study, NASA Contract NAS 5-302: A feasibility study of an advanced manned spacecraft and system (PDF), vol. 2 System considerations, May 15, 1961
== External links == American Astronautical Society Apollo D-2 design drawings, Scott Lowther Astronautix: Was the Soyuz Design Stolen?