Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Apollo Spacecraft Launch Adapter and S$B stability.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sodengineer

sodengineer

Civil/Environmental
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
37
Location
US
Hello Aerospace Engineers-
A discussion between some civil engineers the other day has prompted this question.

During the Apollo mission, during transposition and docking to remove the LM, what kept the S4B stable, especially if one of the panels hung up? As I understand it, the third stage is spent so it is a free body and Newton's law will apply. So, if one of the panels hung up or if they did not open perfectly, the whole assemblage would begin to rotate, wobble, etc.

The other, related question is related to the above and actually occurred on Apollo 14. If the CSM tapped the LM anywhere but exactly in the center of gravity, the same would occur, a slight drift, wobble, etc. How did it remain aligned so a second attempt at docking could be made?

No, I'm not working on a project, just idle curiosity from someone who admires your work.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Newton's laws always apply. Glad we've sorted that out. Second bit first, the docking system has a set of catches with some room for error, as I understand it, so even if they are slightly misaligned you still get a positive latch. If the CSM had just rammed the LM randomly, yes there would have been trouble. Relative velocities during docking are in the low inches per second realm, they aren't banging about like billiard balls.

I don't know what the game plan was in your first case - spacewalk?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FYI ONLY...

THE APOLLO 14 DOCKING ANOMALY

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you both. Maybe this is a cement headed civil asking, but I still don't understand how the panels were ejected perfectly every time. I know on Apollo 7 one of the panels did not open all the way. So why did that not cause the spent 3rd stage to start to wobble or rotate?

Again, more of an idle question than a "need to know."
Thanks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Apparently the S4B stage have a mass of 13,500 kg empty, so they're not going to take off with a slight nudge. Furthermore, the fuel tanks were probably not quite empty, because some were subsequently relit and crashed into the Moon. Of course, let's not forget that for the purposes of your question, the empty S4B stage also contained the fully loaded Lunar Module which had a mass of another 15,000 to 16,000 kg. So, getting close to 30 tonnes combined.

Interestingly, the CSM was about 29 tonnes fully loaded. So about the same.

Also, the S4B stage did have attitude control (Wiki says: 2x APS Modules), so perhaps those were used to ensure attitude stability. Speculation.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It is likely that at least one of the early S-IVB's has been detected... when it was temporarily captured by in a 'chaotic earth orbit' after several heliocentric orbits... but [now] has likely returned to heliocentric orbit due to lunar gravity perturbations...

Newly Discovered Object Could be a Leftover Apollo Rocket Stage
... An analysis of the orbital motion of the newly discovered object J002E3 indicates that it could be a leftover Saturn V third stage from one of the Apollo missions, most likely the Apollo 12 mission, launched on November 14, 1969. ...

[from 2002 CNEOS article]


Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
<<Also, the S4B stage did have attitude control (Wiki says: 2x APS Modules), so perhaps those were used to ensure attitude stability. Speculation.>>

That makes some sense. I knew it had ullage motors, but I did not know it had attitude control. I guess I never saw them (or never had them pointed out to me.)

Thank you for the insight.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Seeking expert on LAR and sep systems
2
Replies
21
Views
9K
rb1957
rb1957
M
  • Question Question
how to calculate drag and lift coefficient at different airfoils of horizontal axis wind turbine blade
Replies
4
Views
6K
LiftDivergence
LiftDivergence
Aero.Aspirant
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Continuing Education and Certifications for Young Aero Designer
Replies
15
Views
3K
CWB1
CWB1
EdwardNigma
  • Locked
  • Question Question
When should I use principal stresses instead of von Mises stresses and vice versa?
Replies
12
Views
6K
rb1957
rb1957
Platypusimon
  • Locked
  • Question Question
MCI generation of an assembly, with different section cuts and phases
Replies
0
Views
295
Platypusimon
Platypusimon

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top