Talk:Apollo spacecraft feasibility study

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright violation[edit]

"The General Electric design for this spacecraft put all systems and space not necessary for re-entry and recovery into a separate jettisonable 'mission module', joined to the re-entry vehicle by a hatch. Every gram saved in this way saved two or more grams in overall spacecraft mass. In comparison with the NASA final Apollo design, the General Electric D-2 provided the crew with 50% more living space, an airlock, and a service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone. But in the end, NASA administrator James Webb examined the model of the D-2, thanked the contractor for its efforts, and announced that Apollo would use the NASA design without any consideration of alternatives."

The above paragraph is a direct copy from:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollod2.htm

and is a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capnned (talk • contribs) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most of the article appears to be a copy-paste from Astronautix, and I've tagged it as such. This is a shame, because the possibility of the Soviets copying it is quite a significant issue, if true. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged, and could be deleted in one week. Please help to rewrite it at Talk:Apollo D-2/Temp. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz Copying[edit]

There are repeated implications that the Soyuz capsule was copied from this design; but even the citation provided by it does not make this claim. If nobody objects, I shall remove it (alongside the picture of the Soyuz.) GrampaScience (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source materials from the British Interplanetary Society, Clark & Gibbons (1983) as well as John Pike at Global Security are now cited, where noted (or requested). User:beatgr. 11:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems[edit]

The Astronautix page, of which this is almost a verbatim copy, is highly biased in two respects: 1) The implication is that GE was screwed by NASA, whose selection process was somehow improper; and 2) that the Soviets copied the design for Soyuz. While I might tend to believe the latter, this is still an unsupported conjecture and would fail verifiability, if a reliable external source can't be found.

This has to be rewritten in a neutral tone, and should be expanded with more details of what it actually looked like. Drawings of it are externally available; I thought all submissions to NASA requests for proposal (RFP's) became the property of the US government, so should be public domain. Does anyone know more about this? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tired of User:JustinTime55 constant POV comments about the Apollo D-2 design submission from GE. Some of this is due a limited examination of the literature (books, NASA oral history). Even Max Faget is quoted making this exact observation about the Soviets in July 1969.
The Soviet Union had a long history of relying on Western designs, that started during World War II, as noted in other Wikipedia entries: ALCO RSD-1, Tupolev Tu-4 / Boeing B-29, and others. As noted in the Harford's 1990s research and book on Korolev, the Soviet Union design bureaus from 1940s to 1989 read everything related to rocketry, capsule designs, re-entry designs for nuclear warheads: Russian, American, German, and British. Those designers, interviewed in 1991, commented that Soyuz was not based on Mercury or Gemini designs, but Apollo designs and objectives for circumlunar flight. The Zond launches, Moon Race#Soviet circumlunar loop flights (1967–1970), tested the design.
The timing of GE's public disclosure (1962) and when Korolev's team was granted approval by Brezhnev in late 1965, after replacing Khrushchev, permitted Korolev's designers a long period to incorporate many previous designs and concepts.
Justin can finish this. Beatgr (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? I believe you are confused, and misunderstand the point of the POV issue. I never, ever said I had a POV problem with the assertion that the Soviets may have copied the design, only that it (like everything else in Wikipedia) needs to be well verified. The POV issue that I have a problem with, stems from trying to make the GE D2 design out to be vastly superior to NASA's Apollo design as built by North American, period. That was the theme of the Astronautix article which you originally plagiarized, and the current article contains only a handful of uncited superlative statements about the D2, rather than useful, objective information such as its size, weight, and what launch vehicle it was designed for. And there is no particular reason (besides the issue of the Soviet copy) to focus on the GE model to the exclusion of the other two entries. I think this should be moved to something like Apollo feasability study. There is not so much information available about all three designs, that such an article would be unreasonably long. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What" is your problem? Stick to point made, you are confused. I never stated that the GE Apollo D-2 design was superior to Maxime Faget's design that was built, I don't know where you arrived at that conclusion. I did begin this Apollo D-2 Wikipedia entry with portions of Mark Wade's earlier work, and cited that source. I then originally write paragraphs, replacing the boilerplate, as I add the citations and claify the Wikipedia entry from. I have used this approach for some entries, since Wikipedia started, to speed up writing. Plagetization is a serious accusation, which I will ignore as an emotional rant on your part. Some of these non-NASA citations and reference materials are not in electronic form (have not been scanned) or available via the Internet. It is important to recognize earlier work, that influenced Korolev and Mushin in the design of the 1967 Soyuz, as it has been regularly updated in technology and control systems (avionics) over the past 5 decades. You seem to desire to change this entry to the entire Apollo feasibility study, you can write that entry, if that is your passion -- and you have time. Your entry work seems to rely heavily on Stages of Saturn as a sole source for your added citations and transcription of entries to Wikipedia. A well known book, that sits in my library. I hope you have noted the Errata from that book reference, previous noted on Usenet and space references since 1990s. Beatgr (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Public Domain Source[edit]

The History is there, but the Chronological order, is hard to follow -- poor compilation in that period. JustinTime55 relies on a single NASA source document for all citations and viewpoints. Beatgr (18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The Apollo Spacecraft - A Chronology. Published as NASA Special Publication-4009. May 1961 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v1p2c.htm

Early Apollo concept reports (Contractor proposals and reports to NASA) are available on the NASA NTRS Technical Reports Server for free download in PDF format.

Apollo Configuration - NASA Space Task Group, 1961

Note: This document, unfortunately was apparently misplaced by NASA? The NTRS lists it, but points to the same document as the following Martin Proposal. JustinTime55 (talk 17:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Martin Proposal (Model 410), June 1961 - 6.4-MB PDF http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750064557_1975064557.pdf

Aerodynamics, configurations, heating, structures, and materials - 1961 - 30.1-mb PDF GE Apollo D-2 proposal http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064728_1973064728.pdf

A feasibility study of an advanced manned spacecraft and system. Volume 2 System considerations - 1961 - 8.7-MB PDF GE Feasibility Study, NASA Contract NAS 5-302, May 15, 1961 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730065795_1973065795.pdf

Project Apollo A feasibility study of an advanced manned spacecraft and system. Volume 9 Apollo program implementation plan - 1961 - 27.7-MB PDF http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073801_1974073801.pdf

Project Apollo. Volume 2 Data book - 1961 - 13.3-MB PDF General Electric http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073595_1974073595.pdf

Project Apollo. Volume 3 Data book - 1961 - 29.9-MB PDF General Electric http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072452_1974072452.pdf

Apollo. Structures and materials. Volume 2 Thermal protection system - 1961 - 32.5-MB PDF General Dynamics/Convair/ AVCO http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740072482_1974072482.pdf

Apollo, volume 4 - Growth and advanced concepts Final report - 1961 - 4.3-MB PDF General Dynamics/Convair/ AVCO http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076966_1979076966.pdf

Apollo. Volume 5 Implementation plan. Book 1 Systems analysis, schedules and costs - 1961 - 3.7-MB PDF General Dynamics/Convair/ AVCO http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073799_1974073799.pdf

Apollo Guidance and control system - 1961 - 67.5-MB - PDF General Dynamics/Convair/ AVCO, June 1961 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073599_1974073599.pdf

Remaining POV problems[edit]

While this article no longer plagiarizes the Astronautix page dripping with "GE was robbed," I think it still leaves the reader with some misleading impressions contrary to the verifiable facts (undue weight and POV):

  • The article implies that the mission-reentry-service module design was GE's invention. Fact: This feature was specified by NASA in the feasibility RFP, and applied equally to all three designs. (This is in fact stated in the Feasibility Study section, but someone insists on hyping it in the Design section, located first.)
  • The article still seems to imply GE's design was superior in ratio of interior volume to mass, and this is also implied to be due to the choice of bell-shaped command module. Fact: No data are given to support this; it would be nice to see the facts. Also, the mission module adds interior volume in any case. (The actual Apollo also had the additional interior volume of the Lunar Module on the outbound flight.)
  • The article implies it was specifically GE's design that the Soviets were interested in. Were the other designs made public as well?
  • The implication is left that the feasibility study was a seamless part of the Moon landing program, leading directly into the procurement phase. Fact: the feasiblity study was commissioned well in advance, and without any prophetic knowledge that Kennedy and Congress would commit to the "crash program"; the timing was simply coincidental. It was just a "what-if" game, based on speculation of what we would do in space after Project Mercury proved we could shoot men up in capsules, keep them alive in orbit, and get them back safely. No promise, express or implied, of an actual contract award to any of the entrants.
  • We know GE also entered the procurement competition; we are only left to wonder what their design looked like (and the implication is left that it would be this D-2.) And once again, "GE got the shaft." Fact: By this time, NASA had specified the Faget capsule design and dropped the mission module requirement.
  • The article, by focusing on GE's design to the exclusion of the other two entries, implies there was something special about GE's design. Fact: Other than the speculation that the Soviets might have picked up on it, there is no indication it was any more special than the other two designs, which were consigned to the wastebasket of history.

I think it would be much more informative to the Apollo program history to rename the article to something like Apollo spacecraft feasibility study and include as much information as we can find about all three designs, not just focusing on GE's. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MALLAR ?[edit]

Anyone familiar with Project MALLAR 'Manned Lunar Landing and Return', a January 1960 study by Chance Vought? (thus pre-dating the three studies here). See Tom Dolan (engineer). Draft:Conrad Lau (engineer) could use some assistance. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_spacecraft_feasibility_study&oldid=1216374053"