Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?Why was Venus rather than Mars targeted for the first interplanetary landings?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?What engineering challenges would be posed by a manned mission to Ceres?What stage of development are meteorology models of Venus?Terraforming Venus with the Bosch reaction, using hydrogen from JupiterHas in-space refueling been done?Are there any benefits on Venus compared to Earth with respect to reusing launch vehicles?Why did the design for Space Shuttle docking change?What was the maximum thrust of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Could an Apollo Lunar Module have landed and returned without Earth assistance?
Is this an example of a Neapolitan chord?
Light propagating through a sound wave
Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?
Describing a chess game in a novel
Embeddings of flag manifolds
Non-trivial topology where only open sets are closed
Configuring `TeXMaker` to work with the `TeXLive` distribution
The iconography of Shrinathji
What is the relationship between relativity and the Doppler effect?
Is a party consisting of only a bard, a cleric, and a warlock functional long-term?
Can a wizard cast a spell during their first turn of combat if they initiated combat by releasing a readied spell?
While on vacation my taxi took a longer route, possibly to scam me out of money. How can I deal with this?
T-SQL LIKE Predicate failed to match with whitespace in XML converted varchar
awkward or wrong?
Changing Color of error messages
How to define limit operations in general topological spaces? Are nets able to do this?
World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?
Knife as defense against stray dogs
Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?
Does .bashrc contain syntax errors?
What favor did Moody owe Dumbledore?
centering a caption under a table
HP P840 HDD RAID 5 many strange drive failures
How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?
Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?
Why was Venus rather than Mars targeted for the first interplanetary landings?What will be NASA's successor to the Saturn V rocket?What engineering challenges would be posed by a manned mission to Ceres?What stage of development are meteorology models of Venus?Terraforming Venus with the Bosch reaction, using hydrogen from JupiterHas in-space refueling been done?Are there any benefits on Venus compared to Earth with respect to reusing launch vehicles?Why did the design for Space Shuttle docking change?What was the maximum thrust of the Rocketdyne F-1 engine?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Could an Apollo Lunar Module have landed and returned without Earth assistance?
$begingroup$
One of the more interesting proposed uses of a Saturn V was to launch a manned flyby of Venus. Some of the cargo would have been stored inside the tank of the upper stage, which would be retained throughout most of the flight. The question I have is how large of a payload could the Saturn V have launched to Venus, and is it even remotely reasonable such a mission could have worked?
crewed-spaceflight apollo-program venus
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the more interesting proposed uses of a Saturn V was to launch a manned flyby of Venus. Some of the cargo would have been stored inside the tank of the upper stage, which would be retained throughout most of the flight. The question I have is how large of a payload could the Saturn V have launched to Venus, and is it even remotely reasonable such a mission could have worked?
crewed-spaceflight apollo-program venus
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the more interesting proposed uses of a Saturn V was to launch a manned flyby of Venus. Some of the cargo would have been stored inside the tank of the upper stage, which would be retained throughout most of the flight. The question I have is how large of a payload could the Saturn V have launched to Venus, and is it even remotely reasonable such a mission could have worked?
crewed-spaceflight apollo-program venus
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
$endgroup$
One of the more interesting proposed uses of a Saturn V was to launch a manned flyby of Venus. Some of the cargo would have been stored inside the tank of the upper stage, which would be retained throughout most of the flight. The question I have is how large of a payload could the Saturn V have launched to Venus, and is it even remotely reasonable such a mission could have worked?
crewed-spaceflight apollo-program venus
crewed-spaceflight apollo-program venus
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
asked Mar 14 at 12:53
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83.1k16239454
83.1k16239454
5
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31
5
5
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It takes surprisingly little delta-v to reach Venus for a flyby -- about 3850 m/s from LEO instead of the 3200 m/s or so required to get to the moon -- so while the payload would have to be reduced from the normal Apollo mission, it wouldn't have been impossible.
For Apollo 17, if we consider the payload to be the CSM, LM, and LM adapter, the total is 48.6 tons (per Apollo By The Numbers). For a trans-Venusian payload, my calculations say the mass budget comes down to around 31 tons.
That seems a prohibitive reduction, but for Apollo, the payload was largely propellant: lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection on the CSM, descent and ascent for the LM. In total this was about 29 tons of propellant. Since there was no orbital insertion or landing planned, the only propellant needed would be for course correction, aborts, and braking for re-entry. The Bellcomm study proposed 8.6 tons of CSM propellant, dominated by the requirement for an abort within 45 minutes of trans-Venusian injection. With the reduced propellant load and elimination of the Lunar Module, there's enough payload budget to fully equip the living space.
From the diagram in the Wikipedia article, you can see the interior structure of the service module is shortened by about 40% to allow for the propulsion system to be recessed within the original dimensions, allowing more useful volume in the Environmental Support Module below. Eliminating most of the propellant tankage volume makes this possible:
Overall the mission seems feasible. The trans-Venusian spacecraft is somewhat comparable to Skylab, which was also built into an S-IVB-shaped hull. Skylab was a "dry workshop" which never contained propellant; Apollo-Venus would be less roomy because of the separate oxidizer tank and shape of the hydrogen tank, but the hydrogen tank is still about 6 meters across and 10 meters long.
The longest Skylab mission was almost three months; this proposal would take 13 months: 4 months out to Venus and 9 months back! That is a long time for three people to live in an enclosed space, even a fairly roomy one. The Bellcomm study outlines requirements for environmental support; waste water would need to be recycled and oxygen recovered from CO2, neither of which was required by the short Apollo flights.
I'm a little skeptical of the wet workshop concept. Anything that you want to put in the tank at launch has to stand up to liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Radiation exposure over a year-long mission outside of Earth's magnetosphere is also concerning. The Bellcomm study indicates that neither the Apollo CM nor the S-IVB tanks have thick enough shielding for a one-year mission, so additional shielding mass would have to be added to the S-IVB.
All in all it probably wasn't a good idea. It's a huge investment for a three hour crewed flyby; it couldn't accomplish anything that couldn't be done by a few Mariner-type missions.
If you want to do a similar Mars mission, by the way, you need to scrape down another 7200kg of payload. Good luck with that...
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
|
show 19 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34807%2fcould-the-saturn-v-actually-have-launched-astronauts-around-venus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It takes surprisingly little delta-v to reach Venus for a flyby -- about 3850 m/s from LEO instead of the 3200 m/s or so required to get to the moon -- so while the payload would have to be reduced from the normal Apollo mission, it wouldn't have been impossible.
For Apollo 17, if we consider the payload to be the CSM, LM, and LM adapter, the total is 48.6 tons (per Apollo By The Numbers). For a trans-Venusian payload, my calculations say the mass budget comes down to around 31 tons.
That seems a prohibitive reduction, but for Apollo, the payload was largely propellant: lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection on the CSM, descent and ascent for the LM. In total this was about 29 tons of propellant. Since there was no orbital insertion or landing planned, the only propellant needed would be for course correction, aborts, and braking for re-entry. The Bellcomm study proposed 8.6 tons of CSM propellant, dominated by the requirement for an abort within 45 minutes of trans-Venusian injection. With the reduced propellant load and elimination of the Lunar Module, there's enough payload budget to fully equip the living space.
From the diagram in the Wikipedia article, you can see the interior structure of the service module is shortened by about 40% to allow for the propulsion system to be recessed within the original dimensions, allowing more useful volume in the Environmental Support Module below. Eliminating most of the propellant tankage volume makes this possible:
Overall the mission seems feasible. The trans-Venusian spacecraft is somewhat comparable to Skylab, which was also built into an S-IVB-shaped hull. Skylab was a "dry workshop" which never contained propellant; Apollo-Venus would be less roomy because of the separate oxidizer tank and shape of the hydrogen tank, but the hydrogen tank is still about 6 meters across and 10 meters long.
The longest Skylab mission was almost three months; this proposal would take 13 months: 4 months out to Venus and 9 months back! That is a long time for three people to live in an enclosed space, even a fairly roomy one. The Bellcomm study outlines requirements for environmental support; waste water would need to be recycled and oxygen recovered from CO2, neither of which was required by the short Apollo flights.
I'm a little skeptical of the wet workshop concept. Anything that you want to put in the tank at launch has to stand up to liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Radiation exposure over a year-long mission outside of Earth's magnetosphere is also concerning. The Bellcomm study indicates that neither the Apollo CM nor the S-IVB tanks have thick enough shielding for a one-year mission, so additional shielding mass would have to be added to the S-IVB.
All in all it probably wasn't a good idea. It's a huge investment for a three hour crewed flyby; it couldn't accomplish anything that couldn't be done by a few Mariner-type missions.
If you want to do a similar Mars mission, by the way, you need to scrape down another 7200kg of payload. Good luck with that...
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
|
show 19 more comments
$begingroup$
It takes surprisingly little delta-v to reach Venus for a flyby -- about 3850 m/s from LEO instead of the 3200 m/s or so required to get to the moon -- so while the payload would have to be reduced from the normal Apollo mission, it wouldn't have been impossible.
For Apollo 17, if we consider the payload to be the CSM, LM, and LM adapter, the total is 48.6 tons (per Apollo By The Numbers). For a trans-Venusian payload, my calculations say the mass budget comes down to around 31 tons.
That seems a prohibitive reduction, but for Apollo, the payload was largely propellant: lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection on the CSM, descent and ascent for the LM. In total this was about 29 tons of propellant. Since there was no orbital insertion or landing planned, the only propellant needed would be for course correction, aborts, and braking for re-entry. The Bellcomm study proposed 8.6 tons of CSM propellant, dominated by the requirement for an abort within 45 minutes of trans-Venusian injection. With the reduced propellant load and elimination of the Lunar Module, there's enough payload budget to fully equip the living space.
From the diagram in the Wikipedia article, you can see the interior structure of the service module is shortened by about 40% to allow for the propulsion system to be recessed within the original dimensions, allowing more useful volume in the Environmental Support Module below. Eliminating most of the propellant tankage volume makes this possible:
Overall the mission seems feasible. The trans-Venusian spacecraft is somewhat comparable to Skylab, which was also built into an S-IVB-shaped hull. Skylab was a "dry workshop" which never contained propellant; Apollo-Venus would be less roomy because of the separate oxidizer tank and shape of the hydrogen tank, but the hydrogen tank is still about 6 meters across and 10 meters long.
The longest Skylab mission was almost three months; this proposal would take 13 months: 4 months out to Venus and 9 months back! That is a long time for three people to live in an enclosed space, even a fairly roomy one. The Bellcomm study outlines requirements for environmental support; waste water would need to be recycled and oxygen recovered from CO2, neither of which was required by the short Apollo flights.
I'm a little skeptical of the wet workshop concept. Anything that you want to put in the tank at launch has to stand up to liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Radiation exposure over a year-long mission outside of Earth's magnetosphere is also concerning. The Bellcomm study indicates that neither the Apollo CM nor the S-IVB tanks have thick enough shielding for a one-year mission, so additional shielding mass would have to be added to the S-IVB.
All in all it probably wasn't a good idea. It's a huge investment for a three hour crewed flyby; it couldn't accomplish anything that couldn't be done by a few Mariner-type missions.
If you want to do a similar Mars mission, by the way, you need to scrape down another 7200kg of payload. Good luck with that...
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
|
show 19 more comments
$begingroup$
It takes surprisingly little delta-v to reach Venus for a flyby -- about 3850 m/s from LEO instead of the 3200 m/s or so required to get to the moon -- so while the payload would have to be reduced from the normal Apollo mission, it wouldn't have been impossible.
For Apollo 17, if we consider the payload to be the CSM, LM, and LM adapter, the total is 48.6 tons (per Apollo By The Numbers). For a trans-Venusian payload, my calculations say the mass budget comes down to around 31 tons.
That seems a prohibitive reduction, but for Apollo, the payload was largely propellant: lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection on the CSM, descent and ascent for the LM. In total this was about 29 tons of propellant. Since there was no orbital insertion or landing planned, the only propellant needed would be for course correction, aborts, and braking for re-entry. The Bellcomm study proposed 8.6 tons of CSM propellant, dominated by the requirement for an abort within 45 minutes of trans-Venusian injection. With the reduced propellant load and elimination of the Lunar Module, there's enough payload budget to fully equip the living space.
From the diagram in the Wikipedia article, you can see the interior structure of the service module is shortened by about 40% to allow for the propulsion system to be recessed within the original dimensions, allowing more useful volume in the Environmental Support Module below. Eliminating most of the propellant tankage volume makes this possible:
Overall the mission seems feasible. The trans-Venusian spacecraft is somewhat comparable to Skylab, which was also built into an S-IVB-shaped hull. Skylab was a "dry workshop" which never contained propellant; Apollo-Venus would be less roomy because of the separate oxidizer tank and shape of the hydrogen tank, but the hydrogen tank is still about 6 meters across and 10 meters long.
The longest Skylab mission was almost three months; this proposal would take 13 months: 4 months out to Venus and 9 months back! That is a long time for three people to live in an enclosed space, even a fairly roomy one. The Bellcomm study outlines requirements for environmental support; waste water would need to be recycled and oxygen recovered from CO2, neither of which was required by the short Apollo flights.
I'm a little skeptical of the wet workshop concept. Anything that you want to put in the tank at launch has to stand up to liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Radiation exposure over a year-long mission outside of Earth's magnetosphere is also concerning. The Bellcomm study indicates that neither the Apollo CM nor the S-IVB tanks have thick enough shielding for a one-year mission, so additional shielding mass would have to be added to the S-IVB.
All in all it probably wasn't a good idea. It's a huge investment for a three hour crewed flyby; it couldn't accomplish anything that couldn't be done by a few Mariner-type missions.
If you want to do a similar Mars mission, by the way, you need to scrape down another 7200kg of payload. Good luck with that...
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
$endgroup$
It takes surprisingly little delta-v to reach Venus for a flyby -- about 3850 m/s from LEO instead of the 3200 m/s or so required to get to the moon -- so while the payload would have to be reduced from the normal Apollo mission, it wouldn't have been impossible.
For Apollo 17, if we consider the payload to be the CSM, LM, and LM adapter, the total is 48.6 tons (per Apollo By The Numbers). For a trans-Venusian payload, my calculations say the mass budget comes down to around 31 tons.
That seems a prohibitive reduction, but for Apollo, the payload was largely propellant: lunar orbit insertion and trans-Earth injection on the CSM, descent and ascent for the LM. In total this was about 29 tons of propellant. Since there was no orbital insertion or landing planned, the only propellant needed would be for course correction, aborts, and braking for re-entry. The Bellcomm study proposed 8.6 tons of CSM propellant, dominated by the requirement for an abort within 45 minutes of trans-Venusian injection. With the reduced propellant load and elimination of the Lunar Module, there's enough payload budget to fully equip the living space.
From the diagram in the Wikipedia article, you can see the interior structure of the service module is shortened by about 40% to allow for the propulsion system to be recessed within the original dimensions, allowing more useful volume in the Environmental Support Module below. Eliminating most of the propellant tankage volume makes this possible:
Overall the mission seems feasible. The trans-Venusian spacecraft is somewhat comparable to Skylab, which was also built into an S-IVB-shaped hull. Skylab was a "dry workshop" which never contained propellant; Apollo-Venus would be less roomy because of the separate oxidizer tank and shape of the hydrogen tank, but the hydrogen tank is still about 6 meters across and 10 meters long.
The longest Skylab mission was almost three months; this proposal would take 13 months: 4 months out to Venus and 9 months back! That is a long time for three people to live in an enclosed space, even a fairly roomy one. The Bellcomm study outlines requirements for environmental support; waste water would need to be recycled and oxygen recovered from CO2, neither of which was required by the short Apollo flights.
I'm a little skeptical of the wet workshop concept. Anything that you want to put in the tank at launch has to stand up to liquid hydrogen temperatures.
Radiation exposure over a year-long mission outside of Earth's magnetosphere is also concerning. The Bellcomm study indicates that neither the Apollo CM nor the S-IVB tanks have thick enough shielding for a one-year mission, so additional shielding mass would have to be added to the S-IVB.
All in all it probably wasn't a good idea. It's a huge investment for a three hour crewed flyby; it couldn't accomplish anything that couldn't be done by a few Mariner-type missions.
If you want to do a similar Mars mission, by the way, you need to scrape down another 7200kg of payload. Good luck with that...
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
edited 2 days ago
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
answered Mar 14 at 15:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.8k3294377
87.8k3294377
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
|
show 19 more comments
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
2 days ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Malvolio During Apollo, the waste was recovered so, in theory, it could be studied for biomedical concerns. I assume the reasoning was the similar here (except you'd obviously not return an entire year's worth of waste in the command module!). Another issue is that unless you give the waste a pretty strong push, it would drift along beside the ship for the entire flight, which besides being even less pleasant than stowing it, might interfere with star sightings, etc.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It's all megagrams/metric tons/tonnes. I've never gotten into the habit of the longer spelling, but I try to use metric units whenever possible. Most of my computations are back-of-the-envelope stuff where it doesn't matter that much which tons I'm using anyway ;)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Mg reduces ambiguity at the cost of familiarity.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
$begingroup$
@undefined The dense clouds in venus atmosphere prevent seeing the surface from orbit.
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
yesterday
|
show 19 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34807%2fcould-the-saturn-v-actually-have-launched-astronauts-around-venus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Mar 14 at 15:31