Apollo to Venus
Discussion
Apparently considered in 1973
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.g...
Would have been something quite special.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.g...
Would have been something quite special.
Thought it was earlier?
It crops up here and there in the various books. Seems a tad risky I thought given the duration. But then I am not a rocket scientist.
Edit. Thought I read sommit about it
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/...
From
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/cover.html
It crops up here and there in the various books. Seems a tad risky I thought given the duration. But then I am not a rocket scientist.
Edit. Thought I read sommit about it
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/...
From
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/cover.html
Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 28th March 20:06
I think the fact that the report was published mere days after the fire which killed the three Apollo 1 astronauts would have knocked this plan on the head pretty much instantly.
We now know that such a mission would not have achieved much, apart from spectacularness, which, in 1967, might have seemed a good enough reason for attempting it.
We now know that such a mission would not have achieved much, apart from spectacularness, which, in 1967, might have seemed a good enough reason for attempting it.
qube_TA said:
I'm all for the odd spectacularness.
I found the level of detail and all the calcs in the report quite interesting though. I wonder how often someone at NASA (or similar) is commissioned to plan for a program that's almost no chance of ever happening.
In 1967, there would have been a higher chance of a mission like this going ahead than later.I found the level of detail and all the calcs in the report quite interesting though. I wonder how often someone at NASA (or similar) is commissioned to plan for a program that's almost no chance of ever happening.
At this time, NASA were looking at possible post Apollo Applications - in other words - post lunar landing programmes that would make use of Apollo technology. There were all sorts of suggestions. Only two projects actually happened - Skylab in 1973/74 and the Apollo/Soyuz mission in 1975.
I think Venus would always have been (and still is) a non-starter for a manned flight - even for a fly by or orbit only mission.
By 1967 we had enough information to know that no one was going to see anything and the atmospheric and surface conditions were far too hostile for any sort of descent into teh atmosphere.
NASA did some very good Venus work with Pioneer Venus 1 and 2 and with Magellan in 1986.
The Russians also found out a lot with various Venera probes starting in 1967.
All unmanned, of course.
By 1967 we had enough information to know that no one was going to see anything and the atmospheric and surface conditions were far too hostile for any sort of descent into teh atmosphere.
NASA did some very good Venus work with Pioneer Venus 1 and 2 and with Magellan in 1986.
The Russians also found out a lot with various Venera probes starting in 1967.
All unmanned, of course.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff