Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?Did the Apollo lunar module descent stage have a role as a sort of service module?How was reserve fuel calculated for the Apollo missions?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Is true that Armstrong was not designated as first to walk on the moon?Where is the first Lunar soil sample currently located?Could a single crew member fly the Apollo LM?How much mass could the Saturn V rockets have landed on the Moon if nothing was coming back?What was the Apollo service module propellant used for on the LEO missions?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Did the combined Command and Service Module and Lunar Module perform another 180° turn after transposition, docking and extraction?How did the Lunar Module dock with the rest of Apollo 11 and what is the “CSM”?Was there a technical reason why Apollo 10 didn't land on the moon?How long is the Apollo Lunar Module extraction window?

How to get the decimal part of a number in apex

Can you just subtract the challenge rating of friendly NPCs?

Why always 4...dxc6 and not 4...bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez Exchange?

How to make a kid's bike easier to pedal

Convert Numbers To Emoji Math

How do I minimise waste on a flight?

What did Varys actually mean?

Good introductory book to type theory?

In the figure, a quarter circle, a semicircle and a circle are mutually tangent inside a square of side length 2. Find the radius of the circle.

Drug Testing and Prescribed Medications

Bash prompt takes only the first word of a hostname before the dot

What does “two-bit (jerk)” mean?

cd ` command meaning and how to exit it?

My large rocket is still flipping over

Select list elements based on other list

What detail can Hubble see on Mars?

Gift for mentor after his thesis defense?

How do I give a darkroom course without negs from the attendees?

Musical Shape on music stand

Would a legitimized Baratheon have the best claim for the Iron Throne?

Do the Zhentarim fire members for killing fellow members?

Does it make sense to start saving into a 401k, if you might move out of the US before retirement?

While drilling into kitchen wall, hit a wire - any advice?

Make me a minimum magic sum



Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?


Did the Apollo lunar module descent stage have a role as a sort of service module?How was reserve fuel calculated for the Apollo missions?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Is true that Armstrong was not designated as first to walk on the moon?Where is the first Lunar soil sample currently located?Could a single crew member fly the Apollo LM?How much mass could the Saturn V rockets have landed on the Moon if nothing was coming back?What was the Apollo service module propellant used for on the LEO missions?Could the Apollo LM abort mode be engaged after touchdown? What would have happened if it was?Did the combined Command and Service Module and Lunar Module perform another 180° turn after transposition, docking and extraction?How did the Lunar Module dock with the rest of Apollo 11 and what is the “CSM”?Was there a technical reason why Apollo 10 didn't land on the moon?How long is the Apollo Lunar Module extraction window?













19












$begingroup$


We all know the 2 stages LM design used by Grumman was intended to discard the mass of the landing gear (+ other components) at the moment of launching off the Moon surface to reach back the Service module. But was it really necessarily for the LM to have two stages? The reason I wonder is that, when Armstrong landed, there was fuel left for about 25 seconds - however, this was actually 25 s before aborting the landing, not before running out of fuel. After these 25 seconds of burning fuel, the complete LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why did it use two stages? It surely added complexity, weight and a second engine.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    Apr 28 at 2:58






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 3:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Apr 28 at 22:57















19












$begingroup$


We all know the 2 stages LM design used by Grumman was intended to discard the mass of the landing gear (+ other components) at the moment of launching off the Moon surface to reach back the Service module. But was it really necessarily for the LM to have two stages? The reason I wonder is that, when Armstrong landed, there was fuel left for about 25 seconds - however, this was actually 25 s before aborting the landing, not before running out of fuel. After these 25 seconds of burning fuel, the complete LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why did it use two stages? It surely added complexity, weight and a second engine.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    Apr 28 at 2:58






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 3:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Apr 28 at 22:57













19












19








19





$begingroup$


We all know the 2 stages LM design used by Grumman was intended to discard the mass of the landing gear (+ other components) at the moment of launching off the Moon surface to reach back the Service module. But was it really necessarily for the LM to have two stages? The reason I wonder is that, when Armstrong landed, there was fuel left for about 25 seconds - however, this was actually 25 s before aborting the landing, not before running out of fuel. After these 25 seconds of burning fuel, the complete LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why did it use two stages? It surely added complexity, weight and a second engine.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




We all know the 2 stages LM design used by Grumman was intended to discard the mass of the landing gear (+ other components) at the moment of launching off the Moon surface to reach back the Service module. But was it really necessarily for the LM to have two stages? The reason I wonder is that, when Armstrong landed, there was fuel left for about 25 seconds - however, this was actually 25 s before aborting the landing, not before running out of fuel. After these 25 seconds of burning fuel, the complete LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why did it use two stages? It surely added complexity, weight and a second engine.







apollo-program lunar-landing lunar-module






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 28 at 15:44









Dr Sheldon

6,07322255




6,07322255










asked Apr 28 at 2:05









MathiasMathias

17616




17616







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    Apr 28 at 2:58






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 3:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Apr 28 at 22:57












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:23






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
    $endgroup$
    – GremlinWranger
    Apr 28 at 2:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
    $endgroup$
    – Bob Jacobsen
    Apr 28 at 2:58






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 3:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Apr 28 at 22:57







3




3




$begingroup$
Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
$endgroup$
– GremlinWranger
Apr 28 at 2:23




$begingroup$
Do you have a reference for the ascent stage having enough fuel to return to orbit? Every source I have seen talks about the criticality of the ascent stage working because there were no other options. including sub optimal performance choices for better reliability and design of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems. AFAIK the abort at 25 seconds involved firing the separation bolts and dumping the descent stage.
$endgroup$
– GremlinWranger
Apr 28 at 2:23




1




1




$begingroup$
related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
$endgroup$
– GremlinWranger
Apr 28 at 2:37




$begingroup$
related ahttps://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-was-reserve-fuel-calculated-for-the-apollo-missions/30208#30208. Looks like descent module was designed to land with about 1.8% of the fuel it started out with.
$endgroup$
– GremlinWranger
Apr 28 at 2:37




1




1




$begingroup$
See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
Apr 28 at 2:58




$begingroup$
See this previous question for clarity about LEM abort modes. space.stackexchange.com/questions/21686 There’s more than one, but none of them get back to orbit on descent stage engine only
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
Apr 28 at 2:58




8




8




$begingroup$
"So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 3:46




$begingroup$
"So aborting the landing would have meant going back to the service module with the LM in its complete configuration." -- why do you think that?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 3:46




1




1




$begingroup$
I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 28 at 22:57




$begingroup$
I've tried this in KPS; combining the LEM and CSM, losing the escape system and the need for any rendezvous. It was a +300 ton 500 billion dollar cake dream of imaginary structural engineering that should not have survived reentry.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
Apr 28 at 22:57










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















39












$begingroup$


After these 25 second would have ended, the LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why using two stages which surely added complexity, weight and a second engine?




Your assumption is not correct. Aborting from the "bingo" (low fuel) call would have required the ascent stage to be used. The stages can be separated, and the ascent engine fired, while in flight; this was demonstrated on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.



Because there would be a brief delay between staging and the ascent stage coming up to full thrust, the safest way to abort in this case would be to take the descent stage to full thrust to gain altitude and vertical speed, then stage and activate the ascent stage engine once the descent stage fuel was exhausted.



The ascent from lunar surface to rendezvous orbit took about 7 minutes on the ascent stage; there was nowhere near enough fuel in the descent stage to do that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:32










  • $begingroup$
    In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 10:17











  • $begingroup$
    @Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 14:50










  • $begingroup$
    Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Apr 30 at 20:16


















20












$begingroup$

Early conceptual designs suggested that two stages would save weight. Another issue came up that made a single-stage lander unreliable.



Pressurizing the fuel and oxidizer tanks of the lunar module was a considerable engineering challenge. Because of the temperature changes that happen during launch and Earth orbit, the tanks were kept unpressurized until right before they were needed. At that time, the astronauts would fire some explosive valves (i.e. you can open them but never close them again) which would release a small amount of supercritical helium to pressurize the tanks.



Development and testing of the LM pressurization system took 6 years and had a lot of problems. The fuel froze, so they added a heat exchanger. A test article exploded, so they had to change the alloy used in the heat exchanger. The pressure regulator cracked. You were supposed to be able to raise or lower the thrust of the descent engine; the pressurization system wasn't compatible with that, so there was another re-design. Another heat exchanger was added. The descent engine shut down prematurely on Apollo 5. It was under-pressured on Apollo 9. When Apollo 11 dumped their excess descent fuel, the fuel lines froze and over-pressurized.



Suffice to say, once you've popped the valves on the LM pressurization system, you have a few hours to use the engine before it becomes unreliable. This was enough time to land on the moon, but not reliable enough to last several days on the moon. A one-stage craft is just too risky. Instead, the ascent stage had its own fuel and pressurization system. (Apollo 13 took the risk of reusing the descent engine, and was lucky.)



The Soviets designed a manned lunar lander, the LK. To save weight, it would have had a single engine for descent and ascent. However, it still would have left some parts behind on the moon.



Soviet LK






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:09










  • $begingroup$
    Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
    $endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Apr 28 at 16:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 29 at 2:10


















0












$begingroup$

You all seem to have far greater scientific background than I, so please forgive my input if it's too basic. My father was one of the people responsible for the electrical systems (life support), and from what I remember him telling me the reason for the two stage system really came down to two things: minimizing weight on ascension (meaning less fuel was needed) and the fact that there were just too many uncertainties about what they would find out about the moons surface once they got there. They needed to account for excessive sinking/tilt whatever. The best way to overcome this was to bring your own launch platform with you that could compensate for this.
Finally it was the simple fact that that whole landing system was not needed after liftoff. Jettisoning almost half the mass of the ship gave them the extra room for ascent and rondevius.
As a personal observation I would wonder if the top of the ship would have had the integrity to survive liftoff with the gear still attached. Those walls were paper thin.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Apr 30 at 15:50











Your Answer








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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35798%2fwas-it-really-necessary-for-the-lunar-module-to-have-2-stages%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









39












$begingroup$


After these 25 second would have ended, the LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why using two stages which surely added complexity, weight and a second engine?




Your assumption is not correct. Aborting from the "bingo" (low fuel) call would have required the ascent stage to be used. The stages can be separated, and the ascent engine fired, while in flight; this was demonstrated on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.



Because there would be a brief delay between staging and the ascent stage coming up to full thrust, the safest way to abort in this case would be to take the descent stage to full thrust to gain altitude and vertical speed, then stage and activate the ascent stage engine once the descent stage fuel was exhausted.



The ascent from lunar surface to rendezvous orbit took about 7 minutes on the ascent stage; there was nowhere near enough fuel in the descent stage to do that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:32










  • $begingroup$
    In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 10:17











  • $begingroup$
    @Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 14:50










  • $begingroup$
    Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Apr 30 at 20:16















39












$begingroup$


After these 25 second would have ended, the LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why using two stages which surely added complexity, weight and a second engine?




Your assumption is not correct. Aborting from the "bingo" (low fuel) call would have required the ascent stage to be used. The stages can be separated, and the ascent engine fired, while in flight; this was demonstrated on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.



Because there would be a brief delay between staging and the ascent stage coming up to full thrust, the safest way to abort in this case would be to take the descent stage to full thrust to gain altitude and vertical speed, then stage and activate the ascent stage engine once the descent stage fuel was exhausted.



The ascent from lunar surface to rendezvous orbit took about 7 minutes on the ascent stage; there was nowhere near enough fuel in the descent stage to do that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:32










  • $begingroup$
    In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 10:17











  • $begingroup$
    @Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 14:50










  • $begingroup$
    Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Apr 30 at 20:16













39












39








39





$begingroup$


After these 25 second would have ended, the LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why using two stages which surely added complexity, weight and a second engine?




Your assumption is not correct. Aborting from the "bingo" (low fuel) call would have required the ascent stage to be used. The stages can be separated, and the ascent engine fired, while in flight; this was demonstrated on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.



Because there would be a brief delay between staging and the ascent stage coming up to full thrust, the safest way to abort in this case would be to take the descent stage to full thrust to gain altitude and vertical speed, then stage and activate the ascent stage engine once the descent stage fuel was exhausted.



The ascent from lunar surface to rendezvous orbit took about 7 minutes on the ascent stage; there was nowhere near enough fuel in the descent stage to do that.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$




After these 25 second would have ended, the LM still had enough fuel to ascend with both of its stages right back to the Service module. In other words, the LM was designed to be able to take off from the Moon surface with BOTH stages, even right after touching the surface, in case something would have gone wrong. Then, why using two stages which surely added complexity, weight and a second engine?




Your assumption is not correct. Aborting from the "bingo" (low fuel) call would have required the ascent stage to be used. The stages can be separated, and the ascent engine fired, while in flight; this was demonstrated on Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.



Because there would be a brief delay between staging and the ascent stage coming up to full thrust, the safest way to abort in this case would be to take the descent stage to full thrust to gain altitude and vertical speed, then stage and activate the ascent stage engine once the descent stage fuel was exhausted.



The ascent from lunar surface to rendezvous orbit took about 7 minutes on the ascent stage; there was nowhere near enough fuel in the descent stage to do that.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 28 at 4:09

























answered Apr 28 at 3:36









Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove

91.3k3305389




91.3k3305389







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:32










  • $begingroup$
    In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 10:17











  • $begingroup$
    @Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 14:50










  • $begingroup$
    Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Apr 30 at 20:16












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:32










  • $begingroup$
    In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 10:17











  • $begingroup$
    @Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 14:50










  • $begingroup$
    Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 18:08










  • $begingroup$
    And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Apr 30 at 20:16







1




1




$begingroup$
Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:32




$begingroup$
Thanks, I've now read a little about the Abort Stage sequence which describes this procedure, with the descent stage being jettisoned near the Moon surface, then ascent stage would ignite while in flight (surely very challenging) and ascent back. Very interesting. The Apollo 10 did just that - only from much high above Moon's surface. Also interesting there was a 'dead man's zone' at low altitude where this procedure would have not been possible - so there were only land or crash alternatives at such altitude. Very interesting, if someone has links with this procedure please share.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:32












$begingroup$
In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 10:17





$begingroup$
In comparison, it seems the Russian lunar module, the LK, used a single engine/fuel tanks configuration for descent and ascent, while still leaving on the Moon surface the landing gear assembly. Basically, it was a single stage module design. Perhaps a simpler design, compared with the LM who had dual engines/tanks and systems, one for each of the two stages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 10:17













$begingroup$
@Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 14:50




$begingroup$
@Mathias: The LK design requires the ascent to carry all the batteries, oxygen and water tanks, propellant tankage needed only for descent, etc. This is OK for short lunar stays, but it wouldn't scale well to the 3-day stays of the later Apollo flights. Being able to leave behind equipment needed to support the surface stay was a huge advantage for the two-stage LM. (Note that LK did have two engines -- one was a pure redundant backup.)
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 14:50












$begingroup$
Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 18:08




$begingroup$
Indeed, there were major differences for the mission profiles between the LK and LM, plus the LK was designed to carry very little scientific experiments on the Moon surface. Thanks for the great explanations Russel.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 18:08












$begingroup$
And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 30 at 20:16




$begingroup$
And even if it was possible to get back with both stages, there would have been no way for the descent stage to survive re-entry. So there would have been no point in doing so.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Apr 30 at 20:16











20












$begingroup$

Early conceptual designs suggested that two stages would save weight. Another issue came up that made a single-stage lander unreliable.



Pressurizing the fuel and oxidizer tanks of the lunar module was a considerable engineering challenge. Because of the temperature changes that happen during launch and Earth orbit, the tanks were kept unpressurized until right before they were needed. At that time, the astronauts would fire some explosive valves (i.e. you can open them but never close them again) which would release a small amount of supercritical helium to pressurize the tanks.



Development and testing of the LM pressurization system took 6 years and had a lot of problems. The fuel froze, so they added a heat exchanger. A test article exploded, so they had to change the alloy used in the heat exchanger. The pressure regulator cracked. You were supposed to be able to raise or lower the thrust of the descent engine; the pressurization system wasn't compatible with that, so there was another re-design. Another heat exchanger was added. The descent engine shut down prematurely on Apollo 5. It was under-pressured on Apollo 9. When Apollo 11 dumped their excess descent fuel, the fuel lines froze and over-pressurized.



Suffice to say, once you've popped the valves on the LM pressurization system, you have a few hours to use the engine before it becomes unreliable. This was enough time to land on the moon, but not reliable enough to last several days on the moon. A one-stage craft is just too risky. Instead, the ascent stage had its own fuel and pressurization system. (Apollo 13 took the risk of reusing the descent engine, and was lucky.)



The Soviets designed a manned lunar lander, the LK. To save weight, it would have had a single engine for descent and ascent. However, it still would have left some parts behind on the moon.



Soviet LK






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:09










  • $begingroup$
    Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
    $endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Apr 28 at 16:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 29 at 2:10















20












$begingroup$

Early conceptual designs suggested that two stages would save weight. Another issue came up that made a single-stage lander unreliable.



Pressurizing the fuel and oxidizer tanks of the lunar module was a considerable engineering challenge. Because of the temperature changes that happen during launch and Earth orbit, the tanks were kept unpressurized until right before they were needed. At that time, the astronauts would fire some explosive valves (i.e. you can open them but never close them again) which would release a small amount of supercritical helium to pressurize the tanks.



Development and testing of the LM pressurization system took 6 years and had a lot of problems. The fuel froze, so they added a heat exchanger. A test article exploded, so they had to change the alloy used in the heat exchanger. The pressure regulator cracked. You were supposed to be able to raise or lower the thrust of the descent engine; the pressurization system wasn't compatible with that, so there was another re-design. Another heat exchanger was added. The descent engine shut down prematurely on Apollo 5. It was under-pressured on Apollo 9. When Apollo 11 dumped their excess descent fuel, the fuel lines froze and over-pressurized.



Suffice to say, once you've popped the valves on the LM pressurization system, you have a few hours to use the engine before it becomes unreliable. This was enough time to land on the moon, but not reliable enough to last several days on the moon. A one-stage craft is just too risky. Instead, the ascent stage had its own fuel and pressurization system. (Apollo 13 took the risk of reusing the descent engine, and was lucky.)



The Soviets designed a manned lunar lander, the LK. To save weight, it would have had a single engine for descent and ascent. However, it still would have left some parts behind on the moon.



Soviet LK






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:09










  • $begingroup$
    Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
    $endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Apr 28 at 16:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 29 at 2:10













20












20








20





$begingroup$

Early conceptual designs suggested that two stages would save weight. Another issue came up that made a single-stage lander unreliable.



Pressurizing the fuel and oxidizer tanks of the lunar module was a considerable engineering challenge. Because of the temperature changes that happen during launch and Earth orbit, the tanks were kept unpressurized until right before they were needed. At that time, the astronauts would fire some explosive valves (i.e. you can open them but never close them again) which would release a small amount of supercritical helium to pressurize the tanks.



Development and testing of the LM pressurization system took 6 years and had a lot of problems. The fuel froze, so they added a heat exchanger. A test article exploded, so they had to change the alloy used in the heat exchanger. The pressure regulator cracked. You were supposed to be able to raise or lower the thrust of the descent engine; the pressurization system wasn't compatible with that, so there was another re-design. Another heat exchanger was added. The descent engine shut down prematurely on Apollo 5. It was under-pressured on Apollo 9. When Apollo 11 dumped their excess descent fuel, the fuel lines froze and over-pressurized.



Suffice to say, once you've popped the valves on the LM pressurization system, you have a few hours to use the engine before it becomes unreliable. This was enough time to land on the moon, but not reliable enough to last several days on the moon. A one-stage craft is just too risky. Instead, the ascent stage had its own fuel and pressurization system. (Apollo 13 took the risk of reusing the descent engine, and was lucky.)



The Soviets designed a manned lunar lander, the LK. To save weight, it would have had a single engine for descent and ascent. However, it still would have left some parts behind on the moon.



Soviet LK






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Early conceptual designs suggested that two stages would save weight. Another issue came up that made a single-stage lander unreliable.



Pressurizing the fuel and oxidizer tanks of the lunar module was a considerable engineering challenge. Because of the temperature changes that happen during launch and Earth orbit, the tanks were kept unpressurized until right before they were needed. At that time, the astronauts would fire some explosive valves (i.e. you can open them but never close them again) which would release a small amount of supercritical helium to pressurize the tanks.



Development and testing of the LM pressurization system took 6 years and had a lot of problems. The fuel froze, so they added a heat exchanger. A test article exploded, so they had to change the alloy used in the heat exchanger. The pressure regulator cracked. You were supposed to be able to raise or lower the thrust of the descent engine; the pressurization system wasn't compatible with that, so there was another re-design. Another heat exchanger was added. The descent engine shut down prematurely on Apollo 5. It was under-pressured on Apollo 9. When Apollo 11 dumped their excess descent fuel, the fuel lines froze and over-pressurized.



Suffice to say, once you've popped the valves on the LM pressurization system, you have a few hours to use the engine before it becomes unreliable. This was enough time to land on the moon, but not reliable enough to last several days on the moon. A one-stage craft is just too risky. Instead, the ascent stage had its own fuel and pressurization system. (Apollo 13 took the risk of reusing the descent engine, and was lucky.)



The Soviets designed a manned lunar lander, the LK. To save weight, it would have had a single engine for descent and ascent. However, it still would have left some parts behind on the moon.



Soviet LK







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 28 at 7:01









Dr SheldonDr Sheldon

6,07322255




6,07322255







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:09










  • $begingroup$
    Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
    $endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Apr 28 at 16:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 29 at 2:10












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:09










  • $begingroup$
    Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
    $endgroup$
    – Mathias
    Apr 28 at 9:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
    $endgroup$
    – Anthony X
    Apr 28 at 16:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 28 at 18:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Apr 29 at 2:10







1




1




$begingroup$
These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:09




$begingroup$
These are many interesting technical details. We don't have much information on the LM design and testing challenges, but I'm sure there was some unprecedented engineering efforts put into this space ship. On the risk factor, you are suggesting that one of the reasons for a two stages LM was reducing the risk of failure (increasing reliability). From an engineering point of view, I feel that adding complementary instead of redundancy systems, actually increases the odds of system and consequently mission failure. Of course, only my suppositions.
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:09












$begingroup$
Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:46




$begingroup$
Also worth adding that the Russian lunar module (acronym-ed NK) was initially designed to carry only one astronaut, at 1/3 the LM total weight. Several NK were built, there are 5 still existing. There are several very interesting design/concept differences between the NK and the LM, on the Wiki page at the bottom en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_(spacecraft)
$endgroup$
– Mathias
Apr 28 at 9:46




1




1




$begingroup$
Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
$endgroup$
– Anthony X
Apr 28 at 16:11





$begingroup$
Worth mentioning? Apollo/Saturn only had two engines for which mission profiles required restarts: the Saturn 3rd stage (S-IVB) and the Apollo SM. The 3rd stage fired initially to complete LEO insertion, fired again for TLI. The SM engine fired for lunar orbit insertion, again to depart lunar orbit for Earth return, but also fired en-route to/from the Moon for course corrections. Among numerous technical challenges would have been: short-term storability of the 3rd stage LH/LOX propellants, an ignition system to effect 3rd stage restart, and ullage for all those zero-g starts.
$endgroup$
– Anthony X
Apr 28 at 16:11





2




2




$begingroup$
@AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 18:31




$begingroup$
@AnthonyX LM descent engine also fired twice normally — a 30-second burn (“descent orbit insertion”) to lower pericynthion, then the ~12 minute powered descent burn beginning almost an hour later.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 28 at 18:31




1




1




$begingroup$
@Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 29 at 2:10




$begingroup$
@Hohmannfan It actually was done that way, sort of, on the later Apollo missions, to accommodate the weight of the extra equipment like the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The CSM would burn the first descent orbit insertion burn, the LM would separate, and the CSM would then recircularize. The CSM had way more capability than it really needed for the moon landings, because it had been designed for direct ascent.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Apr 29 at 2:10











0












$begingroup$

You all seem to have far greater scientific background than I, so please forgive my input if it's too basic. My father was one of the people responsible for the electrical systems (life support), and from what I remember him telling me the reason for the two stage system really came down to two things: minimizing weight on ascension (meaning less fuel was needed) and the fact that there were just too many uncertainties about what they would find out about the moons surface once they got there. They needed to account for excessive sinking/tilt whatever. The best way to overcome this was to bring your own launch platform with you that could compensate for this.
Finally it was the simple fact that that whole landing system was not needed after liftoff. Jettisoning almost half the mass of the ship gave them the extra room for ascent and rondevius.
As a personal observation I would wonder if the top of the ship would have had the integrity to survive liftoff with the gear still attached. Those walls were paper thin.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Apr 30 at 15:50















0












$begingroup$

You all seem to have far greater scientific background than I, so please forgive my input if it's too basic. My father was one of the people responsible for the electrical systems (life support), and from what I remember him telling me the reason for the two stage system really came down to two things: minimizing weight on ascension (meaning less fuel was needed) and the fact that there were just too many uncertainties about what they would find out about the moons surface once they got there. They needed to account for excessive sinking/tilt whatever. The best way to overcome this was to bring your own launch platform with you that could compensate for this.
Finally it was the simple fact that that whole landing system was not needed after liftoff. Jettisoning almost half the mass of the ship gave them the extra room for ascent and rondevius.
As a personal observation I would wonder if the top of the ship would have had the integrity to survive liftoff with the gear still attached. Those walls were paper thin.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Apr 30 at 15:50













0












0








0





$begingroup$

You all seem to have far greater scientific background than I, so please forgive my input if it's too basic. My father was one of the people responsible for the electrical systems (life support), and from what I remember him telling me the reason for the two stage system really came down to two things: minimizing weight on ascension (meaning less fuel was needed) and the fact that there were just too many uncertainties about what they would find out about the moons surface once they got there. They needed to account for excessive sinking/tilt whatever. The best way to overcome this was to bring your own launch platform with you that could compensate for this.
Finally it was the simple fact that that whole landing system was not needed after liftoff. Jettisoning almost half the mass of the ship gave them the extra room for ascent and rondevius.
As a personal observation I would wonder if the top of the ship would have had the integrity to survive liftoff with the gear still attached. Those walls were paper thin.






share|improve this answer








New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$



You all seem to have far greater scientific background than I, so please forgive my input if it's too basic. My father was one of the people responsible for the electrical systems (life support), and from what I remember him telling me the reason for the two stage system really came down to two things: minimizing weight on ascension (meaning less fuel was needed) and the fact that there were just too many uncertainties about what they would find out about the moons surface once they got there. They needed to account for excessive sinking/tilt whatever. The best way to overcome this was to bring your own launch platform with you that could compensate for this.
Finally it was the simple fact that that whole landing system was not needed after liftoff. Jettisoning almost half the mass of the ship gave them the extra room for ascent and rondevius.
As a personal observation I would wonder if the top of the ship would have had the integrity to survive liftoff with the gear still attached. Those walls were paper thin.







share|improve this answer








New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








answered Apr 30 at 10:34









PzombleyPzombley

1




1




New contributor



Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Pzombley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • $begingroup$
    If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Apr 30 at 15:50
















  • $begingroup$
    If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
    $endgroup$
    – JCRM
    Apr 30 at 15:50















$begingroup$
If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
$endgroup$
– JCRM
Apr 30 at 15:50




$begingroup$
If it could survive landing, it could survive take off.
$endgroup$
– JCRM
Apr 30 at 15:50

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35798%2fwas-it-really-necessary-for-the-lunar-module-to-have-2-stages%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

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







Popular posts from this blog

How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

Esgonzo ibérico Índice Descrición Distribución Hábitat Ameazas Notas Véxase tamén "Acerca dos nomes dos anfibios e réptiles galegos""Chalcides bedriagai"Chalcides bedriagai en Carrascal, L. M. Salvador, A. (Eds). Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. España.Fotos