Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?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?
Russian cases: A few examples, I'm really confused
Can hydraulic brake levers get hot when brakes overheat?
Know when to turn notes upside-down(eighth notes, sixteen notes, etc.)
Rejected in the fourth interview round, citing insufficient years of experience
Is it true that real estate prices mainly go up?
Does this AnyDice function accurately calculate the number of ogres you make unconcious with three 4th-level castings of Sleep?
Why must traveling waves have the same amplitude to form a standing wave?
PlotLabels with equations not expressions
Welcoming 2019 Pi day: How to draw the letter π?
What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
Force user to remove USB token
Why would a flight no longer considered airworthy be redirected like this?
Making a sword in the stone, in a medieval world without magic
Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day
Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly release notes?
How to simplify this time periods definition interface?
Instead of Universal Basic Income, why not Universal Basic NEEDS?
What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?
How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?
Is having access to past exams cheating and, if yes, could it be proven just by a good grade?
Fantasy series where a Vietnam vet is transported to a fantasy land
How to deal with a cynical class?
Solar Flare disabling Nuclear Weapon defenses?
Define, (actually define) the "stability" and "energy" of a compound
Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?
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 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
$endgroup$
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 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago
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 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
$endgroup$
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 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
asked 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
asked 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
asked 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
asked 21 hours ago
PearsonArtPhoto♦PearsonArtPhoto
83k16236454
83k16236454
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago
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 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
|
show 11 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 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
|
show 11 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 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
|
show 11 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 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
$endgroup$
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 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
edited 13 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
answered 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
answered 19 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
87.5k3293377
87.5k3293377
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
Reading that Bellcomm study is...interesting. Written before any Apollo missions had flown.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
18 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
A good assessment. Risky, expensive and no point.
$endgroup$
– GdD
17 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@OrganicMarble I only skimmed it. Did anything in particular stand out for you beyond "uh yeah need more radiation shielding"?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
17 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
How much kg of food on average does an ISS astronaut consume per day? A ~year long mission this may actually be substantial for N people. That's my only outstanding thought after reading another of your awesome answers :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
15 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MagicOctopusUrn That and other consumables questions are addressed in the Bellcomm study. Not only did they plan to carry a year’s worth of freeze dried food, they planned to stow a year’s worth of solid waste... 😫
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
14 hours ago
|
show 11 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
$begingroup$
That is why Venus instead of Mars, but still, it is interesting to think about...
$endgroup$
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
19 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
The linear distance at close approach is misleading; space trajectories don't work that way.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
19 hours ago