Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Apollo 8, 9, and 10 Message-ID: <28853@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 19 Jul 89 20:56:11 GMT References: <377@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp> <4481acbf.b097@shadow.engin.umich.edu> Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center Lines: 36 In article <4481acbf.b097@shadow.engin.umich.edu> tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes: >In article <1989Jul19.005449.3163@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: <> There was some discussion about whether Apollo 10 was really needed; why <> get to within 10 miles of the lunar surface and then go home? But a lot <> of people felt that an all-up test, including a real lunar-orbit rendezvous, <> was a good idea before landing. What finally settled the matter was that <> Apollo 10's LM was overweight and could not have flown a complete landing <> mission. < tyg tyg@caen.engin.umich.edu Problem is, what would you have done once you reached the surface? Apollo 10 carried no proper EVA equipment, no scientific packages. All the crew could have done was to land, lookaround and leave (assuming they could have taken off). They probably had some emergency portable oxygen system in the case they had to perform an EVA in order to get back to the CM due to a docking malfunction. As I remember, Tom Stafford was himself asked if Apollo 10 should have been the landing, and he said no, the LM needed further testing. *** mike (still looking for a publisher) smithwick *** "Los Angeles : Where neon goes to die" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]