Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in ... - The Black Vault

Exploring the Unknown 723
factor, the proposal results in approximately 100 ft/sec increase in LM
descent ΔV capability, which represents an increase of 30 per cent in the
propellant budgeted for landing point redesignation and hover during
descent. The consumables margins could also be increased because of
the shorter separation time.
3. The first landing mission represents a large step from orbital operations.
The descent, landing, EVA, and ascent are new operations in a new environment.
From a training point of view the crew should concentrate
on the crucial, necessary tasks to achieve a safe landing and return. By
not including ALSEP (180 hours of training), the LGI and the erectable
antenna on the first mission, additional training and concentration on
the descent, landing and ascent phases can be accomplished.
4. Our Gemini EVA experience showed that a methodical increase in task
complexity was necessary in order to understand the zero g environment.
The 1/6 g lunar surface environment will be a new experience,
one which cannot be simulated on earth. It seems prudent, therefore,
to plan the lunar EVA sequence in a methodical fashion in increasing
complexity. In this light, it appears that the deployment of ALSEP and
the Lunar Geology Investigation should be deferred to the second mission.
Planning to accomplish these tasks on the first mission and failing
could result in a slower build-up of lunar exploration capability than if
they were deferred to the second mission.
RATIONALE (CON)
Several arguments have been advanced against the proposal:
1. Scientific data from the moon will be lost. The significance of this loss
can only be judged in the context of the magnitude of the follow-on
lunar exploration program. If only two additional flights are authorized,
then the loss would be most significant, as a viable seismic net could not
be established. If there are ten additional flights, the loss may not be
significant.
2. The reduction in scientific return will result in some adverse comments.
The overall significance to manned space flight of these comments can
only be assessed in terms of (1) above.
3. There are serious reservations that, if one one-man EVA is all that we can
commit based on our current state of knowledge, the second flight will
similarly be limited in scope of scientific investigation.
4. The proposed plan may be too conservative at this point in time. If the
flight proves our pessimism was not warranted, then we could be criticized
for not being in a position to capitalize on success.