Editing Talk:Project Apollo for Orbiter

==Naming==

I'm not sure whether the main page should be NASSP with a redirect from 'Project Apollo for Orbiter', or the other way around. For the moment I've left this page as NASSP and added the redirect. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 06:20, 16 August 2006 (MSD)

== Saturn 1B ==

Text orginally said the Saturn 1B was used for Apollo 11.  Changed it to read Apollo 7

== NASSP 5 ==

Done about as much as I can for the moment :). If anyone has relevant NASSP 5.x screenshots (e.g. Skylab), feel free to add them, I spent a while playing with config files and scenario files but couldn't get it to work on Orbiter 2006. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 18:01, 19 August 2006 (MSD)
:Great job! Would you also like to create a [[NASSP/precis]] and add it to [[OrbiterWiki:Random addon]] so that it can be displayed on the main page? See [[DeltaGliderIII/precis]] for an example. --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 01:05, 20 August 2006 (MSD)
:: OK, I've done a very basic version. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 02:55, 20 August 2006 (MSD)
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 I'm not sure whether the main page should be NASSP with a redirect from 'Project Apollo for Orbiter', or the other way around. For the moment I've left this page as NASSP and added the redirect. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 06:20, 16 August 2006 (MSD)
-: I see it's been moved, probably a good idea :). [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 04:22, 23 September 2006 (MSD)
-::I just thought if you plan to go for "Project Apollo for Orbiter '''1.0'''", this brand dominates over the earlier NASSP brand. If i am wrong, just tell me. I hope the redirects don't confuse any new users who heard of NASSP, if the project is really going for the new name, some more advertizement might be wise. --[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 05:26, 23 September 2006 (MSD)
 == Saturn 1B ==
@@ Line 15: / Line 11: @@
 Done about as much as I can for the moment :). If anyone has relevant NASSP 5.x screenshots (e.g. Skylab), feel free to add them, I spent a while playing with config files and scenario files but couldn't get it to work on Orbiter 2006. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 18:01, 19 August 2006 (MSD)
 :Great job! Would you also like to create a [[NASSP/precis]] and add it to [[OrbiterWiki:Random addon]] so that it can be displayed on the main page? See [[DeltaGliderIII/precis]] for an example. --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 01:05, 20 August 2006 (MSD)
-:: OK, I've done a very basic version. I'm not quite sure what I need to do to add it to the random addon system. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 02:55, 20 August 2006 (MSD)
+:: OK, I've done a very basic version. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 02:55, 20 August 2006 (MSD)
-==Are there sources for military LM missions?==
-Hi,
-I am particularly intrigued by planned usage of LM for damaging soviet satellites and to lighten up Vietnamese jungle. Can you cite the sources for it pls?
-And, what a mission profile would be? (a) launch the full CSM+LM+3rd_Saturn_stage for the first satellite, then 3rd Saturn burn for one or few more, then an excursion in a LM for yet more satellites? What a total delta-V of that mission would be? How many satellites could a single mission disable?
-Piotr
-::I think its related to the '''Apollo Applications Program (AAP)''', which initially planned to develop also the Skylab ''Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM)'' based on a modified LM ascent stage, but didn't realize this plan for Skylab, when it was clear that it was going to be launched as a dry workshop with a Saturn V. I have not found a NASA document describing it, but it sounds at least plausible for the '''AAP''' context.But it could also have been just a political hoax.
-::Assuming the already pretty huge maneuver budget of the LM it could at least deal with up to 5 coplanar satellites before having to return to the CSM (but such constellations did not exist until the 1980s). When it is modified and launched with a higher propellant mass (instead of the ascent stage), it could also do some minor plane changes in high earth orbits. Yes, that means that it was not economically at all. maybe a reason why this concept never even left the proposal state. Similar are the mirror concepts - too expensive compared to other hardware --[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 00:52, 24 April 2007 (MSD)
-: I think it would probably have used a Saturn 1b, or possibly a Saturn INT-20. With a cut-down SM (e.g. greatly reduced fuel tanks as they only needed a small amount of fuel for re-entry) they could probably launch a LEM on a Saturn 1b, if not they certainly could on an INT-20. [[User:Mark Grant|Mark Grant]] 01:41, 17 December 2007 (MSK)