🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
<
<The last was probably a good thing. I remember as a kid thinking that if I was
<on 10's flight, I would have gotten some printouts before leaving of what
<information would be needed to land and revendevous later, and gone ahead and
<landed. So what if I would've been court-martialed....Just imagine what the
<temptation would have been like if a landing and return had been possible.
<
>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]