Was there fuel consumption budgeting for Apollo 11 Lunar module?












7














Did the astronauts aboard Apollo 11's Lunar Module have any stated or imposed limitation or restriction on the amount of fuel they could use while in lunar orbit and performing landing maneuvers? I am asking this question because of following possibilities which I could imagine:




  1. They could have ran out of fuel (because of excessive maneuvering during descent) from descent stage before actual touchdown and consequently touch down at higher speed.


  2. Similarly running out of fuel while ascend, and eventually unable to dock with CSM.



Were there any instructions or schedules for fuel tank swapping or consuming from a specific tank?










share|improve this question
























  • I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
    – uhoh
    9 hours ago
















7














Did the astronauts aboard Apollo 11's Lunar Module have any stated or imposed limitation or restriction on the amount of fuel they could use while in lunar orbit and performing landing maneuvers? I am asking this question because of following possibilities which I could imagine:




  1. They could have ran out of fuel (because of excessive maneuvering during descent) from descent stage before actual touchdown and consequently touch down at higher speed.


  2. Similarly running out of fuel while ascend, and eventually unable to dock with CSM.



Were there any instructions or schedules for fuel tank swapping or consuming from a specific tank?










share|improve this question
























  • I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
    – uhoh
    9 hours ago














7












7








7


1





Did the astronauts aboard Apollo 11's Lunar Module have any stated or imposed limitation or restriction on the amount of fuel they could use while in lunar orbit and performing landing maneuvers? I am asking this question because of following possibilities which I could imagine:




  1. They could have ran out of fuel (because of excessive maneuvering during descent) from descent stage before actual touchdown and consequently touch down at higher speed.


  2. Similarly running out of fuel while ascend, and eventually unable to dock with CSM.



Were there any instructions or schedules for fuel tank swapping or consuming from a specific tank?










share|improve this question















Did the astronauts aboard Apollo 11's Lunar Module have any stated or imposed limitation or restriction on the amount of fuel they could use while in lunar orbit and performing landing maneuvers? I am asking this question because of following possibilities which I could imagine:




  1. They could have ran out of fuel (because of excessive maneuvering during descent) from descent stage before actual touchdown and consequently touch down at higher speed.


  2. Similarly running out of fuel while ascend, and eventually unable to dock with CSM.



Were there any instructions or schedules for fuel tank swapping or consuming from a specific tank?







apollo-program fuel lunar-landing lunar-module






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









uhoh

34.3k17117429




34.3k17117429










asked 10 hours ago









Niranjan

14016




14016












  • I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
    – uhoh
    9 hours ago


















  • I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
    – uhoh
    9 hours ago
















I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
– uhoh
9 hours ago




I've made some small edits for grammar, can you double check that I haven't accidentally modified the meaning of your question? Please feel free to edit further.
– uhoh
9 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















15














The Apollo LM had three independent propellant supplies: tankage in the descent stage usable by the descent engine, tankage in the ascent stage for the ascent engine, and in the ascent stage for the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.



Prior to the initiation of descent and landing, only the RCS would be used, and very little of it.



During the descent, fuel quantity was carefully monitored. There was a low-level threshold (5% of total tankage) which would illuminate a fuel quantity light in the LM cabin; once that light came on, mission control started a 90-second countdown to a "bingo" call, meaning a fuel-critical state. At the "bingo" call, the mission rules specified that the LM had to touch down in the next 20 seconds or abort. This gave the final decision to the mission commander in the LM; if they were 50 feet from the surface and coming down smoothly at "bingo" they could go ahead and land. The abort mode in this case would involve going to full thrust on the descent engine (if there was significant fuel left), then staging and firing the ascent engine to return to a stable orbit. Touchdown at higher speed wasn't likely; if they couldn't land safely they'd abort.



Apollo 11 and 14 came closest to depleting the descent stage fuel; for 11, at touchdown there was 18 seconds left to "bingo", and probably 45-60 seconds of fuel actually remaining -- 770 lbs of fuel. The other landings had 1100+ lbs of fuel at touchdown.



I don't know if there were mission rules regarding the RCS fuel during descent; the gimbaled engine on the descent stage allowed most of the descent phase to be executed with very little use of the RCS.



The ascent trajectory was also computer-controlled, so there was relatively little variation in fuel usage until orbital insertion. Once in orbit, only the RCS would be used to maneuver the LM to rendezvous. It was possible to transfer remaining ascent fuel to the RCS tanks, and if, somehow, the RCS was completely depleted, the Command/Service Module (CSM) had its own RCS and could take over the active role in the rendezvous, and reach the LM.






share|improve this answer





















    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33095%2fwas-there-fuel-consumption-budgeting-for-apollo-11-lunar-module%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









    15














    The Apollo LM had three independent propellant supplies: tankage in the descent stage usable by the descent engine, tankage in the ascent stage for the ascent engine, and in the ascent stage for the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.



    Prior to the initiation of descent and landing, only the RCS would be used, and very little of it.



    During the descent, fuel quantity was carefully monitored. There was a low-level threshold (5% of total tankage) which would illuminate a fuel quantity light in the LM cabin; once that light came on, mission control started a 90-second countdown to a "bingo" call, meaning a fuel-critical state. At the "bingo" call, the mission rules specified that the LM had to touch down in the next 20 seconds or abort. This gave the final decision to the mission commander in the LM; if they were 50 feet from the surface and coming down smoothly at "bingo" they could go ahead and land. The abort mode in this case would involve going to full thrust on the descent engine (if there was significant fuel left), then staging and firing the ascent engine to return to a stable orbit. Touchdown at higher speed wasn't likely; if they couldn't land safely they'd abort.



    Apollo 11 and 14 came closest to depleting the descent stage fuel; for 11, at touchdown there was 18 seconds left to "bingo", and probably 45-60 seconds of fuel actually remaining -- 770 lbs of fuel. The other landings had 1100+ lbs of fuel at touchdown.



    I don't know if there were mission rules regarding the RCS fuel during descent; the gimbaled engine on the descent stage allowed most of the descent phase to be executed with very little use of the RCS.



    The ascent trajectory was also computer-controlled, so there was relatively little variation in fuel usage until orbital insertion. Once in orbit, only the RCS would be used to maneuver the LM to rendezvous. It was possible to transfer remaining ascent fuel to the RCS tanks, and if, somehow, the RCS was completely depleted, the Command/Service Module (CSM) had its own RCS and could take over the active role in the rendezvous, and reach the LM.






    share|improve this answer


























      15














      The Apollo LM had three independent propellant supplies: tankage in the descent stage usable by the descent engine, tankage in the ascent stage for the ascent engine, and in the ascent stage for the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.



      Prior to the initiation of descent and landing, only the RCS would be used, and very little of it.



      During the descent, fuel quantity was carefully monitored. There was a low-level threshold (5% of total tankage) which would illuminate a fuel quantity light in the LM cabin; once that light came on, mission control started a 90-second countdown to a "bingo" call, meaning a fuel-critical state. At the "bingo" call, the mission rules specified that the LM had to touch down in the next 20 seconds or abort. This gave the final decision to the mission commander in the LM; if they were 50 feet from the surface and coming down smoothly at "bingo" they could go ahead and land. The abort mode in this case would involve going to full thrust on the descent engine (if there was significant fuel left), then staging and firing the ascent engine to return to a stable orbit. Touchdown at higher speed wasn't likely; if they couldn't land safely they'd abort.



      Apollo 11 and 14 came closest to depleting the descent stage fuel; for 11, at touchdown there was 18 seconds left to "bingo", and probably 45-60 seconds of fuel actually remaining -- 770 lbs of fuel. The other landings had 1100+ lbs of fuel at touchdown.



      I don't know if there were mission rules regarding the RCS fuel during descent; the gimbaled engine on the descent stage allowed most of the descent phase to be executed with very little use of the RCS.



      The ascent trajectory was also computer-controlled, so there was relatively little variation in fuel usage until orbital insertion. Once in orbit, only the RCS would be used to maneuver the LM to rendezvous. It was possible to transfer remaining ascent fuel to the RCS tanks, and if, somehow, the RCS was completely depleted, the Command/Service Module (CSM) had its own RCS and could take over the active role in the rendezvous, and reach the LM.






      share|improve this answer
























        15












        15








        15






        The Apollo LM had three independent propellant supplies: tankage in the descent stage usable by the descent engine, tankage in the ascent stage for the ascent engine, and in the ascent stage for the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.



        Prior to the initiation of descent and landing, only the RCS would be used, and very little of it.



        During the descent, fuel quantity was carefully monitored. There was a low-level threshold (5% of total tankage) which would illuminate a fuel quantity light in the LM cabin; once that light came on, mission control started a 90-second countdown to a "bingo" call, meaning a fuel-critical state. At the "bingo" call, the mission rules specified that the LM had to touch down in the next 20 seconds or abort. This gave the final decision to the mission commander in the LM; if they were 50 feet from the surface and coming down smoothly at "bingo" they could go ahead and land. The abort mode in this case would involve going to full thrust on the descent engine (if there was significant fuel left), then staging and firing the ascent engine to return to a stable orbit. Touchdown at higher speed wasn't likely; if they couldn't land safely they'd abort.



        Apollo 11 and 14 came closest to depleting the descent stage fuel; for 11, at touchdown there was 18 seconds left to "bingo", and probably 45-60 seconds of fuel actually remaining -- 770 lbs of fuel. The other landings had 1100+ lbs of fuel at touchdown.



        I don't know if there were mission rules regarding the RCS fuel during descent; the gimbaled engine on the descent stage allowed most of the descent phase to be executed with very little use of the RCS.



        The ascent trajectory was also computer-controlled, so there was relatively little variation in fuel usage until orbital insertion. Once in orbit, only the RCS would be used to maneuver the LM to rendezvous. It was possible to transfer remaining ascent fuel to the RCS tanks, and if, somehow, the RCS was completely depleted, the Command/Service Module (CSM) had its own RCS and could take over the active role in the rendezvous, and reach the LM.






        share|improve this answer












        The Apollo LM had three independent propellant supplies: tankage in the descent stage usable by the descent engine, tankage in the ascent stage for the ascent engine, and in the ascent stage for the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters.



        Prior to the initiation of descent and landing, only the RCS would be used, and very little of it.



        During the descent, fuel quantity was carefully monitored. There was a low-level threshold (5% of total tankage) which would illuminate a fuel quantity light in the LM cabin; once that light came on, mission control started a 90-second countdown to a "bingo" call, meaning a fuel-critical state. At the "bingo" call, the mission rules specified that the LM had to touch down in the next 20 seconds or abort. This gave the final decision to the mission commander in the LM; if they were 50 feet from the surface and coming down smoothly at "bingo" they could go ahead and land. The abort mode in this case would involve going to full thrust on the descent engine (if there was significant fuel left), then staging and firing the ascent engine to return to a stable orbit. Touchdown at higher speed wasn't likely; if they couldn't land safely they'd abort.



        Apollo 11 and 14 came closest to depleting the descent stage fuel; for 11, at touchdown there was 18 seconds left to "bingo", and probably 45-60 seconds of fuel actually remaining -- 770 lbs of fuel. The other landings had 1100+ lbs of fuel at touchdown.



        I don't know if there were mission rules regarding the RCS fuel during descent; the gimbaled engine on the descent stage allowed most of the descent phase to be executed with very little use of the RCS.



        The ascent trajectory was also computer-controlled, so there was relatively little variation in fuel usage until orbital insertion. Once in orbit, only the RCS would be used to maneuver the LM to rendezvous. It was possible to transfer remaining ascent fuel to the RCS tanks, and if, somehow, the RCS was completely depleted, the Command/Service Module (CSM) had its own RCS and could take over the active role in the rendezvous, and reach the LM.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 9 hours ago









        Russell Borogove

        81.8k2271355




        81.8k2271355






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33095%2fwas-there-fuel-consumption-budgeting-for-apollo-11-lunar-module%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

            Alexandru Averescu

            Trompette piccolo