title
stringlengths 1
251
| section
stringlengths 0
6.12k
| text
stringlengths 0
716k
|
|---|---|---|
Asgard | Skáldskaparmál | Skáldskaparmál
Asgard is mentioned briefly throughout Skáldskaparmál as the name for the home of the Æsir, as in Gylfaginning. In this section, a number of locations are described as lying within Asgard including Valhalla, and in front of its doors, the golden grove Glasir. It also records a name for Thor as 'Defender of Ásgard' (). |
Asgard | Ynglinga Saga | Ynglinga Saga
In the Ynglinga saga, found in Heimskringla, Snorri describes Asgard as a city in Asia, based on a perceived, but erroneous, connection between the words for Asia and Æsir. In the opening stanzas of the Saga of the Ynglings, Asgard is the capital of Asaland, a section of Asia east of the river Tana-kvísl or Vana-Kvísl (kvísl is "arm"), which Snorri explains is the river Tanais (now Don), flowing into the Black Sea. Odin then leaves to settle in the northern part of the world and leaves his brothers Vili and Vé to rule over the city. When the euhemerised Odin dies, the account states that the Swedes believed he had returned to Asgard and would live there forever. |
Asgard | Interpretation and discussion | Interpretation and discussion
Cosmology in Old Norse religion is presented in a vague and often contradictory manner when viewed from a naturalistic standpoint. Snorri places Asgard in the centre of the world, surrounded by Midgard and then the lands inhabited by , all of which are finally encircled by the sea. He also locates the homes of the gods in the heavens. This had led to the proposition of a system of concentric circles, centred on Asgard or Yggdrasil, and sometimes with a vertical axis, leading upwards towards the heavens. There is debate between scholars over whether the gods were conceived of as living in the heavens, with some aligning their views with Snorri, and others proposing that he at times presents the system in a Christian framework and that this organisation is not seen in either Eddic or skaldic poetry. The concept of attempting to create a spatial cosmological model has itself been criticised by scholars who argue that the oral traditions did not form a naturalistic, structured system that aimed to be internally geographically consistent. An alternative proposal is that the world should be conceived of as a number of realms connected by passages that cannot be typically traversed. This would explain how Asgard can be located both to the east and west of the realm of men, over the sea and over Bifröst.
It has been noted that the tendency to link Asgard to Troy is part of a wider European cultural practice of claiming Trojan origins for one's culture, first seen in the Aeneid and also featuring in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae for the founding of Britain. |
Asgard | Depictions in popular culture | Depictions in popular culture
Both Asgard and Valhalla have been portrayed many times in popular culture |
Asgard | In film | In film
Asgard is depicted in the 1989 film comedy film Erik the Viking as a frozen wasteland dominated by the Halls of Valhalla on a high plateau. In the film the Æsir are depicted as spoilt children |
Asgard | In comics | In comics
Thor first appeared in the Marvel Universe within comic series Journey into Mystery in the issues #83 during August 1962. Following this release, he becomes one of the central figures in the comics along with Loki and Odin. In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thor and Loki make their first appearance together in the 2011 film Thor. After that, Thor becomes a regular character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and reappears in several films, including the Avengers series. Asgard becomes the central element of the film Thor: Ragnarok, where it is destroyed following the Old Norse mythos. These and other Norse mythology elements also appear in video games, TV series, and books based in and on the Marvel Universe, although these depictions do not closely follow historical sources. |
Asgard | In video games | In video games
Asgard is an explorable realm in the video game God of War: Ragnarök, a sequel to 2018's Norse-themed God of War.
In the Assassin's Creed Valhalla video game, Asgard is featured as part of a "vision quest". |
Asgard | See also | See also
Mount Olympus – home of the Olympian gods |
Asgard | Citations | Citations |
Asgard | Bibliography | Bibliography |
Asgard | Primary | Primary
|
Asgard | Secondary | Secondary
|
Asgard | External links | External links
MyNDIR (My Norse Digital Image Repository) Illustrations of Asgard from manuscripts and early print books.
Category:Locations in Norse mythology |
Asgard | Table of Content | about, Etymology, Attestations, The Poetic Edda, The Prose Edda, Prologue, Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál, Ynglinga Saga, Interpretation and discussion, Depictions in popular culture, In film, In comics, In video games, See also, Citations, Bibliography, Primary, Secondary, External links |
Apollo program | Short description | The Apollo program, also known as Project Apollo, was the United States human spaceflight program led by NASA, which successfully landed the first humans on the Moon in 1969. Apollo followed Project Mercury that put the first Americans in space. It was conceived in 1960 as a three-person spacecraft during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration. Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal for the 1960s of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" in an address to Congress on May 25, 1961. It was the third American human spaceflight program to fly, preceded by Project Gemini conceived in 1961 to extend spaceflight capability in support of Apollo.
Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Apollo Lunar Module (LM) on July 20, 1969, and walked on the lunar surface, while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command and service module (CSM), and all three landed safely on Earth in the Pacific Ocean on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last, Apollo 17, in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, twelve people walked on the Moon.
thumb|Buzz Aldrin (pictured) walked on the Moon with Neil Armstrong, on Apollo 11, July 20–21, 1969.|alt=Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, standing on the Moon
thumb|NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle
alt=|thumb|Earthrise, the iconic 1968 image from Apollo 8 taken by astronaut William Anders
Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, with the first crewed flight in 1968. It encountered a major setback in 1967 when an Apollo 1 cabin fire killed the entire crew during a prelaunch test. After the first successful landing, sufficient flight hardware remained for nine follow-on landings with a plan for extended lunar geological and astrophysical exploration. Budget cuts forced the cancellation of three of these. Five of the remaining six missions achieved successful landings, but the Apollo 13 landing had to be aborted after an oxygen tank exploded en route to the Moon, crippling the CSM. The crew barely managed a safe return to Earth by using the lunar module as a "lifeboat" on the return journey. Apollo used the Saturn family of rockets as launch vehicles, which were also used for an Apollo Applications Program, which consisted of Skylab, a space station that supported three crewed missions in 1973–1974, and the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, a joint United States-Soviet Union low Earth orbit mission in 1975.
Apollo set several major human spaceflight milestones. It stands alone in sending crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit. Apollo 8 was the first crewed spacecraft to orbit another celestial body, and Apollo 11 was the first crewed spacecraft to land humans on one.
Overall, the Apollo program returned of lunar rocks and soil to Earth, greatly contributing to the understanding of the Moon's composition and geological history. The program laid the foundation for NASA's subsequent human spaceflight capability and funded construction of its Johnson Space Center and Kennedy Space Center. Apollo also spurred advances in many areas of technology incidental to rocketry and human spaceflight, including avionics, telecommunications, and computers. |
Apollo program | Name | Name
The program was named after Apollo, the Greek god of light, music, and the Sun, by NASA manager Abe Silverstein, who later said, "I was naming the spacecraft like I'd name my baby."Murray & Cox 1989, p. 55 Silverstein chose the name at home one evening, early in 1960, because he felt "Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program".
The context of this was that the program focused at its beginning mainly on developing an advanced crewed spacecraft, the Apollo command and service module, succeeding the Mercury program. A lunar landing became the focus of the program only in 1961. Thereafter Project Gemini instead followed the Mercury program to test and study advanced crewed spaceflight technology. |
Apollo program | Background | Background |
Apollo program | Origin and spacecraft feasibility studies | Origin and spacecraft feasibility studies
The Apollo program was conceived during the Eisenhower administration in early 1960, as a follow-up to Project Mercury. While the Mercury capsule could support only one astronaut on a limited Earth orbital mission, Apollo would carry three. Possible missions included ferrying crews to a space station, circumlunar flights, and eventual crewed lunar landings.
In July 1960, NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh L. Dryden announced the Apollo program to industry representatives at a series of Space Task Group conferences. Preliminary specifications were laid out for a spacecraft with a mission module cabin separate from the command module (piloting and reentry cabin), and a propulsion and equipment module. On August 30, a feasibility study competition was announced, and on October 25, three study contracts were awarded to General Dynamics/Convair, General Electric, and the Glenn L. Martin Company. Meanwhile, NASA performed its own in-house spacecraft design studies led by Maxime Faget, to serve as a gauge to judge and monitor the three industry designs. |
Apollo program | Political pressure builds | Political pressure builds
In November 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected president after a campaign that promised American superiority over the Soviet Union in the fields of space exploration and missile defense. Up to the election of 1960, Kennedy had been speaking out against the "missile gap" that he and many other senators said had developed between the Soviet Union and the United States due to the inaction of President Eisenhower. Beyond military power, Kennedy used aerospace technology as a symbol of national prestige, pledging to make the US not "first but, first and, first if, but first period".Beschloss 1997 Despite Kennedy's rhetoric, he did not immediately come to a decision on the status of the Apollo program once he became president. He knew little about the technical details of the space program, and was put off by the massive financial commitment required by a crewed Moon landing.Sidey 1963, pp. 117–118 When Kennedy's newly appointed NASA Administrator James E. Webb requested a 30 percent budget increase for his agency, Kennedy supported an acceleration of NASA's large booster program but deferred a decision on the broader issue.Beschloss 1997, p. 55
On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to fly in space, reinforcing American fears about being left behind in a technological competition with the Soviet Union. At a meeting of the US House Committee on Science and Astronautics one day after Gagarin's flight, many congressmen pledged their support for a crash program aimed at ensuring that America would catch up.87th Congress 1961 Kennedy was circumspect in his response to the news, refusing to make a commitment on America's response to the Soviets.Sidey 1963, p. 114
thumb|right|President Kennedy delivers his proposal to put a man on the Moon before a joint session of Congress, May 25, 1961.|alt=President John F. Kennedy addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and House Speaker Sam Rayburn seated behind him
On April 20, Kennedy sent a memo to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, asking Johnson to look into the status of America's space program, and into programs that could offer NASA the opportunity to catch up. Key Apollo Source Documents . Johnson responded approximately one week later, concluding that "we are neither making maximum effort nor achieving results necessary if this country is to reach a position of leadership." Key Apollo Source Documents . His memo concluded that a crewed Moon landing was far enough in the future that it was likely the United States would achieve it first.
On May 25, 1961, twenty days after the first American crewed spaceflight Freedom 7, Kennedy proposed the crewed Moon landing in a Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs: |
Apollo program | NASA expansion | NASA expansion
At the time of Kennedy's proposal, only one American had flown in space—less than a month earlier—and NASA had not yet sent an astronaut into orbit. Even some NASA employees doubted whether Kennedy's ambitious goal could be met.Murray & Cox 1989, pp. 16–17 By 1963, Kennedy even came close to agreeing to a joint US-USSR Moon mission, to eliminate duplication of effort.
With the clear goal of a crewed landing replacing the more nebulous goals of space stations and circumlunar flights, NASA decided that, in order to make progress quickly, it would discard the feasibility study designs of Convair, GE, and Martin, and proceed with Faget's command and service module design. The mission module was determined to be useful only as an extra room, and therefore unnecessary. They used Faget's design as the specification for another competition for spacecraft procurement bids in October 1961. On November 28, 1961, it was announced that North American Aviation had won the contract, although its bid was not rated as good as the Martin proposal. Webb, Dryden and Robert Seamans chose it in preference due to North American's longer association with NASA and its predecessor.
Landing humans on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($25 billion; $ in US dollars) ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.
On July 1, 1960, NASA established the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama. MSFC designed the heavy lift-class Saturn launch vehicles, which would be required for Apollo. |
Apollo program | Manned Spacecraft Center | Manned Spacecraft Center
It became clear that managing the Apollo program would exceed the capabilities of Robert R. Gilruth's Space Task Group, which had been directing the nation's crewed space program from NASA's Langley Research Center. So Gilruth was given authority to grow his organization into a new NASA center, the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC). A site was chosen in Houston, Texas, on land donated by Rice University, and Administrator Webb announced the conversion on September 19, 1961. It was also clear NASA would soon outgrow its practice of controlling missions from its Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch facilities in Florida, so a new Mission Control Center would be included in the MSC.
thumb|right|thumbtime=17:32|President Kennedy speaks at Rice University, September 12, 1962 (17 min, 47 s).
In September 1962, by which time two Project Mercury astronauts had orbited the Earth, Gilruth had moved his organization to rented space in Houston, and construction of the MSC facility was under way, Kennedy visited Rice to reiterate his challenge in a famous speech:
The MSC was completed in September 1963. It was renamed by the United States Congress in honor of Lyndon B. Johnson soon after his death in 1973. |
Apollo program | Launch Operations Center | Launch Operations Center
It also became clear that Apollo would outgrow the Canaveral launch facilities in Florida. The two newest launch complexes were already being built for the Saturn I and IB rockets at the northernmost end: LC-34 and LC-37. But an even bigger facility would be needed for the mammoth rocket required for the crewed lunar mission, so land acquisition was started in July 1961 for a Launch Operations Center (LOC) immediately north of Canaveral at Merritt Island. The design, development and construction of the center was conducted by Kurt H. Debus, a member of Wernher von Braun's original V-2 rocket engineering team. Debus was named the LOC's first Director. Construction began in November 1962. Following Kennedy's death, President Johnson issued an executive order on November 29, 1963, to rename the LOC and Cape Canaveral in honor of Kennedy.
thumb|George Mueller, Wernher von Braun, and Eberhard Rees watch the AS-101 launch from the firing room.
The LOC included Launch Complex 39, a Launch Control Center, and a Vertical Assembly Building (VAB).The building was renamed "Vehicle Assembly Building" on February 3, 1965. in which the space vehicle (launch vehicle and spacecraft) would be assembled on a mobile launcher platform and then moved by a crawler-transporter to one of several launch pads. Although at least three pads were planned, only two, designated AandB, were completed in October 1965. The LOC also included an Operations and Checkout Building (OCB) to which Gemini and Apollo spacecraft were initially received prior to being mated to their launch vehicles. The Apollo spacecraft could be tested in two vacuum chambers capable of simulating atmospheric pressure at altitudes up to , which is nearly a vacuum. |
Apollo program | Organization | Organization
Administrator Webb realized that in order to keep Apollo costs under control, he had to develop greater project management skills in his organization, so he recruited George E. Mueller for a high management job. Mueller accepted, on the condition that he have a say in NASA reorganization necessary to effectively administer Apollo. Webb then worked with Associate Administrator (later Deputy Administrator) Seamans to reorganize the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF).Johnson 2002 On July 23, 1963, Webb announced Mueller's appointment as Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, to replace then Associate Administrator D. Brainerd Holmes on his retirement effective September 1. Under Webb's reorganization, the directors of the Manned Spacecraft Center (Gilruth), Marshall Space Flight Center (von Braun), and the Launch Operations Center (Debus) reported to Mueller.
Based on his industry experience on Air Force missile projects, Mueller realized some skilled managers could be found among high-ranking officers in the U.S. Air Force, so he got Webb's permission to recruit General Samuel C. Phillips, who gained a reputation for his effective management of the Minuteman program, as OMSF program controller. Phillips's superior officer Bernard A. Schriever agreed to loan Phillips to NASA, along with a staff of officers under him, on the condition that Phillips be made Apollo Program Director. Mueller agreed, and Phillips managed Apollo from January 1964, until it achieved the first human landing in July 1969, after which he returned to Air Force duty.
Charles Fishman, in One Giant Leap, estimated the number of people and organizations involved into the Apollo program as "410,000 men and women at some 20,000 different companies contributed to the effort". |
Apollo program | Choosing a mission mode | Choosing a mission mode
right|thumb|John Houbolt explaining the LOR concept
thumb|right|Early Apollo configuration for Direct Ascent and Earth Orbit Rendezvous, 1961
Once Kennedy had defined a goal, the Apollo mission planners were faced with the challenge of designing a spacecraft that could meet it while minimizing risk to human life, limiting cost, and not exceeding limits in possible technology and astronaut skill. Four possible mission modes were considered:
Direct Ascent: The spacecraft would be launched as a unit and travel directly to the lunar surface, without first going into lunar orbit. A Earth return ship would land all three astronauts atop a descent propulsion stage,Using the Apollo 11 lunar lander's mass ratio of descent stage to ascent stage, scaled up to Nova's payload. which would be left on the Moon. This design would have required development of the extremely powerful Saturn C-8 or Nova launch vehicle to carry a payload to the Moon.
Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR): Multiple rocket launches (up to 15 in some plans) would carry parts of the Direct Ascent spacecraft and propulsion units for translunar injection (TLI). These would be assembled into a single spacecraft in Earth orbit.
Lunar Surface Rendezvous: Two spacecraft would be launched in succession. The first, an automated vehicle carrying propellant for the return to Earth, would land on the Moon, to be followed some time later by the crewed vehicle. Propellant would have to be transferred from the automated vehicle to the crewed vehicle.
Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR): This turned out to be the winning configuration, which achieved the goal with Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969: a single Saturn V launched a spacecraft that was composed of a Apollo command and service module which remained in orbit around the Moon and a two-stage Apollo Lunar Module spacecraft which was flown by two astronauts to the surface, flown back to dock with the command module and was then discarded. Landing the smaller spacecraft on the Moon, and returning an even smaller part () to lunar orbit, minimized the total mass to be launched from Earth, but this was the last method initially considered because of the perceived risk of rendezvous and docking.
In early 1961, direct ascent was generally the mission mode in favor at NASA. Many engineers feared that rendezvous and docking, maneuvers that had not been attempted in Earth orbit, would be nearly impossible in lunar orbit. LOR advocates including John Houbolt at Langley Research Center emphasized the important weight reductions that were offered by the LOR approach. Throughout 1960 and 1961, Houbolt campaigned for the recognition of LOR as a viable and practical option. Bypassing the NASA hierarchy, he sent a series of memos and reports on the issue to Associate Administrator Robert Seamans; while acknowledging that he spoke "somewhat as a voice in the wilderness", Houbolt pleaded that LOR should not be discounted in studies of the question.
Seamans's establishment of an ad hoc committee headed by his special technical assistant Nicholas E. Golovin in July 1961, to recommend a launch vehicle to be used in the Apollo program, represented a turning point in NASA's mission mode decision.Hansen 1999, p. 32 This committee recognized that the chosen mode was an important part of the launch vehicle choice, and recommended in favor of a hybrid EOR-LOR mode. Its consideration of LOR—as well as Houbolt's ceaseless work—played an important role in publicizing the workability of the approach. In late 1961 and early 1962, members of the Manned Spacecraft Center began to come around to support LOR, including the newly hired deputy director of the Office of Manned Space Flight, Joseph Shea, who became a champion of LOR.Hansen 1999, pp. 35–39 The engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), who were heavily invested in direct ascent, took longer to become convinced of its merits, but their conversion was announced by Wernher von Braun at a briefing on June 7, 1962.
But even after NASA reached internal agreement, it was far from smooth sailing. Kennedy's science advisor Jerome Wiesner, who had expressed his opposition to human spaceflight to Kennedy before the President took office, and had opposed the decision to land people on the Moon, hired Golovin, who had left NASA, to chair his own "Space Vehicle Panel", ostensibly to monitor, but actually to second-guess NASA's decisions on the Saturn V launch vehicle and LOR by forcing Shea, Seamans, and even Webb to defend themselves, delaying its formal announcement to the press on July 11, 1962, and forcing Webb to still hedge the decision as "tentative".
Wiesner kept up the pressure, even making the disagreement public during a two-day September visit by the President to Marshall Space Flight Center. Wiesner blurted out "No, that's no good" in front of the press, during a presentation by von Braun. Webb jumped in and defended von Braun, until Kennedy ended the squabble by stating that the matter was "still subject to final review". Webb held firm and issued a request for proposal to candidate Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) contractors. Wiesner finally relented, unwilling to settle the dispute once and for all in Kennedy's office, because of the President's involvement with the October Cuban Missile Crisis, and fear of Kennedy's support for Webb. NASA announced the selection of Grumman as the LEM contractor in November 1962.
Space historian James Hansen concludes that:
The LOR method had the advantage of allowing the lander spacecraft to be used as a "lifeboat" in the event of a failure of the command ship. Some documents prove this theory was discussed before and after the method was chosen. In 1964 an MSC study concluded, "The LM [as lifeboat]... was finally dropped, because no single reasonable CSM failure could be identified that would prohibit use of the SPS." Ironically, just such a failure happened on Apollo 13 when an oxygen tank explosion left the CSM without electrical power. The lunar module provided propulsion, electrical power and life support to get the crew home safely. |
Apollo program | Spacecraft | Spacecraft
thumb|An Apollo boilerplate command module is on exhibit in the Meteor Crater Visitor Center in Winslow, Arizona.
Faget's preliminary Apollo design employed a cone-shaped command module, supported by one of several service modules providing propulsion and electrical power, sized appropriately for the space station, cislunar, and lunar landing missions. Once Kennedy's Moon landing goal became official, detailed design began of a command and service module (CSM) in which the crew would spend the entire direct-ascent mission and lift off from the lunar surface for the return trip, after being soft-landed by a larger landing propulsion module. The final choice of lunar orbit rendezvous changed the CSM's role to the translunar ferry used to transport the crew, along with a new spacecraft, the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM (Lunar Module) but still pronounced ) which would take two individuals to the lunar surface and return them to the CSM. |
Apollo program | Command and service module | Command and service module
thumb|upright=1.2|left|Apollo 15 CSM Endeavour in lunar orbit|alt=The cone-shaped command module, attached to the cylindrical service module, orbits the Moon with a panel removed, exposing the scientific instrument module
The command module (CM) was the conical crew cabin, designed to carry three astronauts from launch to lunar orbit and back to an Earth ocean landing. It was the only component of the Apollo spacecraft to survive without major configuration changes as the program evolved from the early Apollo study designs. Its exterior was covered with an ablative heat shield, and had its own reaction control system (RCS) engines to control its attitude and steer its atmospheric entry path. Parachutes were carried to slow its descent to splashdown. The module was tall, in diameter, and weighed approximately .
thumb|Original cockpit of the command module of Apollo 11 with three seats, photographed from above. It is located in the National Air and Space Museum; the very high resolution image was produced in 2007 by the Smithsonian Institution.
A cylindrical service module (SM) supported the command module, with a service propulsion engine and an RCS with propellants, and a fuel cell power generation system with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen reactants. A high-gain S-band antenna was used for long-distance communications on the lunar flights. On the extended lunar missions, an orbital scientific instrument package was carried. The service module was discarded just before reentry. The module was long and in diameter. The initial lunar flight version weighed approximately fully fueled, while a later version designed to carry a lunar orbit scientific instrument package weighed just over .
North American Aviation won the contract to build the CSM, and also the second stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle for NASA. Because the CSM design was started early before the selection of lunar orbit rendezvous, the service propulsion engine was sized to lift the CSM off the Moon, and thus was oversized to about twice the thrust required for translunar flight.Wilford 1969, p. 167 Also, there was no provision for docking with the lunar module. A 1964 program definition study concluded that the initial design should be continued as Block I which would be used for early testing, while Block II, the actual lunar spacecraft, would incorporate the docking equipment and take advantage of the lessons learned in Block I development. |
Apollo program | Apollo Lunar Module | Apollo Lunar Module
thumb|upright=1.2|Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (and Buzz Aldrin) on the Moon, photographed by Neil Armstrong
The Apollo Lunar Module (LM) was designed to descend from lunar orbit to land two astronauts on the Moon and take them back to orbit to rendezvous with the command module. Not designed to fly through the Earth's atmosphere or return to Earth, its fuselage was designed totally without aerodynamic considerations and was of an extremely lightweight construction. It consisted of separate descent and ascent stages, each with its own engine. The descent stage contained storage for the descent propellant, surface stay consumables, and surface exploration equipment. The ascent stage contained the crew cabin, ascent propellant, and a reaction control system. The initial LM model weighed approximately , and allowed surface stays up to around 34 hours. An extended lunar module (ELM) weighed over , and allowed surface stays of more than three days. The contract for design and construction of the lunar module was awarded to Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, and the project was overseen by Thomas J. Kelly. |
Apollo program | Launch vehicles | Launch vehicles
thumb|right|upright=1.35|Four Apollo rocket assemblies, drawn to scale: Little Joe II, Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V
Before the Apollo program began, Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket engineers had started work on plans for very large launch vehicles, the Saturn series, and the even larger Nova series. In the midst of these plans, von Braun was transferred from the Army to NASA and was made Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center. The initial direct ascent plan to send the three-person Apollo command and service module directly to the lunar surface, on top of a large descent rocket stage, would require a Nova-class launcher, with a lunar payload capability of over . The June 11, 1962, decision to use lunar orbit rendezvous enabled the Saturn V to replace the Nova, and the MSFC proceeded to develop the Saturn rocket family for Apollo.
Since Apollo, like Mercury, used more than one launch vehicle for space missions, NASA used spacecraft-launch vehicle combination series numbers: AS-10x for Saturn I, AS-20x for Saturn IB, and AS-50x for Saturn V (compare Mercury-Redstone 3, Mercury-Atlas 6) to designate and plan all missions, rather than numbering them sequentially as in Project Gemini. This was changed by the time human flights began. |
Apollo program | Little Joe II | Little Joe II
Since Apollo, like Mercury, would require a launch escape system (LES) in case of a launch failure, a relatively small rocket was required for qualification flight testing of this system. A rocket bigger than the Little Joe used by Mercury would be required, so the Little Joe II was built by General Dynamics/Convair. After an August 1963 qualification test flight,Townsend 1973, p. 14 four LES test flights (A-001 through 004) were made at the White Sands Missile Range between May 1964 and January 1966.Townsend 1973, p. 22 |
Apollo program | Saturn I | Saturn I
thumb|right|upright=0.7|A Saturn IB rocket launches Apollo 7, 1968
Saturn I, the first US heavy lift launch vehicle, was initially planned to launch partially equipped CSMs in low Earth orbit tests. The S-I first stage burned RP-1 with liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer in eight clustered Rocketdyne H-1 engines, to produce of thrust. The S-IV second stage used six liquid hydrogen-fueled Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines with of thrust. The S-V third stage flew inactively on Saturn I four times.Dawson & Bowles 2004, p. 85. See footnote 61.
The first four Saturn I test flights were launched from LC-34, with only the first stage live, carrying dummy upper stages filled with water. The first flight with a live S-IV was launched from LC-37. This was followed by five launches of boilerplate CSMs (designated AS-101 through AS-105) into orbit in 1964 and 1965. The last three of these further supported the Apollo program by also carrying Pegasus satellites, which verified the safety of the translunar environment by measuring the frequency and severity of micrometeorite impacts.
In September 1962, NASA planned to launch four crewed CSM flights on the Saturn I from late 1965 through 1966, concurrent with Project Gemini. The payload capacity would have severely limited the systems which could be included, so the decision was made in October 1963 to use the uprated Saturn IB for all crewed Earth orbital flights. |
Apollo program | Saturn IB | Saturn IB
The Saturn IB was an upgraded version of the Saturn I. The S-IB first stage increased the thrust to by uprating the H-1 engine. The second stage replaced the S-IV with the S-IVB-200, powered by a single J-2 engine burning liquid hydrogen fuel with LOX, to produce of thrust. A restartable version of the S-IVB was used as the third stage of the Saturn V. The Saturn IB could send over into low Earth orbit, sufficient for a partially fueled CSM or the LM. Saturn IB launch vehicles and flights were designated with an AS-200 series number, "AS" indicating "Apollo Saturn" and the "2" indicating the second member of the Saturn rocket family. |
Apollo program | Saturn V | Saturn V
thumb|upright=0.7|A Saturn V rocket launches Apollo 11, 1969
Saturn V launch vehicles and flights were designated with an AS-500 series number, "AS" indicating "Apollo Saturn" and the "5" indicating Saturn V. The three-stage Saturn V was designed to send a fully fueled CSM and LM to the Moon. It was in diameter and stood tall with its lunar payload. Its capability grew to for the later advanced lunar landings. The S-IC first stage burned RP-1/LOX for a rated thrust of , which was upgraded to . The second and third stages burned liquid hydrogen; the third stage was a modified version of the S-IVB, with thrust increased to and capability to restart the engine for translunar injection after reaching a parking orbit. |
Apollo program | Astronauts | Astronauts
thumb|left|Apollo 1 crew: Ed White, command pilot Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee
NASA's director of flight crew operations during the Apollo program was Donald K. "Deke" Slayton, one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts who was medically grounded in September 1962 due to a heart murmur. Slayton was responsible for making all Gemini and Apollo crew assignments.
Thirty-two astronauts were assigned to fly missions in the Apollo program. Twenty-four of these left Earth's orbit and flew around the Moon between December 1968 and December 1972 (three of them twice). Half of the 24 walked on the Moon's surface, though none of them returned to it after landing once. One of the moonwalkers was a trained geologist. Of the 32, Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed during a ground test in preparation for the Apollo 1 mission.
thumb|right|Apollo 11 crew, from left: Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin
The Apollo astronauts were chosen from the Project Mercury and Gemini veterans, plus from two later astronaut groups. All missions were commanded by Gemini or Mercury veterans. Crews on all development flights (except the Earth orbit CSM development flights) through the first two landings on Apollo 11 and Apollo 12, included at least two (sometimes three) Gemini veterans. Harrison Schmitt, a geologist, was the first NASA scientist astronaut to fly in space, and landed on the Moon on the last mission, Apollo 17. Schmitt participated in the lunar geology training of all of the Apollo landing crews.
NASA awarded all 32 of these astronauts its highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal, given for "distinguished service, ability, or courage", and personal "contribution representing substantial progress to the NASA mission". The medals were awarded posthumously to Grissom, White, and Chaffee in 1969, then to the crews of all missions from Apollo 8 onward. The crew that flew the first Earth orbital test mission Apollo 7, Walter M. Schirra, Donn Eisele, and Walter Cunningham, were awarded the lesser NASA Exceptional Service Medal, because of discipline problems with the flight director's orders during their flight. In October 2008, the NASA Administrator decided to award them the Distinguished Service Medals. For Schirra and Eisele, this was posthumously. |
Apollo program | Lunar mission profile | Lunar mission profile
The first lunar landing mission was planned to proceed: |
Apollo program | Profile variations | Profile variations
thumb|Neil Armstrong pilots the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle and lands himself and navigator Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, July 20, 1969.
The first three lunar missions (Apollo 8, Apollo 10, and Apollo 11) used a free return trajectory, keeping a flight path coplanar with the lunar orbit, which would allow a return to Earth in case the SM engine failed to make lunar orbit insertion. Landing site lighting conditions on later missions dictated a lunar orbital plane change, which required a course change maneuver soon after TLI, and eliminated the free-return option.
After Apollo 12 placed the second of several seismometers on the Moon, the jettisoned LM ascent stages on Apollo 12 and later missions were deliberately crashed on the Moon at known locations to induce vibrations in the Moon's structure. The only exceptions to this were the Apollo 13 LM which burned up in the Earth's atmosphere, and Apollo 16, where a loss of attitude control after jettison prevented making a targeted impact.
As another active seismic experiment, the S-IVBs on Apollo 13 and subsequent missions were deliberately crashed on the Moon instead of being sent to solar orbit.
Starting with Apollo 13, descent orbit insertion was to be performed using the service module engine instead of the LM engine, in order to allow a greater fuel reserve for landing. This was actually done for the first time on Apollo 14, since the Apollo 13 mission was aborted before landing. |
Apollo program | Development history | Development history |
Apollo program | Uncrewed flight tests | Uncrewed flight tests
thumb|The Journeys of Apollo, a NASA documentary about the Apollo program
Two Block I CSMs were launched from LC-34 on suborbital flights in 1966 with the Saturn IB. The first, AS-201 launched on February 26, reached an altitude of and splashed down downrange in the Atlantic Ocean. The second, AS-202 on August 25, reached altitude and was recovered downrange in the Pacific Ocean. These flights validated the service module engine and the command module heat shield.
A third Saturn IB test, AS-203 launched from pad 37, went into orbit to support design of the S-IVB upper stage restart capability needed for the Saturn V. It carried a nose cone instead of the Apollo spacecraft, and its payload was the unburned liquid hydrogen fuel, the behavior of which engineers measured with temperature and pressure sensors, and a TV camera. This flight occurred on July 5, before AS-202, which was delayed because of problems getting the Apollo spacecraft ready for flight. |
Apollo program | Preparation for crewed flight | Preparation for crewed flight
Two crewed orbital Block I CSM missions were planned: AS-204 and AS-205. The Block I crew positions were titled Command Pilot, Senior Pilot, and Pilot. The Senior Pilot would assume navigation duties, while the Pilot would function as a systems engineer. The astronauts would wear a modified version of the Gemini spacesuit.
After an uncrewed LM test flight AS-206, a crew would fly the first Block II CSM and LM in a dual mission known as AS-207/208, or AS-278 (each spacecraft would be launched on a separate Saturn IB). The Block II crew positions were titled Commander, Command Module Pilot, and Lunar Module Pilot. The astronauts would begin wearing a new Apollo A6L spacesuit, designed to accommodate lunar extravehicular activity (EVA). The traditional visor helmet was replaced with a clear "fishbowl" type for greater visibility, and the lunar surface EVA suit would include a water-cooled undergarment.
Deke Slayton, the grounded Mercury astronaut who became director of flight crew operations for the Gemini and Apollo programs, selected the first Apollo crew in January 1966, with Grissom as Command Pilot, White as Senior Pilot, and rookie Donn F. Eisele as Pilot. But Eisele dislocated his shoulder twice aboard the KC135 weightlessness training aircraft, and had to undergo surgery on January 27. Slayton replaced him with Chaffee. NASA announced the final crew selection for AS-204 on March 21, 1966, with the backup crew consisting of Gemini veterans James McDivitt and David Scott, with rookie Russell L. "Rusty" Schweickart. Mercury/Gemini veteran Wally Schirra, Eisele, and rookie Walter Cunningham were announced on September 29 as the prime crew for AS-205.
In December 1966, the AS-205 mission was canceled, since the validation of the CSM would be accomplished on the 14-day first flight, and AS-205 would have been devoted to space experiments and contribute no new engineering knowledge about the spacecraft. Its Saturn IB was allocated to the dual mission, now redesignated AS-205/208 or AS-258, planned for August 1967. McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart were promoted to the prime AS-258 crew, and Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham were reassigned as the Apollo1 backup crew. |
Apollo program | Program delays | Program delays
The spacecraft for the AS-202 and AS-204 missions were delivered by North American Aviation to the Kennedy Space Center with long lists of equipment problems which had to be corrected before flight; these delays caused the launch of AS-202 to slip behind AS-203, and eliminated hopes the first crewed mission might be ready to launch as soon as November 1966, concurrently with the last Gemini mission. Eventually, the planned AS-204 flight date was pushed to February 21, 1967.
North American Aviation was prime contractor not only for the Apollo CSM, but for the SaturnV S-II second stage as well, and delays in this stage pushed the first uncrewed SaturnV flight AS-501 from late 1966 to November 1967. (The initial assembly of AS-501 had to use a dummy spacer spool in place of the stage.)
The problems with North American were severe enough in late 1965 to cause Manned Space Flight Administrator George Mueller to appoint program director Samuel Phillips to head a "tiger team" to investigate North American's problems and identify corrections. Phillips documented his findings in a December 19 letter to NAA president Lee Atwood, with a strongly worded letter by Mueller, and also gave a presentation of the results to Mueller and Deputy Administrator Robert Seamans.NASA never volunteered the tiger team findings to the US Congress in the course of its regular oversight, but its existence was publicly disclosed as "the Phillips report" in the course of the Senate investigation into the Apollo 204 fire. Meanwhile, Grumman was also encountering problems with the Lunar Module, eliminating hopes it would be ready for crewed flight in 1967, not long after the first crewed CSM flights. |
Apollo program | Apollo 1 fire | Apollo 1 fire
thumb|right|Charred Apollo 1 cabin interior
Grissom, White, and Chaffee decided to name their flight Apollo1 as a motivational focus on the first crewed flight. They trained and conducted tests of their spacecraft at North American, and in the altitude chamber at the Kennedy Space Center. A "plugs-out" test was planned for January, which would simulate a launch countdown on LC-34 with the spacecraft transferring from pad-supplied to internal power. If successful, this would be followed by a more rigorous countdown simulation test closer to the February 21 launch, with both spacecraft and launch vehicle fueled.
The plugs-out test began on the morning of January 27, 1967, and immediately was plagued with problems. First, the crew noticed a strange odor in their spacesuits which delayed the sealing of the hatch. Then, communications problems frustrated the astronauts and forced a hold in the simulated countdown. During this hold, an electrical fire began in the cabin and spread quickly in the high pressure, 100% oxygen atmosphere. Pressure rose high enough from the fire that the cabin inner wall burst, allowing the fire to erupt onto the pad area and frustrating attempts to rescue the crew. The astronauts were asphyxiated before the hatch could be opened.
thumb|Block II spacesuit in January 1968, before (left) and after changes recommended after the Apollo1 fire
NASA immediately convened an accident review board, overseen by both houses of Congress. While the determination of responsibility for the accident was complex, the review board concluded that "deficiencies existed in command module design, workmanship and quality control". At the insistence of NASA Administrator Webb, North American removed Harrison Storms as command module program manager.Gray 1994 Webb also reassigned Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO) Manager Joseph Francis Shea, replacing him with George Low.Ertel et al. 1978, p. 119
To remedy the causes of the fire, changes were made in the Block II spacecraft and operational procedures, the most important of which were use of a nitrogen/oxygen mixture instead of pure oxygen before and during launch, and removal of flammable cabin and space suit materials. The Block II design already called for replacement of the Block I plug-type hatch cover with a quick-release, outward opening door. NASA discontinued the crewed Block I program, using the BlockI spacecraft only for uncrewed SaturnV flights. Crew members would also exclusively wear modified, fire-resistant A7L Block II space suits, and would be designated by the Block II titles, regardless of whether a LM was present on the flight or not. |
Apollo program | Uncrewed Saturn V and LM tests | Uncrewed Saturn V and LM tests
On April 24, 1967, Mueller published an official Apollo mission numbering scheme, using sequential numbers for all flights, crewed or uncrewed. The sequence would start with Apollo 4 to cover the first three uncrewed flights while retiring the Apollo1 designation to honor the crew, per their widows' wishes.Ertel & al. 1978, Part 1(H)
In September 1967, Mueller approved a sequence of mission types which had to be successfully accomplished in order to achieve the crewed lunar landing. Each step had to be successfully accomplished before the next ones could be performed, and it was unknown how many tries of each mission would be necessary; therefore letters were used instead of numbers. The A missions were uncrewed Saturn V validation; B was uncrewed LM validation using the Saturn IB; C was crewed CSM Earth orbit validation using the Saturn IB; D was the first crewed CSM/LM flight (this replaced AS-258, using a single Saturn V launch); E would be a higher Earth orbit CSM/LM flight; F would be the first lunar mission, testing the LM in lunar orbit but without landing (a "dress rehearsal"); and G would be the first crewed landing. The list of types covered follow-on lunar exploration to include H lunar landings, I for lunar orbital survey missions, and J for extended-stay lunar landings.Ertel et al. 1978, p. 157
The delay in the CSM caused by the fire enabled NASA to catch up on human-rating the LM and SaturnV. Apollo4 (AS-501) was the first uncrewed flight of the SaturnV, carrying a BlockI CSM on November 9, 1967. The capability of the command module's heat shield to survive a trans-lunar reentry was demonstrated by using the service module engine to ram it into the atmosphere at higher than the usual Earth-orbital reentry speed.
Apollo 5 (AS-204) was the first uncrewed test flight of the LM in Earth orbit, launched from pad 37 on January 22, 1968, by the Saturn IB that would have been used for Apollo 1. The LM engines were successfully test-fired and restarted, despite a computer programming error which cut short the first descent stage firing. The ascent engine was fired in abort mode, known as a "fire-in-the-hole" test, where it was lit simultaneously with jettison of the descent stage. Although Grumman wanted a second uncrewed test, George Low decided the next LM flight would be crewed.
This was followed on April 4, 1968, by Apollo 6 (AS-502) which carried a CSM and a LM Test Article as ballast. The intent of this mission was to achieve trans-lunar injection, followed closely by a simulated direct-return abort, using the service module engine to achieve another high-speed reentry. The Saturn V experienced pogo oscillation, a problem caused by non-steady engine combustion, which damaged fuel lines in the second and third stages. Two S-II engines shut down prematurely, but the remaining engines were able to compensate. The damage to the third stage engine was more severe, preventing it from restarting for trans-lunar injection. Mission controllers were able to use the service module engine to essentially repeat the flight profile of Apollo 4. Based on the good performance of Apollo6 and identification of satisfactory fixes to the Apollo6 problems, NASA declared the SaturnV ready to fly crew, canceling a third uncrewed test. |
Apollo program | Crewed development missions | Crewed development missions
Apollo 7, launched from LC-34 on October 11, 1968, was the Cmission, crewed by Schirra, Eisele, and Cunningham. It was an 11-day Earth-orbital flight which tested the CSM systems.
Apollo 8 was planned to be the D mission in December 1968, crewed by McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart, launched on a SaturnV instead of two Saturn IBs. In the summer it had become clear that the LM would not be ready in time. Rather than waste the Saturn V on another simple Earth-orbiting mission, ASPO Manager George Low suggested the bold step of sending Apollo8 to orbit the Moon instead, deferring the Dmission to the next mission in March 1969, and eliminating the E mission. This would keep the program on track. The Soviet Union had sent two tortoises, mealworms, wine flies, and other lifeforms around the Moon on September 15, 1968, aboard Zond 5, and it was believed they might soon repeat the feat with human cosmonauts. The decision was not announced publicly until successful completion of Apollo 7. Gemini veterans Frank Borman and Jim Lovell, and rookie William Anders captured the world's attention by making ten lunar orbits in 20 hours, transmitting television pictures of the lunar surface on Christmas Eve, and returning safely to Earth.
thumb|left|Neil Armstrong descends the LM's ladder in preparation for the first steps on the lunar surface, as televised live on July 20, 1969.
The following March, LM flight, rendezvous and docking were successfully demonstrated in Earth orbit on Apollo 9, and Schweickart tested the full lunar EVA suit with its portable life support system (PLSS) outside the LM. The F mission was successfully carried out on Apollo 10 in May 1969 by Gemini veterans Thomas P. Stafford, John Young and Eugene Cernan. Stafford and Cernan took the LM to within of the lunar surface.
The G mission was achieved on Apollo 11 in July 1969 by an all-Gemini veteran crew consisting of Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin. Armstrong and Aldrin performed the first landing at the Sea of Tranquility at 20:17:40 UTC on July 20, 1969. They spent a total of 21 hours, 36 minutes on the surface, and spent 2hours, 31 minutes outside the spacecraft, walking on the surface, taking photographs, collecting material samples, and deploying automated scientific instruments, while continuously sending black-and-white television back to Earth. The astronauts returned safely on July 24. |
Apollo program | Production lunar landings | Production lunar landings
In November 1969, Charles "Pete" Conrad became the third person to step onto the Moon, which he did while speaking more informally than had Armstrong:
Conrad and rookie Alan L. Bean made a precision landing of Apollo 12 within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 uncrewed lunar probe, which had landed in April 1967 on the Ocean of Storms. The command module pilot was Gemini veteran Richard F. Gordon Jr. Conrad and Bean carried the first lunar surface color television camera, but it was damaged when accidentally pointed into the Sun. They made two EVAs totaling 7hours and 45 minutes. On one, they walked to the Surveyor, photographed it, and removed some parts which they returned to Earth.
The contracted batch of 15 Saturn Vs was enough for lunar landing missions through Apollo 20. Shortly after Apollo 11, NASA publicized a preliminary list of eight more planned landing sites after Apollo 12, with plans to increase the mass of the CSM and LM for the last five missions, along with the payload capacity of the Saturn V. These final missions would combine the I and J types in the 1967 list, allowing the CMP to operate a package of lunar orbital sensors and cameras while his companions were on the surface, and allowing them to stay on the Moon for over three days. These missions would also carry the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) increasing the exploration area and allowing televised liftoff of the LM. Also, the Block II spacesuit was revised for the extended missions to allow greater flexibility and visibility for driving the LRV.
thumb|left|Apollo landings on the Moon, 1969–1972
The success of the first two landings allowed the remaining missions to be crewed with a single veteran as commander, with two rookies. Apollo 13 launched Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise in April 1970, headed for the Fra Mauro formation. But two days out, a liquid oxygen tank exploded, disabling the service module and forcing the crew to use the LM as a "lifeboat" to return to Earth. Another NASA review board was convened to determine the cause, which turned out to be a combination of damage of the tank in the factory, and a subcontractor not making a tank component according to updated design specifications. Apollo was grounded again, for the remainder of 1970 while the oxygen tank was redesigned and an extra one was added. |
Apollo program | Mission cutbacks | Mission cutbacks
About the time of the first landing in 1969, it was decided to use an existing Saturn V to launch the Skylab orbital laboratory pre-built on the ground, replacing the original plan to construct it in orbit from several Saturn IB launches; this eliminated Apollo 20. NASA's yearly budget also began to shrink in light of the successful landing, and NASA also had to make funds available for the development of the upcoming Space Shuttle. By 1971, the decision was made to also cancel missions 18 and 19. The two unused Saturn Vs became museum exhibits at the John F. Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, Florida, George C. Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
The cutbacks forced mission planners to reassess the original planned landing sites in order to achieve the most effective geological sample and data collection from the remaining four missions. Apollo 15 had been planned to be the last of the H series missions, but since there would be only two subsequent missions left, it was changed to the first of three J missions.
Apollo 13's Fra Mauro mission was reassigned to Apollo 14, commanded in February 1971 by Mercury veteran Alan Shepard, with Stuart Roosa and Edgar Mitchell. This time the mission was successful. Shepard and Mitchell spent 33 hours and 31 minutes on the surface, and completed two EVAs totalling 9hours 24 minutes, which was a record for the longest EVA by a lunar crew at the time.
In August 1971, just after conclusion of the Apollo 15 mission, President Richard Nixon proposed canceling the two remaining lunar landing missions, Apollo 16 and 17. Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Caspar Weinberger was opposed to this, and persuaded Nixon to keep the remaining missions."MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT" by Caspar Weinberger (via George Shultz), Aug 12, 1971, Page32(of 39) |
Apollo program | Extended missions | Extended missions
thumb|Lunar Roving Vehicle used on Apollos 15–17
Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971, with David Scott, Alfred Worden and James Irwin. Scott and Irwin landed on July 30 near Hadley Rille, and spent just under two days, 19 hours on the surface. In over 18 hours of EVA, they collected about of lunar material.
Apollo 16 landed in the Descartes Highlands on April 20, 1972. The crew was commanded by John Young, with Ken Mattingly and Charles Duke. Young and Duke spent just under three days on the surface, with a total of over 20 hours EVA.
Apollo 17 was the last of the Apollo program, landing in the Taurus–Littrow region in December 1972. Eugene Cernan commanded Ronald E. Evans and NASA's first scientist-astronaut, geologist Harrison H. Schmitt. Schmitt was originally scheduled for Apollo 18, but the lunar geological community lobbied for his inclusion on the final lunar landing. Cernan and Schmitt stayed on the surface for just over three days and spent just over 23 hours of total EVA. |
Apollo program | Canceled missions | Canceled missions
Several missions were planned for but were canceled before details were finalized. |
Apollo program | Mission summary | Mission summary
Designation Date Crew Summary AS-201 Feb 26, 1966 AS-201 CSM-009 First flight of Saturn IB and Block I CSM; suborbital to Atlantic Ocean; qualified heat shield to orbital reentry speed. AS-203 Jul 5, 1966 AS-203 No spacecraft; observations of liquid hydrogen fuel behavior in orbit to support design of S-IVB restart capability. AS-202 Aug 25, 1966 AS-202 CSM-011 Suborbital flight of CSM to Pacific Ocean. Apollo 1 Feb 21, 1967 SA-204 CSM-012 Gus GrissomEd WhiteRoger B. Chaffee Not flown. All crew members died in a fire during a launch pad test on January 27, 1967. Apollo 4 Nov 9, 1967 SA-501 CSM-017 LTA-10R First test flight of Saturn V, placed a CSM in a high Earth orbit; demonstrated S-IVB restart; qualified CM heat shield to lunar reentry speed. Apollo 5 Jan 22–23, 1968 SA-204 LM-1 Earth orbital flight test of LM, launched on Saturn IB; demonstrated ascent and descent propulsion; human-rated the LM. No crew. Apollo 6 Apr 4, 1968 SA-502 CM-020SM-014 LTA-2R Uncrewed, second flight of Saturn V, attempted demonstration of trans-lunar injection, and direct-return abort using SM engine; three engine failures, including failure of S-IVB restart. Flight controllers used SM engine to repeat Apollo 4's flight profile. Human-rated the Saturn V. Apollo 7 Oct 11–22, 1968 SA-205 CSM-101 Wally SchirraWalt CunninghamDonn Eisele First crewed Earth orbital demonstration of Block II CSM, launched on Saturn IB. First live television broadcast from a crewed mission. Apollo 8 Dec 21–27, 1968 SA-503 CSM-103 LTA-B Frank BormanJames LovellWilliam Anders First crewed flight of Saturn V; First crewed flight to Moon; CSM made 10 lunar orbits in 20 hours. Apollo 9 Mar 3–13, 1969 SA-504 CSM-104Gumdrop LM-3Spider James McDivitt David ScottRussell Schweickart Second crewed flight of Saturn V; First crewed flight of CSM and LM in Earth orbit; demonstrated portable life support system to be used on the lunar surface. Apollo 10 May 18–26, 1969 SA-505 CSM-106Charlie Brown LM-4Snoopy Thomas StaffordJohn YoungEugene Cernan Dress rehearsal for first lunar landing; flew LM down to from lunar surface. Apollo 11 Jul 16–24, 1969 SA-506 CSM-107Columbia LM-5 Eagle Neil ArmstrongMichael CollinsBuzz Aldrin First landing, in Tranquility Base, Sea of Tranquility. Surface EVA time: 2h 31m. Samples returned: . Apollo 12 Nov 14–24, 1969 SA-507 CSM-108Yankee Clipper LM-6Intrepid Pete ConradRichard GordonAlan Bean Second landing, in Ocean of Storms near Surveyor 3. Surface EVA time: 7h 45m. Samples returned: . Apollo 13 Apr 11–17, 1970 SA-508 CSM-109Odyssey LM-7Aquarius James LovellJack SwigertFred Haise Third landing attempt aborted in transit to the Moon, due to SM failure. Crew used LM as "lifeboat" to return to Earth. Mission called a "successful failure". Apollo 14 Jan 31 – Feb 9, 1971 SA-509 CSM-110Kitty Hawk LM-8Antares Alan ShepardStuart RoosaEdgar Mitchell Third landing, in Fra Mauro formation. Surface EVA time: 9h 21m. Samples returned: . Apollo 15 Jul 26 – Aug 7, 1971 SA-510 CSM-112Endeavour LM-10Falcon David ScottAlfred WordenJames Irwin Fourth landing, in Hadley-Apennine. First extended mission, used Rover on Moon. Surface EVA time: 18h 33m. Samples returned: . Apollo 16 Apr 16–27, 1972 SA-511 CSM-113Casper LM-11Orion John YoungKen MattinglyCharles Duke Fifth landing, in Plain of Descartes. Second extended mission, used Rover on Moon. Surface EVA time: 20h 14m. Samples returned: . Apollo 17 Dec 7–19, 1972 SA-512 CSM-114America LM-12Challenger Eugene CernanRonald EvansHarrison Schmitt Only Saturn V night launch. Sixth landing, in Taurus–Littrow. Third extended mission, used Rover on Moon. First geologist on the Moon. Apollo's last crewed Moon landing. Surface EVA time: 22h 2m. Samples returned: .
Source: Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference (Orloff 2004). |
Apollo program | Samples returned | Samples returned
The Apollo program returned over of lunar rocks and soil to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston. Today, 75% of the samples are stored at the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility built in 1979.
The rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.2 billion years for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, to about 4.6 billion years for samples derived from the highlands crust.Papike et al. 1998, pp. 5-001–5-234 As such, they represent samples from a very early period in the development of the Solar System, that are largely absent on Earth. One important rock found during the Apollo Program is dubbed the Genesis Rock, retrieved by astronauts David Scott and James Irwin during the Apollo 15 mission. This anorthosite rock is composed almost exclusively of the calcium-rich feldspar mineral anorthite, and is believed to be representative of the highland crust. A geochemical component called KREEP was discovered by Apollo 12, which has no known terrestrial counterpart. KREEP and the anorthositic samples have been used to infer that the outer portion of the Moon was once completely molten (see lunar magma ocean).
Almost all the rocks show evidence of impact process effects. Many samples appear to be pitted with micrometeoroid impact craters, which is never seen on Earth rocks, due to the thick atmosphere. Many show signs of being subjected to high-pressure shock waves that are generated during impact events. Some of the returned samples are of impact melt (materials melted near an impact crater.) All samples returned from the Moon are highly brecciated as a result of being subjected to multiple impact events.
From analyses of the composition of the returned lunar samples, it is now believed that the Moon was created through the impact of a large astronomical body with Earth.Burrows 1999, p. 431 |
Apollo program | Costs | Costs
Apollo cost $25.4 billion or approximately $257 billion (2023) using improved cost analysis.
Of this amount, $20.2 billion ($ adjusted) was spent on the design, development, and production of the Saturn family of launch vehicles, the Apollo spacecraft, spacesuits, scientific experiments, and mission operations. The cost of constructing and operating Apollo-related ground facilities, such as the NASA human spaceflight centers and the global tracking and data acquisition network, added an additional $5.2 billion ($ adjusted).
The amount grows to $28 billion ($280 billion adjusted) if the costs for related projects such as Project Gemini and the robotic Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter programs are included.
NASA's official cost breakdown, as reported to Congress in the Spring of 1973, is as follows:
Project Apollo Cost (original, billion $) Apollo spacecraft 8.5 Saturn launch vehicles 9.1 Launch vehicle engine development 0.9 Operations 1.7 Total R&D 20.2 Tracking and data acquisition 0.9 Ground facilities 1.8 Operation of installations 2.5 Total 25.4
Accurate estimates of human spaceflight costs were difficult in the early 1960s, as the capability was new and management experience was lacking. Preliminary cost analysis by NASA estimated $7 billion – $12 billion for a crewed lunar landing effort. NASA Administrator James Webb increased this estimate to $20 billion before reporting it to Vice President Johnson in April 1961.
Project Apollo was a massive undertaking, representing the largest research and development project in peacetime. At its peak, it employed over 400,000 employees and contractors around the country and accounted for more than half of NASA's total spending in the 1960s. After the first Moon landing, public and political interest waned, including that of President Nixon, who wanted to rein in federal spending. NASA's budget could not sustain Apollo missions which cost, on average, $445 million ($ adjusted) each while simultaneously developing the Space Shuttle. The final fiscal year of Apollo funding was 1973. |
Apollo program | Apollo Applications Program | Apollo Applications Program
Looking beyond the crewed lunar landings, NASA investigated several post-lunar applications for Apollo hardware. The Apollo Extension Series (Apollo X) proposed up to 30 flights to Earth orbit, using the space in the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) to house a small orbital laboratory (workshop). Astronauts would continue to use the CSM as a ferry to the station. This study was followed by design of a larger orbital workshop to be built in orbit from an empty S-IVB Saturn upper stage and grew into the Apollo Applications Program (AAP). The workshop was to be supplemented by the Apollo Telescope Mount, which could be attached to the ascent stage of the lunar module via a rack. The most ambitious plan called for using an empty S-IVB as an interplanetary spacecraft for a Venus fly-by mission.
The S-IVB orbital workshop was the only one of these plans to make it off the drawing board. Dubbed Skylab, it was assembled on the ground rather than in space, and launched in 1973 using the two lower stages of a Saturn V. It was equipped with an Apollo Telescope Mount. Skylab's last crew departed the station on February 8, 1974, and the station itself re-entered the atmosphere in 1979 after development of the Space Shuttle was delayed too long to save it.
The Apollo–Soyuz program also used Apollo hardware for the first joint nation spaceflight, paving the way for future cooperation with other nations in the Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs. |
Apollo program | Recent observations | Recent observations
thumb|right|Tranquility Base, imaged in March 2012 by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
In 2008, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's SELENE probe observed evidence of the halo surrounding the Apollo 15 Lunar Module blast crater while orbiting above the lunar surface.
Beginning in 2009, NASA's robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, while orbiting above the Moon, photographed the remnants of the Apollo program left on the lunar surface, and each site where crewed Apollo flights landed. All of the U.S. flags left on the Moon during the Apollo missions were found to still be standing, with the exception of the one left during the Apollo 11 mission, which was blown over during that mission's lift-off from the lunar surface; the degree to which these flags retain their original colors remains unknown. The flags cannot be seen through a telescope from Earth.
In a November 16, 2009, editorial, The New York Times opined: |
Apollo program | Legacy | Legacy |
Apollo program | Science and engineering | Science and engineering
thumb|Margaret Hamilton standing next to the navigation software that she and her MIT team produced for the Apollo project
The Apollo program has been described as the greatest technological achievement in human history. Apollo stimulated many areas of technology, leading to over 1,800 spinoff products as of 2015, including advances in the development of cordless power tools, fireproof materials, heart monitors, solar panels, digital imaging, and the use of liquid methane as fuel. The flight computer design used in both the lunar and command modules was, along with the Polaris and Minuteman missile systems, the driving force behind early research into integrated circuits (ICs). By 1963, Apollo was using 60 percent of the United States' production of ICs. The crucial difference between the requirements of Apollo and the missile programs was Apollo's much greater need for reliability. While the Navy and Air Force could work around reliability problems by deploying more missiles, the political and financial cost of failure of an Apollo mission was unacceptably high.
Technologies and techniques required for Apollo were developed by Project Gemini. The Apollo project was enabled by NASA's adoption of new advances in semiconductor electronic technology, including metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) in the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) and silicon integrated circuit chips in the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC). |
Apollo program | Cultural impact | Cultural impact
thumb|right|The Blue Marble photograph taken on December7, 1972, during Apollo 17. "We went to explore the Moon, and in fact discovered the Earth." —Eugene Cernan
The crew of Apollo 8 sent the first live televised pictures of the Earth and the Moon back to Earth, and read from the creation story in the Book of Genesis, on Christmas Eve 1968. An estimated one-quarter of the population of the world saw—either live or delayed—the Christmas Eve transmission during the ninth orbit of the Moon,Chaikin 1994, p. 120 and an estimated one-fifth of the population of the world watched the live transmission of the Apollo 11 moonwalk.Burrows 1999, p. 429
The Apollo program also affected environmental activism in the 1970s due to photos taken by the astronauts. The most well known include Earthrise, taken by William Anders on Apollo 8, and The Blue Marble, taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts. The Blue Marble was released during a surge in environmentalism, and became a symbol of the environmental movement as a depiction of Earth's frailty, vulnerability, and isolation amid the vast expanse of space.
According to The Economist, Apollo succeeded in accomplishing President Kennedy's goal of taking on the Soviet Union in the Space Race by accomplishing a singular and significant achievement, to demonstrate the superiority of the free-market system. The publication noted the irony that in order to achieve the goal, the program required the organization of tremendous public resources within a vast, centralized government bureaucracy. |
Apollo program | Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project | Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project
Prior to Apollo 11's 40th anniversary in 2009, NASA searched for the original videotapes of the mission's live televised moonwalk. After an exhaustive three-year search, it was concluded that the tapes had probably been erased and reused. A new digitally remastered version of the best available broadcast television footage was released instead. |
Apollo program | Depictions on film | Depictions on film |
Apollo program | Documentaries | Documentaries
Numerous documentary films cover the Apollo program and the Space Race, including:
Footprints on the Moon (1969)
Moonwalk One (1970)
The Greatest Adventure (1978)
For All Mankind (1989)
Moon Shot (1994 miniseries)
"Moon" from the BBC miniseries The Planets (1999)
Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (2005)
The Wonder of It All (2007)
In the Shadow of the Moon (2007)
When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions (2008 miniseries)
Moon Machines (2008 miniseries)
James May on the Moon (2009)
NASA's Story (2009 miniseries)
Apollo 11 (2019)
Chasing the Moon (2019 miniseries) |
Apollo program | Docudramas | Docudramas
Some missions have been dramatized:
Apollo 13 (1995)
Apollo 11 (1996)
From the Earth to the Moon (1998)
The Dish (2000)
Space Race (2005)
Moonshot (2009)
First Man (2018) |
Apollo program | Fictional | Fictional
The Apollo program has been the focus of several works of fiction, including:
Apollo 18 (2011), horror movie which was released to negative reviews.
Men in Black 3 (2012), Science Fiction/Comedy movie. Agent J played by Will Smith goes back to the Apollo 11 launch in 1969 to ensure that a global protection system is launched in to space.
For All Mankind (2019), TV series depicting an alternate history in which the Soviet Union was the first country to successfully land a man on the Moon.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023), fifth Indiana Jones film, in which Jürgen Voller, a NASA member and ex-Nazi involved with the Apollo program, wants to time travel. The New York City parade for the Apollo 11 crew is portrayed as a plot point. |
Apollo program | See also | See also
Apollo 11 in popular culture
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package
Exploration of the Moon
Leslie Cantwell collection
List of artificial objects on the Moon
List of crewed spacecraft
List of missions to the Moon
Soviet crewed lunar programs
Stolen and missing Moon rocks
Artemis Program |
Apollo program | Notes | Notes |
Apollo program | References | References |
Apollo program | Citations | Citations |
Apollo program | Sources | Sources
Chaikin interviewed all the surviving astronauts and others who worked with the program.
|
Apollo program | Further reading | Further reading
NASA Report JSC-09423, April 1975
The autobiography of Michael Collins' experiences as an astronaut, including his flight aboard Apollo 11.
Although this book focuses on Apollo 13, it provides a wealth of background information on Apollo technology and procedures.
History of the Apollo program from Apollos 1–11, including many interviews with the Apollo astronauts.
Gleick, James, "Moon Fever" [review of Oliver Morton, The Moon: A History of the Future; Apollo's Muse: The Moon in the Age of Photography, an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, July 3 – September 22, 2019; Douglas Brinkley, American Moonshot: John F. Kennedy and the Great Space Race; Brandon R. Brown, The Apollo Chronicles: Engineering America's First Moon Missions; Roger D. Launius, Reaching for the Moon: A Short History of the Space Race; Apollo 11, a documentary film directed by Todd Douglas Miller; and Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys (50th Anniversary Edition)], The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no. 13 (15 August 2019), pp. 54–58.
Factual, from the standpoint of a flight controller during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs.
Details the flight of Apollo 13.
Tells Grumman's story of building the lunar modules.
History of the crewed space program from 1September 1960, to 5January 1968.
Account of Deke Slayton's life as an astronaut and of his work as chief of the astronaut office, including selection of Apollo crews.
From origin to November 7, 1962
November 8, 1962 – September 30, 1964
October 1, 1964 – January 20, 1966
January 21, 1966 – July 13, 1974
The history of lunar exploration from a geologist's point of view. |
Apollo program | External links | External links
Apollo program history at NASA's Human Space Flight (HSF) website
The Apollo Program at the NASA History Program Office
The Apollo Program at the National Air and Space Museum
Apollo 35th Anniversary Interactive Feature at NASA (in Flash)
Lunar Mission Timeline at the Lunar and Planetary Institute
Apollo Collection, The University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections |
Apollo program | NASA reports | NASA reports
Apollo Program Summary Report (PDF), NASA, JSC-09423, April 1975
NASA History Series Publications
Project Apollo Drawings and Technical Diagrams at the NASA History Program Office
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal edited by Eric M. Jones and Ken Glover
The Apollo Flight Journal by W. David Woods, et al. |
Apollo program | Multimedia | Multimedia
NASA Apollo Program images and videos
Apollo Image Archive at Arizona State University
Audio recording and transcript of President John F. Kennedy, NASA administrator James Webb, et al., discussing the Apollo agenda (White House Cabinet Room, November 21, 1962)
The Project Apollo Archive by Kipp Teague is a large repository of Apollo images, videos, and audio recordings
The Project Apollo Archive on Flickr
Apollo Image Atlas—almost 25,000 lunar images, Lunar and Planetary Institute
The short film The Time of Apollo (1975) is available for free viewing and download at the National Archives.
Apollo (11, 13 and 17) in real time multimedia project
Category:1960s in the United States
Category:1970s in the United States
Category:Articles containing video clips
Category:Engineering projects
Category:Exploration of the Moon
Category:Human spaceflight programs
Category:NASA programs
Category:Space program of the United States |
Apollo program | Table of Content | Short description, Name, Background, Origin and spacecraft feasibility studies, Political pressure builds, NASA expansion, Manned Spacecraft Center, Launch Operations Center, Organization, Choosing a mission mode, Spacecraft, Command and service module, Apollo Lunar Module, Launch vehicles, Little Joe II, Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V, Astronauts, Lunar mission profile, Profile variations, Development history, Uncrewed flight tests, Preparation for crewed flight, Program delays, Apollo 1 fire, Uncrewed Saturn V and LM tests, Crewed development missions, Production lunar landings, Mission cutbacks, Extended missions, Canceled missions, Mission summary, Samples returned, Costs, Apollo Applications Program, Recent observations, Legacy, Science and engineering, Cultural impact, Apollo 11 broadcast data restoration project, Depictions on film, Documentaries, Docudramas, Fictional, See also, Notes, References, Citations, Sources, Further reading, External links, NASA reports, Multimedia |
Assault | Short description | In the terminology of law, an assault is the act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person, or, in some legal definitions, the threat or attempt to do so. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Additionally, assault is a criminal act in which a person intentionally causes fear of physical harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault can be committed with or without a weapon and can range from physical violence to threats of violence. Assault is frequently referred to as an attempt to commit battery, which is the deliberate use of physical force against another person. The deliberate inflicting of fear, apprehension, or terror is another definition of assault that can be found in several legal systems. Depending on the severity of the offense, assault may result in a fine, imprisonment, or even death.
Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.
Traditionally, common law legal systems have separate definitions for assault and battery. When this distinction is observed, battery refers to the actual bodily contact, whereas assault refers to a credible threat or attempt to cause battery. Some jurisdictions combined the two offenses into a single crime called "assault and battery", which then became widely referred to as "assault". The result is that in many of these jurisdictions, assault has taken on a definition that is more in line with the traditional definition of battery. The legal systems of civil law and Scots law have never distinguished assault from battery.
Legal systems generally acknowledge that assaults can vary greatly in severity. In the United States, an assault can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. In England and Wales and Australia, it can be charged as either common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) or grievous bodily harm (GBH). Canada also has a three-tier system: assault, assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault. Separate charges typically exist for sexual assaults, affray and assaulting a police officer. Assault may overlap with an attempted crime; for example, an assault may be charged as attempted murder if it was done with intent to kill. |
Assault | Related definitions | Related definitions |
Assault | Battery | Battery
Battery is a criminal offense that involves the use of physical force against another person without their consent. It is a type of assault and is considered a serious crime. Battery can include a wide range of actions, from slapping someone to causing serious harm or even death. Depending on the severity of the offense, it can carry a wide range of punishments, including jail time, fines, and probation.
In jurisdictions that make a distinction between the two, assault usually accompanies battery if the assailant both threatens to make unwanted contact and then carries through with this threat. See common assault. The elements of battery are that it is a volitional act,An act is volitional if it is purposeful and deliberate as opposed to reflexive or involuntary (see Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (London, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) at p 901). For example. a person who has restless leg syndrome kicks his wife while asleep. The contact, although, harmful, would not constitute battery because the act was not willful. done for the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact with another person or under circumstances that make such contact substantially certain to occur, and which causes such contact.A criminal battery may also be committed if the harmful or offensive contact is due to the criminal negligence of the defendant. |
Assault | Aggravated assault | Aggravated assault
Aggravated assault is a violent crime that involves violence or the threat of violence. It is generally described as an intentional act that causes another person to fear imminent physical harm or injury. This can include the use of a weapon, or the threat of using a weapon. It is usually considered a felony offense and can carry severe penalties. Aggravated assault is often considered a very serious crime and can lead to long-term prison sentences.
Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon. A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person attempts to:
cause serious bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon
have sexual relations with a person who is under the age of consent
cause bodily harm by recklessly operating a motor vehicle during road rage; often referred to as either vehicular assault or aggravated assault with a motor vehicle.
Aggravated assault can also be charged in cases of attempted harm against police officers or other public servants. |
Assault | Defenses | Defenses
Although the range and precise application of defenses varies between jurisdictions, the following represents a list of the defenses that may apply to all levels of assault: |
Assault | Consent | Consent
Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior known as de minimis harm. Assault can also be considered in cases involving the spitting on or unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to others.
Consent may be a complete or partial defense to assault. In some jurisdictions, most notably England, it is not a defense where the degree of injury is severe, as long as there is no legally recognized good reason for the assault.(RvG ref 6. 1980): see This can have important consequences when dealing with issues such as consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity, the most notable case being the Operation Spanner case. Legally recognized good reasons for consent include surgery, activities within the rules of a game (mixed martial arts, wrestling, boxing, or contact sports), bodily adornment (R v Wilson [1996] Crim LR 573), or horseplay (R v Jones [1987] Crim LR 123). However, any activity outside the rules of the game is not legally recognized as a defense of consent. In Scottish law, consent is not a defense for assault. |
Assault | Arrest and other official acts | Arrest and other official acts
Police officers and court officials have a general power to use force for the purpose of performing an arrest or generally carrying out their official duties. Thus, a court officer taking possession of goods under a court order may use force if reasonably necessary. |
Assault | Punishment | Punishment
In some jurisdictions such as Singapore, judicial corporal punishment is part of the legal system. The officers who administer the punishment have immunity from prosecution for assault.
In the United States, England, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada, corporal punishment administered to children by their parent or legal guardian is not legally considered to be assault unless it is deemed to be excessive or unreasonable. What constitutes "reasonable" varies in both statutory law and case law. Unreasonable physical punishment may be charged as assault or under a separate statute for child abuse.
In English law, s. 58 Children Act 2004 limits the availability of the lawful correction defense to common assault. This defence was abolished in Wales in 2022. Section 1. This section came into force two years after the Act received royal assent (see section 5(1)).
Many countries, including some US states, also permit the use of controversial corporal punishment for children in school or home. |
Assault | Prevention of crime | Prevention of crime
This may or may not involve self-defense in that, using a reasonable degree of force to prevent another from committing a crime could involve preventing an assault, but it could be preventing a crime not involving the use of personal violence. |
Assault | Defense of property | Defense of property
Some jurisdictions allow force to be used in defense of property, to prevent damage either in its own right, or under one or both of the preceding classes of defense in that a threat or attempt to damage property might be considered a crime (in English law, under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 it may be argued that the defendant has a lawful excuse to damage property during the defense and a defense under s3 Criminal Law Act 1967) subject to the need to deter vigilantes and excessive self-help. Furthermore, some jurisdictions, such as Ohio, allow residents in their homes to use force when ejecting an intruder. The resident merely needs to assert to the court that they felt threatened by the intruder's presence. |
Assault | By country | By country |
Assault | Statistics | Statistics
The below table shows the rate of reported serious assault for individual countries according to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for the last available year.
Country Reportedserious assaults per 100,000 Year 5.4 2022 39.1 2022 327.5 2019 3.2 2022 366.9 2022 7.4 2019 288.9 2022 48.4 2022 3.2 2021 878.6 2022 329.1 2008 0.4 2006 326.3 2022 7.4 2019 500.5 2021 310.4 2022 46.0 2017 58.5 2017 107.2 2020 80.1 2022 15.6 2022 745.3 2014 216.8 2020 121.0 2006 46.2 2022 5.2 2014 527.8 2018 19.0 2020 209.6 2022 84.5 2022 249.7 2022 144.4 2022 19.3 2022 14.1 2022 39.7 2022 36.7 2022 1020.1 2022 27.8 2022 37.1 2022 0.4 2011 76.7 2022 England and Wales 950.7 2022 4.4 2022 352.1 2021 31.2 2022 606.3 2022 5.1 2019 173.5 2022 155.1 2021 12.8 2022 1790.5 2022 121.8 2021 3.1 2007 109.0 2016 210.7 2022 11.6 2018 21.4 2022 49.8 2022 136.6 2014 39.2 2022 25.9 2013 12.1 2022 (Central) 0.0 2020 121.3 2022 82.8 2022 106.4 2022 50.0 2008 90.7 2022 15.7 2022 6.6 2022 11.2 2017 41.8 2022 19.0 2021 24.5 2009 0.5 2020 29.1 2022 119.7 2016 364.9 2009 259.4 2022 5.3 2022 107.5 2022 0.1 2022 8.8 2015 12.1 2021 74.9 2017 41.3 2022 20.9 2021 51.0 2022 5.3 2020 535.9 2015 11.1 2021 20.4 2022 155.1 2022 2.3 2009 1.6 2022 374.1 2021 0.2 2016 27.9 2022 932.2 2021 14.7 2019 9.4 2013 6.5 2022 45.1 2022 35.6 2022 0.8 2022 11.6 2022 13.2 2022 112.8 2022 8.4 2022 9.0 2022 1.1 2019 12.9 2022 7.2 2022 108.7 2022 0.4 2021 1.2 2022 13.0 2020 29.7 2013 358.8 2022 850.1 2022 52.7 2019 58.0 2022 2.4 2010 73.4 2022 326.2 2008 7.7 2022 22.9 2022 5.4 2022 212.6 2008 295.5 2017 51.7 2022 42.6 2022 12.7 2019 416.6 2022 99.5 2022 44.0 2022 8.7 2022 0.7 2018 2.2 2011 48.0 2011 4.5 2015 13.5 2022 47.9 2018 101.7 2014 1.7 2006 14.3 2017 3.8 2020 2.2 2022 280.6 2022 15.3 2022 3.9 2021 0.0 2022 6.3 2018 0.1 2009 408.3 2008 |
Assault | Australia | Australia
The term 'assault', when used in legislation, commonly refers to both common assault and battery, even though the two offences remain distinct. Common assault involves intentionally or recklessly causing a person to apprehend the imminent infliction of unlawful force, whilst battery refers to the actual infliction of force..
Each state has legislation relating to the act of assault, and offences against the act that constitute assault are heard in the magistrates' court of that state or indictable offences are heard in a district or supreme court of that state. The legislation that defines assault of each state outline what the elements are that make up the assault, where the assault is sectioned in legislation or criminal codes, and the penalties that apply for the offence of assault.
In New South Wales, the Crimes Act 1900. defines a range of assault offences deemed more serious than common assault and which attract heavier penalties. These include: |
Assault | Assault with further specific intent | Assault with further specific intent
Acts done to the person with intent to murder
Wounding or grievous bodily harm
Use or possession of a weapon to resist arrest |
Assault | Assault causing certain injuries | Assault causing certain injuries
Actual bodily harm – the term is not defined in the Crimes Act, but case law indicates actual bodily harm may include injuries such as bruises and scratches,. as well as psychological injuries. if the injury inflicted is more than merely transient (the injury does not necessarily need to be permanent)R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498; (1934) 5 New Zealand Police Law Reports 247.
Wounding(4). – where there is breaking of the skin;
Grievous bodily harm(2). – which includes the destruction of a fetus, permanent or serious disfiguring, and transmission of a grievous bodily disease. |
Assault | Assault causing death | Assault causing death
Death
Death when intoxicated (in regards to the offender) |
Assault | Canada | Canada
Assault is an offence under s. 265 of the Canadian Criminal Code. There is a wide range of the types of assault that can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person without their consent. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to "tap", "pinch", "push", or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault.
The potential punishment for an assault in Canada varies depending on the manner in which the charge proceeds through the court system and the type of assault that is committed. The Criminal Code defines assault as a dual offence (indictable or summary offence). Police officers can arrest someone without a warrant for an assault if it is in the public's interest to do so notwithstanding S.495(2)(d) of the Code. This public interest is usually satisfied by preventing a continuation or repetition of the offence on the same victim.
Some variations on the ordinary crime of assault include:
Assault: The offence is defined by section 265 of the Code.
Assault with a weapon: Section 267(a) of the Code.
Assault causing bodily harm: Section 267(b) of the Code.
Aggravated assault: Section 268 of the Code.
Assaulting a peace officer, etc.: Section 270 of the Code.
Sexual assault: Section 271 of the Code.
Sexual assault with a weapon or threats or causing bodily harm: Section 272 of the Code.
Aggravated sexual assault: See aggravated sexual assault.
An individual cannot consent to an assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, or any sexual assault. Consent will also be vitiated if two people consent to fight but serious bodily harm is intended and caused (R v Paice; R v Jobidon). A person cannot consent to serious bodily harm. |
Assault | Ancient Greece | Ancient Greece
Assault in Ancient Greece was normally termed hubris. Contrary to modern usage, the term did not have the extended connotation of overweening pride, self-confidence or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greece, "hubris" referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich.
Violations of the law against hubris included, what would today be termed, assault and battery; sexual crimes ranging from forcible rape of women or children to consensual but improper activities; or the theft of public or sacred property.MacDowell (1976) p. 25. Two well-known cases are found in the speeches of Demosthenes, a prominent statesman and orator in ancient Greece. These two examples occurred when first, in addition to other acts of violence, Meidias allegedly punched Demosthenes in the face in the theater (Against Meidias), and second (Against Konon), when the defendant allegedly severely beat him.
Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it not only was proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent, "outrageous treatment", in general.
The meaning was eventually further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral laws. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Atë, Greek for 'ruin, folly, delusion', is the action performed by the hero, usually because of their hubris, or great pride, that leads to their death or downfall.
Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honor (timē) and shame. The concept of timē included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honor, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honor is akin to a zero-sum game. Rush Rehm simplifies this definition to the contemporary concept of "insolence, contempt, and excessive violence". |
Assault | India | India
The Indian Penal Code covers the punishments and types of assault in Chapter 16, sections 351 through 358.
The Code further explains that "mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to their gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault". Assault is in Indian criminal law an attempt to use criminal force (with criminal force being described in s.350). The attempt itself has been made an offence in India, as in other states. |
Assault | Nigeria | Nigeria
The Criminal Code Act (chapter 29 of Part V; sections 351 to 365) creates a number of offences of assault. Assault is defined by section 252 of that Act. Assault is a misdemeanor punishable by one year imprisonment; assault with "intent to have carnal knowledge of him or her" or who indecently assaults another, or who commits other more-serious variants of assault (as defined in the Act) are guilty of a felony, and longer prison terms are provided for. |
Assault | Pacific Islands | Pacific Islands
Marshall Islands
The offence of assault is created by section 113 of the Criminal Code.Criminal Code [31 MIRC Ch 1] A person is guilty of this offence if they unlawfully offer or attempt, with force or violence, to strike, beat, wound, or do bodily harm to, another. |
Assault | Republic of Ireland | Republic of Ireland
Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 creates the offence of assault, and section 3 of that Act creates the offence of assault causing harm. |
Assault | South Africa | South Africa
South African law does not draw the distinction between assault and battery. Assault is a common law crime defined as "unlawfully and intentionally applying force to the person of another, or inspiring a belief in that other that force is immediately to be applied to him". The law also recognises the crime of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, where grievous bodily harm is defined as "harm which in itself is such as seriously to interfere with health". The common law crime of indecent assault was repealed by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, and replaced by a statutory crime of sexual assault. |
Assault | United Kingdom | United Kingdom
Piracy with violence Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 provides that it is an offence, amongst other things, for a person, with intent to commit or at the time of or immediately before or immediately after committing the crime of piracy in respect of any ship or vessel, to assault, with intent to murder, any person being on board of or belonging to such ship or vessel.
Assault on an officer of Revenue and Customs This offence (relating to officers of HMRC) is created by section 32(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
Assaulting an immigration officer This offence is created by section 22(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007.
Assaulting an accredited financial investigator This section is created by section 453A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.Section 453A was inserted by section 81(2) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 and amended by paragraph 94 of Schedule 7 to the Policing and Crime Act 2009.
Assaulting a member of an international joint investigation team This offence is created by section 57(2) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Attacks on internationally protected persons Section 1(1)(a) of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17) makes provision for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or causing injury on "protected persons" (including Heads of State).
Attacks on UN Staff workers Section 1(2)(a) of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (c.13) makes provision for assault causing injury, and section 1(2)(b) makes provision for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, on UN staff.
Assault by person committing an offence under the Night Poaching Act 1828 This offence is created by section 2 of the Night Poaching Act 1828.
Abolished offences:
Assault on customs and excise officers, etc. Section 16(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c.2) provided that it was an offence to, amongst other things, assault any person duly engaged in the performance of any duty or the exercise of any power imposed or conferred on him by or under any enactment relating to an assigned matter, or any person acting in his aid. For the meaning of "assault" in this provision, see Logdon v. DPP [1976] Crim LR 121, DC. This offence was abolished and replaced by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.
Assaulting a person designated under section 43 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 This offence was created by section 51(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It related to officers of the Serious Organized Crime Agency and was repealed when that agency was abolished. |
Assault | England and Wales | England and Wales
English law provides for two offences of assault: common assault and battery. Assault (or common assault) is committed if one intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. Violence in this context means any unlawful touching, though there is some debate over whether the touching must also be hostile. The terms "assault" and "common assault" often encompass the separate offence of battery, even in statutory settings such as section 40(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33).
A common assault is an assault that lacks any of the aggravating features which Parliament has deemed serious enough to deserve a higher penalty. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in a magistrates' court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offence, which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the defendant of the more serious offence, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed. |
Assault | Aggravated assault | Aggravated assault
An assault which is aggravated by the scale of the injuries inflicted may be charged as offences causing "actual bodily harm" (ABH) or, in the severest cases, "grievous bodily harm" (GBH).
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm This offence is created by section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Inflicting grievous bodily harm Also referred to as "malicious wounding" or "unlawful wounding". This offence is created by section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Causing grievous bodily harm with intent Also referred to as "wounding with intent". This offence is created by section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Other aggravated assault charges refer to assaults carried out against a specific target or with a specific intent:
Assault with intent to rob The penalty for assault with intent to rob, a common law offence, is provided by section 8(2) of the Theft Act 1968.
Racially or religiously aggravated common assault This offence is created by section 29(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), defined in terms of the common law offence.
Racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm This offence is created by section 29(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), defined in terms of the common law offence.
Assault with intent to resist arrest This offence is created by section 38 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) provides that it is an offence for a person to assault a constable acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty. It is a summary offence with the same maximum penalty as common assault.
Assaulting a traffic officer This offence is created by section/10 section 10(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18). This offence applies to Traffic Wardens, Civil Enforcement Officers and PCSOs if they have been conferred with road traffic powers by their force.
Assaulting a person designated or accredited under sections 38 or 39 or 41 or 41A of the Police Reform Act 2002 This offence is created by section/46 section 46(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30). Those sections relate respectively to persons given police powers by a chief police officer, such as PCSOs detention officers or contractors retained by police, accredited contractors under a community safety accreditation scheme, and weights and measures inspectors.
Assault on a prison custody officer This offence is created by section 90(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53).
Assault on a secure training centre custody officer This offence is created by section 13(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33).
Assault on officer saving wreck This offence is created by section 37 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
Assaulting an officer of the court This offence is created by section 14(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28).
Cruelty to persons under sixteen This offence is created by section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 12) and applies to a person who has responsibility for the child. In England (but not Wales since 2022), common law provides a defence of "reasonable punishment" to battery (i.e. assaults involving touching); the Children Act 2004 (c. 31) limits the defence to exclude, among other offences, cruelty under the 1933 act, but not battery, which implies that smacking is not always to be considered cruelty.
Sexual assault The offence of sexual assault is created by section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42). It is not defined in terms of the offences of common assault or battery. It instead requires intentional touching and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent.
Assault by penetration This offence is defined by section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42). Whereas rape consists only of penetration with the perpetrator's penis, assault by penetration can be committed with anything, though unlike rape it excludes penetration of the mouth. It carries the same maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Assault on an emergency worker The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 (c. 23) makes common assault an either way offence (section 1) when committed against an emergency worker (defined in section 3), with a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment if tried on indictment. The act did not repeal any enactments, so the existing offence of assault on a constable is still available, but that offence cannot be tried on indictment and is therefore limited to six months. |
Assault | Scotland | Scotland
In Scots law, assault is defined as an "attack upon the person of another".MacDonald, Criminal Law (5th edn, 1948) p.155 There is no distinction made in Scotland between assault and battery (which is not a term used in Scots law), although, as in England and Wales, assault can be occasioned without a physical attack on another's person, as demonstrated in Atkinson v. HM Advocate1987 SCCR 534 wherein the accused was found guilty of assaulting a shop assistant by simply jumping over a counter while wearing a ski mask. The court said:
Scots law also provides for a more serious charge of aggravated assault on the basis of such factors as severity of injury, the use of a weapon, or Hamesucken (to assault a person in their own home). The mens rea for assault is simply "evil intent",MacDonald, op. cit, p.155; Smart v. HM Advocate 1975 JC 30 although this has been held to mean no more than that assault "cannot be committed accidentally or recklessly or negligently" as upheld in Lord Advocate's Reference No 2 of 1992 where it was found that a "hold-up" in a shop justified as a joke would still constitute an offence.
It is a separate offence to assault on a constable in the execution of their duty, under section 90 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (previously section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77)) which provides that it is an offence for a person to, amongst other things, assault a constable in the execution of their duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of their duty. |
Assault | Northern Ireland | Northern Ireland
Several offences of assault exist in Northern Ireland. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100) creates the offences of:
Common assault and battery: a summary offence, under section 42;
Aggravated assault and battery: a summary offence, under section 43
Common assault: under section 47
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm: under section 47
The Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 28 (N.I.)) creates the offences of:
Assault with intent to resist arrest: under section 7(1)(b); this offence was formerly created by section 38 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100).
That act formerly created the offence of 'Assault on a constable in the execution of his duty'. under section 7(1)(a), but that section has been superseded by section 66(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) which now provides that it is an offence for a person to, amongst other things, assault a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty. |
Assault | United States | United States
thumb|Felony Sentences in State Courts, study by the United States Department of Justice
In the United States, assault may be defined as an attempt to commit a battery. However, the crime of assault can encompass acts in which no battery is intended, but the defendant's act nonetheless creates reasonable fear in others that a battery will occur.
Four elements were required at common law:
The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.
As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.
The crime of assault generally requires that both the perpetrator and the victim of an assault be a natural person. Thus, unless the attack is directed by a person, an animal attack does not constitute an assault. However, under limited circumstances the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 treats a fetus as a separate person for the purposes of assault and other violent crimes.
Possible examples of defenses, mitigating circumstances, or failures of proof that may be raised in response to an assault charge include:
Lack of intent: A defendant could argue that since they were drunk, they could not form the specific intent to commit assault. This defense would most likely fail, however, since only involuntary intoxication is accepted as a defense in most American jurisdictions.
Mutual consent: A defendant could also argue that they were engaged in mutually consensual behavior. For example, boxers who are fighting in an organized boxing match and do not significantly deviate from the rules of the sport cannot be charged with assault. |
Assault | State laws | State laws
Laws on assault vary by state. Since each state has its own criminal laws, there is no universal assault law. Acts classified as assault in one state may be classified as battery, menacing, intimidation, reckless endangerment, etc. in another state. Assault is often subdivided into two categories, simple assault and aggravated assault.
Simple assault involves an intentional act that causes another person to be in reasonable fear of an imminent battery. Simple assault may also involve an attempt to cause harm to another person, where that attempt does not succeed. Simple assault is typically classified as a misdemeanor offense, unless the victim is a member of a protected class, such as being a law enforcement officer.See, e.g., Even as a misdemeanor, an assault conviction may still result in incarceration and in a criminal record.
Aggravated assault involves more serious actions, such as an assault that is committed with the intent to cause a serious bodily injury, or an assault that is committed with a deadly weapon such as a firearm. Aggravated assault is typically classified as a felony offense.
Modern American statutes may define assault as including:
an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another
negligently causing bodily injury to another with a dangerous weapon (assault with a deadly weapon).
causing bodily harm by reckless operation of a motor vehicle (vehicular assault).
threatening another in a menacing manner.
knowingly causing physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative
causing stupor, unconsciousness or physical injury by intentionally administering a drug or controlled substance without consent
purposely or knowingly causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another
any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.
In some states, consent is a complete defense to assault. In other jurisdictions, mutual consent is an incomplete defense to an assault charge such that an assault charge is prosecuted as a less significant offense such as a petty misdemeanor.
States vary on whether it is possible to commit an "attempted assault" since it can be considered a double inchoate offense. |
Assault | Kansas | Kansas
In Kansas the law on assault states: |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.