"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And likewise, designing a modular system which ends up only existing in
one version isn't the same as designing a non-modular system.

sigh It's not like you Henry to not actually read and comprehend
the initial post.

When you do, you note the modularity is defined as 'being able to
leave bits not needed behind', something the Apollo spacecraft is
decidedly not able to do. Whether it's the super-heavy J mission SM,
or the ultra lightweight CRV SM, the CM is wedded always and forever
to a SM.

You're missing the point. The interfaces between the CM and the SM were
just that, interfaces. It would have been perfectly possible to substitute
a different (smaller) SM for Skylab. It would just have to provide the same
sort of services as the lunar CM (power, O2, water, propulsion, and etc).

Just because there was essentially only one CM design (Block II CSM) and one
SM design, does not negate the fact that the design is inheriently modular.

When writing software, I always try to design modular interfaces, even if
the current project only calls for one use of said interfaces. It sure
makes implementing future projects easier.


Note how the Russians have used Soyuz over the years. In addition to
Progress (essentially a Soyuz with an unpressurized cargo area replacing the
descent module), there have been numerous unmanned Soyuz derivatives. The
delivery of Pirs to ISS was made by a Soyuz/Progress propulsion module.

Hint: Lacking formal naming terminology, names mean little. Gemini
also had 'modules', but wasn't modular either.

Sure it was. Take a look at how Gemini would have been used on top of MOL.
The modules behind the manned reentry module were much different than the
original Gemini. These differences are very similar to those between a
lunar SM and the proposed smaller SM for earth orbiting missions.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.