A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The evolution of spacecraft static models as seen in astronaut photos.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 31st 06, 06:46 PM posted to sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The evolution of spacecraft static models as seen in astronaut photos.

I was watching episode 5 of "Rocket Science", and there was a shot of (I
think) the "next nine". On the table in front were amll, white (probably
wooden) models of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Mercury and Apollo both had
escape towers, Gemini was almost unrecognizable because it was just the
capsule (no service or retro module.) It got me to thinking about the
various configurations we saw in static models in various photos. Oddly
enough, the Mercury didn't seem to have the retro-pack.

Almost every Mercury static model was the classic capsule+retro pack+escape
tower configuration. When you think about it, this is an odd configuration,
since the only time, in flight, that such a configuration would exist is in
an abort.

I've seen early Apollo configurations which consisted of the (Block I) CM
plus the escape tower, probably built based on the "standard" Mercury model
configuration, and again, it makes no sense. I suppose that the early Gemini
static models would, once again, be just the capsules.

At some point the Gemini model "standard" became the flight configuration.
When did the Apollo model become the CSM? At least by the time they were
taking crew photos for AS 204, they had gotten rid of the LES on the models.
http://space.about.com/library/graph...pollo1/ap3.jpg

Anyway, just a random observation.


  #2  
Old February 1st 06, 12:54 AM posted to sci.space.history
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The evolution of spacecraft static models as seen in astronaut photos.

"Ami Silberman" wrote:

I was watching episode 5 of "Rocket Science", and there was a shot of (I
think) the "next nine". On the table in front were amll, white (probably
wooden) models of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Mercury and Apollo both had
escape towers, Gemini was almost unrecognizable because it was just the
capsule (no service or retro module.)


Indeed. I found a paperweight at Goodwill that was in the shape of a
capsule, but I was dammed if I could ID which one at first glance. It
wasn't until I picked it up that I could see the two windows, and even
then it took a couple of minutes to figure out that it was a Gemini
sans the aft modules.

Almost every Mercury static model was the classic capsule+retro pack+escape
tower configuration. When you think about it, this is an odd configuration,
since the only time, in flight, that such a configuration would exist is in
an abort.


It's an odd configuration, but it is the complete spacecraft.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
System to monitor heat panels could safeguard future spacecraft (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Space Shuttle 0 July 15th 04 06:14 PM
Russia to build new spacecraft Carlos Santillan Space Shuttle 4 February 23rd 04 08:34 AM
Soyuz TMA-3 manned spacecraft launch to the ISS Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 October 21st 03 09:39 AM
Return to space for Spanish ESA astronaut Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 October 16th 03 03:21 PM
Return to space for Spanish ESA astronaut Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 October 16th 03 03:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.