Felxibility of Apollo design (was Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis) )

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

Reentry.


Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission.
Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter.

I believe you said: "the CM is wedded always and forever to a SM."

Not only is this not true, but in fact there is a portion of *each and every
mission* in which, if it were true, it would lead to a loss of the vehicle
and crew.

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
It would be far better for NASA, in my opinion, to sart small abd built a
very
simple escape pod that wouldn't cost much and woudln't take 10 years to
build.

Write a check. And I'm not talking about taxes.

If you want it done, provide the money in a manner that does not allow
Congress to fiddle with it.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Please just admit that you were wrong and be done with it.

When I'm wrong, I generally do so.

However disagreeing is not the same as being wrong.

Lately, you've been wrong *and* disagreeable.

Derek Lyons wrote:
Is a very brief portion of the total mission, not the total mission.
Without a SM, you'll never complete the mission and get to reenter.

Modular implies simple, clean interfaces, not self sufficiency.

Modular implies the ability to swap parts in and out at will.

Well... that's one interpretation. The word is overloaded,
in this discussion.

I think we have all clearly established that:
1) The Apollo CSM stack needed a SM as well as a SM
2) Only one SM structural model was produced
3) Other SM structural and systems models were proposed but not built
4) The systems loadout on the SMs which were built did vary considerably

The implication of whether you chose to call the Apollo CSM
"Modular" or "Separatable" or whatever is up to you.
I think that we have gone beyond any useful discussion on
the specific question of what it, physically, was and did.


-george william herbert