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

"short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 9th 03, 07:20 PM
Mike Flugennock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)

At last, the image -- or at least one of them -- that I was looking for
regarding the "short CSM" discussion on the "Marooned" thread.

Would this:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/bigst80s.jpg
from the page
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaation.htm
....be what you're thinking of? Half-length SM, no SPS, larger RCS tankage,
as one poster put it, "...a honking big Soyuz"?

Which begs the question, "why have we not developed something similar,
which doesn't have to deal with all the fancy winged-vehicle-reentry
issues" to do our crew xfer? I guess the new SLI designs using a conical,
reminiscent-of-Apollo reentry vehicle is headed that way (except for that
Russian-style open-trusswork-with-exposed-tankage equipment module, but
I'll bet it's really light).

But, anyway...seriously, all proposed actual variants aside, I think that
one prop CSM in "Marooned" was built with a short SM anticipating the use
of extremely foreshortened forced perspective views when shooting scenes
featuring front-view CM exteriors.

--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
  #2  
Old October 10th 03, 12:49 AM
James Steven York
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:20:37 -0400, (Mike
Flugennock) wrote:

At last, the image -- or at least one of them -- that I was looking for
regarding the "short CSM" discussion on the "Marooned" thread.

Would this:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/bigst80s.jpg
from the page
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaation.htm
...be what you're thinking of? Half-length SM, no SPS, larger RCS tankage,
as one poster put it, "...a honking big Soyuz"?


I must have looked at that image a million times, and always assumed
that those were simply modular add-ons to the space station. It's
obvious that they're Apollo command modules when you know what you're
looking at, but it just never dawned on me before.

  #3  
Old October 10th 03, 04:13 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)



James Steven York wrote:

I must have looked at that image a million times, and always assumed
that those were simply modular add-ons to the space station. It's
obvious that they're Apollo command modules when you know what you're
looking at, but it just never dawned on me before.



That was exactly the effect it had on me; I seen that image for decades,
and it never dawned on me those were modified Apollos.

Pat

  #4  
Old October 10th 03, 09:31 AM
Harald Kucharek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)

James Steven York wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:20:37 -0400, (Mike
Flugennock) wrote:

At last, the image -- or at least one of them -- that I was looking for
regarding the "short CSM" discussion on the "Marooned" thread.

Would this:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/bigst80s.jpg
from the page
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaation.htm
...be what you're thinking of? Half-length SM, no SPS, larger RCS tankage,
as one poster put it, "...a honking big Soyuz"?


I must have looked at that image a million times, and always assumed
that those were simply modular add-ons to the space station. It's
obvious that they're Apollo command modules when you know what you're
looking at, but it just never dawned on me before.


Dito. :-(
  #5  
Old October 10th 03, 01:27 PM
Mike Flugennock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)

In article , James Steven York
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:20:37 -0400, (Mike
Flugennock) wrote:

At last, the image -- or at least one of them -- that I was looking for
regarding the "short CSM" discussion on the "Marooned" thread.

Would this:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/bigst80s.jpg
from the page
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaation.htm
...be what you're thinking of? Half-length SM, no SPS, larger RCS tankage,
as one poster put it, "...a honking big Soyuz"?


I must have looked at that image a million times, and always assumed
that those were simply modular add-ons to the space station. It's
obvious that they're Apollo command modules when you know what you're
looking at, but it just never dawned on me before...


Yeah, it took me a bit of close viewing and the reading of some background
on proposals for Apollo logistics/crew xfer variants before I figured that
out. The CMs _do_ look as if they're rendered a bit too "flat", though, a
bit too short in relation to the diameter of the base of the CM "cone".

--
"All over, people changing their roles,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
  #6  
Old October 10th 03, 05:24 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)

(Mike Flugennock) wrote:

In article , James Steven York
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:20:37 -0400,
(Mike
Flugennock) wrote:

At last, the image -- or at least one of them -- that I was looking for
regarding the "short CSM" discussion on the "Marooned" thread.

Would this:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/bigst80s.jpg
from the page
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaation.htm
...be what you're thinking of? Half-length SM, no SPS, larger RCS tankage,
as one poster put it, "...a honking big Soyuz"?


I must have looked at that image a million times, and always assumed
that those were simply modular add-ons to the space station. It's
obvious that they're Apollo command modules when you know what you're
looking at, but it just never dawned on me before...


Yeah, it took me a bit of close viewing and the reading of some background
on proposals for Apollo logistics/crew xfer variants before I figured that
out. The CMs _do_ look as if they're rendered a bit too "flat", though, a
bit too short in relation to the diameter of the base of the CM "cone".


Unfortunately for all the angst in this thread, the writeup on the
station is pretty clear that the station was supplied by the Shuttle.


D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
 




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
"Marooned" horrific inaccuracies....?! Mike Flugennock History 15 October 26th 03 05:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.