|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"short CSM" (was: "Marooned" horrific inaccuracies...?)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Marooned" horrific inaccuracies....?! | Mike Flugennock | History | 15 | October 26th 03 04:36 PM |