1969 design patent - Apollo CM shelter on LM descent stage

On 15 Mar 2007 15:43:06 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Rusty"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 15, 1:42 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Rusty" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Mar 15, 10:28 am, OM wrote:

...Some Rockwell engineer saw his kid do just that with the Revell
"Rainbow Landing" kit and decided to patent it before someone else did
just for CYA purposes.

OM

This means there may be a patent out there for a LM ascent stage
attached to an Apollo service module. That would be a one way trip.

You know, I figure the crew of Apollo 9 must have been pretty nervous.

"What do you mean the descent stage of Spider won't stop firing? What do
you mean we can't rendezvous with Gumdrop?"


"Dammit Rusty, you barfed all over the firing circuits!!!"

Ok, two threads with barf jokes is enough for one month.

More than that, I'd say. Probably two more than we needed.

On 15 Mar 2007 13:16:21 -0700, "Rusty"
wrote:

This means there may be a patent out there for a LM ascent stage
attached to an Apollo service module. That would be one way trip.

....Funny, ISTR mention of an AAP project where an unmanned space
telescope was proposed using that exact configuration. The LM ascent
stage would have provided a docking port for a reservicing module, and
the 'scope itself would have been mounted where the front hatch would
have been normlly. The SM would have been more of a PAM at first, with
the remainder of the fuel intended to be redirected to the RCS for the
remainder of the mission. I can see reaction wheels being used
instead, tho.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Google the difference between a "patent" and a "design patent" and you might
be able to glean why they probably didn't care very much.


What people think of when they hear the word "patent" is really a
"utility patent". "Design patents" are really just a copyright or
trademark, like the shape of the Coke bottle. Those late night
commercials for patent attorneys are probably touting design patents
without specifically saying what those are. And thus are scams...

I have 13 utility patents, but, as I invented them as part of my job at
various companies, they got the rights. Well, I still get bragging
rights.. :-)

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:59:06 -0500, robert casey wrote
(in article . net):



Google the difference between a "patent" and a "design patent" and you
might
be able to glean why they probably didn't care very much.


What people think of when they hear the word "patent" is really a
"utility patent". "Design patents" are really just a copyright or
trademark,

Well, not exactly, but more similar to those than to a "real" (e.g., utility)
patent.

like the shape of the Coke bottle.

Exactly. Similarly, the shape of the TiVo "peanut" remote control, etc.

Those late night
commercials for patent attorneys

Actually, I strongly suspect a great number of those (most?) are not actually
patent attorneys either. Just like you don't need to be an engineer to
invent something, you don't have to be an attorney to file paperwork with the
government.

are probably touting design patents
without specifically saying what those are. And thus are scams...

Yep.

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

robert casey wrote:

What people think of when they hear the word "patent" is really a
"utility patent". "Design patents" are really just a copyright or
trademark, like the shape of the Coke bottle.

That original Coke bottle is in the American Museum of Modern Art, BTW.
It's considered the classic example of where the ergonomics of hand
friendly design met high art in a perfect conjunction.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


robert casey wrote:

What people think of when they hear the word "patent" is really a
"utility patent". "Design patents" are really just a copyright or
trademark, like the shape of the Coke bottle.

That original Coke bottle is in the American Museum of Modern Art, BTW.
It's considered the classic example of where the ergonomics of hand
friendly design met high art in a perfect conjunction...

....which was then, of course, replaced by the crummy-assed ersatz
plastic facsimile some years back.

What I can't figure out is -- with the advances in high-density,
high-impact plastics that have given us all these bottles which look and
feel like glass, why the hell haven't they brought back that good
old-fashioned simple, elegant, just the right amount, classic Coca-Cola
bottle?

You know, the "tall boy" original Coke bottle, and my own favorite, the
7oz "pony" original Coke bottle, which I remember as a kid being just
the right amount for when I needed just a quick drink of soda to cool
off at the ballgame.



--
..
"Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few:
Don't lend a hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:13:30 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



robert casey wrote:

What people think of when they hear the word "patent" is really a
"utility patent". "Design patents" are really just a copyright or
trademark, like the shape of the Coke bottle.

That original Coke bottle is in the American Museum of Modern Art, BTW.
It's considered the classic example of where the ergonomics of hand
friendly design met high art in a perfect conjunction.

Pat

It was not until they started calling transonic and supersonic
aircraft "Coke bottle shaped" that it had any significance.

Alan

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:12:50 -0500, Mike Flugennock
wrote:

What I can't figure out is -- with the advances in high-density,
high-impact plastics that have given us all these bottles which look and
feel like glass, why the hell haven't they brought back that good
old-fashioned simple, elegant, just the right amount, classic Coca-Cola
bottle?

....Actually, the 20oz plastic bottle *is* in most markets
"Coke-shaped", as are the 32oz ones. It's the 2 and 3-liter ones that
aren't.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Mike Flugennock wrote:

What I can't figure out is -- with the advances in high-density,
high-impact plastics that have given us all these bottles which look
and feel like glass, why the hell haven't they brought back that good
old-fashioned simple, elegant, just the right amount, classic
Coca-Cola bottle?

You know, the "tall boy" original Coke bottle, and my own favorite,
the 7oz "pony" original Coke bottle, which I remember as a kid being
just the right amount for when I needed just a quick drink of soda to
cool off at the ballgame.

And they really made sense from an energy usage point of view also; We
had a Coca-Cola bottling plant in town that took the empty bottles,
washed then out with boiling hot high pressure water to sterilize them,
refilled them, and back to the stores they would go. A bottle could be
refilled hundreds of times over a multi-decade lifetime, and possible
never move out of a five-mile radius distance from the bottling plant.
I once found a refillable beer bottle from 1939 in a case of beer
purchased during the late 1980's.
Disposable glass beer bottles are crazy; instead of refilling them, you
have to melt and cast all-new glass.

Pat