Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Forum:Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
Topic:Thickness of Apollo 11 CM heat shield
Want to register?
Who Can Post? Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Your UserName:
Your Password:   Forget your password?
Your Reply:


*HTML is ON
*UBB Code is ON

Smilies Legend

Options Disable Smilies in This Post.
Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

SpaceAholicUmbilical guillotined manually? Sequential Events Control System (SECS) Service Module Jettison Controller (SMJC) initiated pyrotechnics.
David CShe's completely incorrect on all counts. Obviously it wasn't the first. It wasn't thicker, and they were well aware of how it would perform. For interest, Apollo 10 was the fastest manned vehicle (just after Entry Interface). Apollo 4 was the most demanding entry for the thermal protection system.

The Apollo Experience Report is worth a look. Figure 10 shows just how testing Apollo 4 was, and by contrast how "easy" the manned entries were.

Ken HavekotteApollo 4 with CM-017 did a complete lunar-type simulation return velocity and angle pitch when coming back from Earth orbit. The same also for Apollo 6/CM-020, if I am not mistaken, but it wasn't as successful and fell short of what Apollo 4 had achieved.

When you think about it, it's amazing how AS-501 had worked so well on its maiden flight of a fully rated Saturn V moon-type rocket with all launch support and flight objectives achieved. AS-502 was not so lucky.

Space Cadet CarlSupposedly all Apollo CMs had the exact same heat shield which varied in thickness from two inches thick in the very center, to one-half inch thickness at it's outer edges. Indeed, Apollo 4 was the most "extreme" reentry and Apollo 10 was the hottest manned reentry.
Robert PearlmanI touched base with Lisa Young, who appears with Adam Savage in the video.

She acknowledged she misspoke about it being "the first" — she intended to say "one of the first." There was no opportunity for her to ask to go back and revise or correct what she had said.

As for the thickness of Columbia's heat shield, she was speaking from her own experience as a conservator at the National Air and Space Museum. She said she was not sure if the heat shields remained the same thickness throughout the program, but of the spacecraft she has worked on, it seemed to be more refined as the program evolved.

Ken HavekotteTo answer the topic question more precisely, but I think David C's posting above had a similar report that I have always been using since the 70's, of the Apollo Command Module (CM) spacecrafts were about the same in their ablator thickness.

The blunt-end side of a CM was between 2.0" to 2.7" in thickness and from 0.70" to 1.5" of thickness on the sides of a CM from top to bottom.

The ablator material used for the Apollo spacecraft program for NASA's thermal protection subsystem was Avco 5026-39G and consisted of an epoxy-novalac resin reinforced with quartz fibers and phenolic microballoons. Now how's that for getting technical (too much for me, huh)?

My records indicate that Apollo 16 did achieve the highest entry velocity (relative feet/second) at 35,502 with Apollo 11 not too far away at 35,024. But Apollo 10 did have the steepest inertial entry angle at -6542 degrees with the hottest temperature rating.

SpaceAholicBlock I's had thicker ablator (addition of the BPC on the Block II's allowed the thickness to be reduced).
David C
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
My records indicate that Apollo 16 did achieve the highest entry velocity (relative feet/second) at 35,502 with Apollo 11 not too far away at 35,024. But Apollo 10 did have the steepest inertial entry angle at -6542 degrees.

I think it does depend where you look as to what numbers you get. Table III of the previously quoted Apollo Experience Report agrees with you. However, other sources all line up with “Apollo by the Numbers” Table 57 which puts Apollo 10 in first place. Now I don’t much care for using “Forever Young” as a reference, but it’s pertinent in this case as John Young was on both Apollo 10 and 16 so should have known. He does quote the Apollo 10 inertial speed as “the fastest entry of any Apollo spacecraft”.

On the subject of Lisa Young’s remarks, really she has to back them up with a reference not a subjective remark. If the Block II heatshield thicknesses really did vary, where was this accommodated? Did the BPC thicknesses vary? Did the gap between the pressure shell and heatshield vary? Did the entire shape and hence L/D vary? I mean, just what is she suggesting here?

Robert PearlmanLisa is a conservator; her responsibility is to understand the materials and overall structure of the artifacts in the National Air and Space Museum's collection. Her research includes the original processes and manufacturing techniques, but not necessarily the decisions that went into those practices.

The types of questions you are asking are more appropriately directed to a curator or historian, who would use the data collected by Lisa and her fellow conservators to then connect them with the history of the program.

Lisa was sharing her experience working hands on with the spacecraft, making exact measurements in the pursuit of preserving them and tracking changes to their materials over stretches of time. If what she has found doesn't match the published record, that is a reason for further research by others.

David COK. They were hand made spacecraft, so I can correlate her “more refined” comment, with the workers just getting more practiced at their techniques. That’s quite different from her earlier remarks.
olyPerhaps some perspective should be considered. The Adam Savage's Tested episode appears to be a casual chat between objects conservator Lisa Young and Adam as she takes Adam through some of the work her team is doing on this historic artifact at the National Air and Space Museum's Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar.

Adams's opportunity to view the Columbia Apollo 11 command module up close as conservator Lisa Young differentiates between the pre-flight and post-flight marks on the exterior appears to be an unscripted general interest piece directed at the mass audience, not an article directed towards people who thrive on the intricate detail.

The access Adam gets to the behind-the-scenes workings of the Air and Space Museum is great. They provide some insight into the preservation of artifacts and allow us to see views of things that we can't get access to ourselves.

If people criticize the information provided, there may be a good chance that the conservators and curators will balk at doing more unscripted access pieces.

Information about the Apollo CM heat shield is available and easy to find for anyone interested to know more, which this kind of behind-the-scenes articles are great at generating interest in.

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.





advertisement