|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 261162272926: Apollo 5 Lunar Module Patch
|
mikej
Member Posts: 481
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 01-29-2013 07:12 AM
   
Any ideas regarding this Apollo 5 patch? Although I'm not really a patch person, I am interested in LM-1 but have never seen this patch before, and couldn't find another like it on the Internet. |
schnappsicle
Member Posts: 396
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 01-29-2013 08:07 AM
I didn't see anything on it either. It wasn't even on the list of Grumman LM patches that I found. The patch seems to be someone's immaginary idea of an Apollo 5 patch, and not a genuine NASA issue. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-29-2013 08:44 AM
Never seen one before but it's clearly modern (1990s or 2000s) and quite possibly a Randy Hunt fantasy patch (not a replica of a patch that actually existed). |
Dave Clow
Member Posts: 236
From: South Pasadena, CA 91030
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 01-30-2013 12:53 PM
Weird. Apollo 5 was a FITH test--Fire In The Hole--for LM-1. The patch depicts the LM with no legs, which is accurate since the objectives were to fire both engines and test the guillotine that severed the umbilical between the stages; however, it also says the mission was the "First Lunar Mission," and it was nothing like a lunar mission. Why send a LM to the moon without legs? |
Gonzo
Member Posts: 596
From: Lansing, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 01-30-2013 06:50 PM
I agree. It's clearly modern. I would also agree that it's POSSIBLY a Randy Hunt. But I would suspect no earlier than early 2000's.And yes, it is someone's imagination. Someone who knows little about the Apollo program. The reason I say that is that it can not in any way be considered the "first lunar mission". First off, Apollo 5 didn't go to the moon. One possibility in their logic may be that they may be thinking that it was the first "lunar program" launch. That is, the first launch supporting the lunar program. But even that isn't true as Apollo 5 was preceded by Apollo 4. Plus, Apollo 5 wasn't even on a Saturn V. It was a Saturn-IVB (AS-204). Apollo 4 was on a Saturn V (AS-501). The only logic I can see in calling Apollo 5 the "First Lunar Mission" is that it was the first to carry a Lunar Module (LM-1). So in that respect, I suppose you could say, if you stretch the logic far enough, it was the first "lunar" mission. But really? It carried a non-lunar flight ready LEM. It didn't even make orbit IIRC. So it's a real stretch to say it was the first "lunar" mission. Clearly someone's imagination. (And in my opinion, not worth much beyond poorly executed curiosity.) | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
