posted 03-02-2007 09:07 PM            

The Block II CMs were completly different from Block I units, however Ive read that the new 'unified' outswinging hatch that was incorporated after the fire was actually part of the Block II design even before the fire. Is that true?

Id like to find out more about the uses and final 'resting places' of the CSMs and/or CMs that remain, including the Block I CSMs and/or CMs. Is there a good web source for this info?

How many Block I CSM/CMs were actually built? I know 012 was the ill-fated AS-204/Apollo 1 and 014 was used as a disassembly aid during the post-fire investigation. Ive also read that 017 was used on top of AS-501/Apollo 4. So were at least 4 more Block I CMs built in addition to 012? Are any Block I CMs on display? Any additional info would be welcome.

Thanks,
Paul

posted 03-03-2007 09:03 AM               

I don't know the total number of Block I CSMs which were built. Four were launched (taken from NASA's Stages to Saturn):
- CSM-009, on SA-201
- CSM-011, on SA-202
- CSM-017, on SA-501 (Apollo 4)
- CSM-020, on SA-502 (Apollo 6)

CSM-009 is on display at the Strategic Air and Space Museum, in Ashland, NE.

CSM-011 is at the USS Hornet Museum in Alameda, CA.

Apollo 4 is on display at Stennis Space Center, near Bay St. Louis, MS.

Apollo 6 is on display at the Fernbank Science Center, in Atlanta, GA.

There's an unflown Block I spacecraft, CM-007, on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA.

Normally I'd refer you to the Field Guide to American Spacecraft, but it no longer appears to be online (or at least not at that URL, or any other URL known to Google).

I've seen Apollo 4 and Apollo 6.

Apollo 4 is encased in your standard-issue Plexiglas and is actually nestled into a raised platform on the front so that it's easier to see its interior. Unfortunately, the platform all but hides everything from the bottom of the hatch down. You really have to strain to see the umbilical, for instance.

I like the way Apollo 6 is displayed -- no Plexiglas or much of anything else to obstruct your view. Fernbank is more of a natural science museum, with many dioramas featuring stuffed wildlife. Apollo 6 is right next to some very large windows overlooking a wooded area, which seems odd but is a pleasant viewing experience.

The Apollo hatch as we know it was designed after the fire (refer to The Apollo command module side access hatch system). Apollo 6 flew with the new hatch (although it is displayed without any hatch).

posted 03-03-2007 10:49 AM               

If you go to my site http://www.adboo.com/cmnr/intro.htm and go to section 5, part 2, you will see a list of hardware (the list was current in mid 1968).

It wasn't just the CM and SM that were numbered, so were the SLA's and LES's.

Hope the list helps with th first part of your question.

Adam

P.S. The Apollo 10 CM "Charlie Brown" lies happily in the Science Museum in London, it is not encased in anything although it does have a plexiglass cover where the hatch was, (I believe the hatch is in the US somewhere).

posted 03-03-2007 05:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul78zephyr:
...Also, Ive seen the term spacecraft (ie spacecraft 101) used synonymously with CSM. Was this official NASA terminology?

...The Block II CMs were completly different from Block I units, however Ive read that the new 'unified' outswinging hatch that was incorporated after the fire was actually part of the Block II design even before the fire. Is that true?

---

Paul,

Thank you for identifying a couple of persistent myths in space flight history.

Further to what other CSers have already written, the CSM was called "spacecraft" especially by oldtimers, especially the manufacturer, North American Aviation (later, North American Rockwell). This is why the SLA between the Service Module and the S-IVB stage, in which the Lunar Module was launched, was called the "Spacecraft-Lunar Module Adapter." But an adapter "adapts" between two other entities, in this case, the Service Module and the S-IVB, so why isn't the third stage mentioned in the SLA? I hope someday to find a pre-1962 document that shows "SLA" originally meant "spacecraft-launch vehicle adapter." When the Apollo program added the Lunar Module in late 1962, and inserted it in between the SM and the S-IVB, I hypothesize that the "L" in "SLA" became "Lunar Module" or "LM." But wasn't the LM also a "spacecraft"? Why wouldn't it be included in the "S" part of SLA? Maybe that old document I hope to find will explain it.

The second myth is that the Block II was a complete redesign of the Block I due to the fire. In fact, the Block II, including the hatch, was already in development when the fire happened (it was originally planned to fly in the summer of 1967), but it was fire-proofed after the fire. Block II became a necessity when lunar orbit rendezvous was adopted, in 1962. The quick-opening unified hatch came in response to the fire, but a hinged, openable side hatch was already planned, to allow in-flight EVA transfer from the LM to the CM in an emergency.

posted 03-03-2007 09:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by nasamad:
Hi Paul,

If you go to my site http://www.adboo.com/cmnr/intro.htm...

Adam

[Edited by nasamad (March 03, 2007).]

---

Adam,
Thank you very much for your information. That is quite a website you have.

In Section 5, part 4 (Apollo Chronology) what is 'ROSA':
(July 11, 1962) '...ROSA administrator James Webb...

Paul