Author
|
Topic: Reusing/re-flying Apollo command modules
|
Max Q Member Posts: 399 From: Whyalla South Australia Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 08-02-2009 09:03 AM
A lot has been made about the space shuttle's reusability over the years and this makes me wonder, why wasn't the reentry capsule reused during the Apollo era? Was this even possible? Was there more to it than just replacing the heat shield and reconditioning the wiring and paint?
|
mikej Member Posts: 481 From: Germantown, WI USA Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 08-02-2009 09:16 AM
Well, some panels from Apollo 16 were reused, flown on ASTP. |
micropooz Member Posts: 1532 From: Washington, DC, USA Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 08-02-2009 09:43 AM
There were studies done by North American Rockwell to evaluate the possibility of reusing Apollo CM's. I will try to dig out a copy of the report that I saw.The biggest obstacle was salt-water exposure after landing. Water intrusion into electronics or other hardware is tough to clean up, and salt water adds an extra dimension to the problem. Since the CM was initially designed for one use only, they didn't go to any extensive measures to prevent salt water intrusion into a lot of parts of the CM. Will try to dig out the report. It's interesting reading from what I remember. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4494 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-02-2009 09:55 AM
The biggest impediment would be structural deformation of the capsule — an attribute intentionally engineered as part of the impact attenuation system. In addition, infiltration of particulates, moisture and other contaminates from the atmosphere into the electronics, mechanical actuators, seals would over time pose an unacceptable risk of corrosion, shorting, leaks, and condensate formation internal to gauges/equipment. The ablatively cooled RCS system would have to be replaced as it had a limited firing life, and the affiliated hypergolic propellants were also corrosive. |
Max Q Member Posts: 399 From: Whyalla South Australia Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 08-02-2009 05:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by micropooz: Will try to dig out the report. It's interesting reading from what I remember.
Thanks that would be great if you could. quote: Originally posted by SpaceAholic: The biggest impediment would be structural deformation of the capsule - an attribute intentionally engineered as part of the impact attenuation system.
Thanks for this and the other reasons mentioned. These responses are just some of the reasons I love this forum. You guys just seem to know every thing. |
NASAROB Member Posts: 38 From: Astoria NY Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 08-03-2009 09:16 AM
Now that the Orion capsule will be landing in the ocean off California, does that mean the capsule will not be re-usable? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-03-2009 09:18 AM
They are working on ways to insulate as much as possible, but the outer Orion pressure vessel is no longer planned for reuse — only the interior components. |
E2M Lem Man Member Posts: 846 From: Los Angeles CA. USA Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-03-2009 05:33 PM
Rockwell wanted to re-fly Apollo command modules since the mid-80's. We have many reports here in Downey, some written by Aerospace Legacy Foundation president Jerry Blackburn when he worked in the industry.The first I knew about these were when the head of Rockwell PR called me in the early 1980s, asking where he could find a Monogram 1/32 scale Apollo kit. (I worked at a hobby shop when I was a young man, and they were hard to find then as they were out of production.) When he told me about re-using Apollos for the rescue ship for Space Station Freedom, and they wanted to build one for presentations, I gladly gave mine up for the effort. I felt I had to, and all! He later gave me some official pictures of the finished model. But as we all know, the plan went no where! |
Proponent Member Posts: 59 From: London Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-03-2009 11:04 PM
Even if capsules are re-used, the capability to manufacture new ones must be retained, for each capsule will eventually require replacement. The cost of maintaining that capability is significant, even if very few new capsules are manufactured. Re-use of capsules won't save much or any money unless the flight rate is high enough to maintain reasonable utilization of the manufacturing capability. Otherwise, per-unit costs of each new capsule are so high as to wipe out the savings of re-use. At a few flights per year, I wonder whether re-usability will make sense for Orion. |
E2M Lem Man Member Posts: 846 From: Los Angeles CA. USA Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-04-2009 03:08 PM
Now we have a different question: re-using Orion spacecraft.Things have changed and Orions most likely can be used again — the items that prevented Apollo reusability most likely won't prevent this. It was mostly the exterior issue of seawater and the heat shield that prevented Apollo from being reused. Remember that Gemini 2 became the Gemini 2A-MOL and even Mercury had a Little Joe craft reused. Most likely after a while we will see Orion exteriors in museums and the inside sections will be taken out and put in new exterior heat shield sections. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4494 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-04-2009 04:40 PM
Unless this level of durability was specifically called out in Orion's RFP cant see it happening. Reuse would have to be a design consideration and not an adhoc capability of a man-rated system. |
micropooz Member Posts: 1532 From: Washington, DC, USA Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 08-04-2009 08:37 PM
I have looked everywhere for the NAR report on reuse of Apollo CMs and cannot find it. I do remember that it was written in the late '60's, so there was consideration of reuse that early on. |
Proponent Member Posts: 59 From: London Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-04-2009 10:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by E2M Lem Man: [E]ven Mercury had a Little Joe craft reused.
Which one, and which flights? Was it a boilerplate or the real thing? |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1332 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 08-05-2009 12:10 AM
No. 8 was flown twice. One was a launch abort (MA-3). The other was MA-4.I also think no. 14 was used on two Little Joe flights. |
garymilgrom Member Posts: 1966 From: Atlanta, GA Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 08-05-2009 06:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by E2M Lem Man: It was mostly the exterior issue of seawater and the heat shield that prevented Apollo from being reused.
As Orion is going to land in the ocean with an ablative heat shield I don't see the difference here. Would appreciate your insight. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-05-2009 06:55 AM
Several Mercury capsules were re-used: - #5 - delivered 30:09:60; launched 31:01:61 carrying primate Ham; between June and August 1961 used for seaworthiness trials.
- #8 - delivered 18:11:60; aborted launch attempt 25:04:61; returned to factory for refurbishment and delivered back 11:05:61 as #8A; flown 13:09:61 as MA-4 with simulated man onboard.
- #9 - delivered 24:02:61; original use changed post delivery and phased as #9A into Project Orbit 08:08:61; launched 29:11:61 carrying primate Enos.
- #14 - delivered 20:01:61; launched on failed LJ-5A 18:03:61; refurbished returning as #14A for use on LJ-5B launched 28:04:61
- #15 - delivered 13:08:61 but returned immediately for reconfiguration for proposed MA-10 mission; returned 16:11:62 as #15A; on 14:01:63 made back-up for MA-9 and redesignated #15B
This list does not include #12 which was delivered as back-up for MA-8. Following delivery this capsule was considered for a one day mission and returned to McDonnell where it was reconfigured and then stored. |
MrSpace86 Member Posts: 1618 From: Gardner, KS Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 08-05-2009 06:20 PM
I am surprised no one has wondered about the Soyuz. I bet the Russians have reused parts of flown Soyuz spacecraft in newer spacecraft. And also, where do all those flown Soyuz spacecraft go? There are almost 100 of them... |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-05-2009 07:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by MrSpace86: And also, where do all those flown Soyuz spacecraft go?
See: Russian Soyuz spacecraft on display The majority of the flown capsules are said to be kept in a Soyuz "junkyard" owned by Energia. |
carmelo Member Posts: 1051 From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 08-05-2009 08:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by E2M Lem Man: He later gave me some official pictures of the finished model.
We can see the pictures?Also, ELA (Early Lunar Access) had an Apollo command module? |
Proponent Member Posts: 59 From: London Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-05-2009 10:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by MrSpace86: I bet the Russians have reused parts of flown Soyuz spacecraft in newer spacecraft.
I attended a talk by Mark Shuttleworth in which he said that parts of Soyuz spacecraft were routinely re-used. I believe he specifically mentioned panels. |
E2M Lem Man Member Posts: 846 From: Los Angeles CA. USA Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-06-2009 02:50 PM
I have the photos of the Apollo rescue craft for Freedom in my storage unit. I will get to those someday, promise. We need them here at Aerospace Legacy anyway.Second, I had the unique opportunity of looking close up at Ham's MR-2 craft when it was delivered to the California Science Center and as we have seen with Gus's "Liberty Bell 7" salt water had little effect on the beryllium shingles and exterior panels, but is quite corrosive to other metals. There is talk about landing Orion in the Salton Sea of California — bad idea there, if we are reusing them. Apollo and Orion heat shields will be basically alike, and after taking a 24,000 mile per hour re-entry (from the moon) they will have shed a good 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch of their skins and the base heat shield will be badly charred. The exteriors and base heat shield cannot be reused, I believe. But the interiors, like a home shelving unit might be designed for operational spacecraft to be taken out of one unit and put into another with only minor work. |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1332 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 08-09-2009 02:41 PM
Mercury no. 5 was used after the flight (MR-2) in seaworthiness trials. No. 9 was reconfigured for a primate (MA-5). Nos. 12 and 15 were reconfigured but not flown.To say a spacecraft was reconfigured is not the same as reused (flown). Was the same heatshield used on Gemini 2 and MOL? |
Jim_Voce Member Posts: 273 From: Registered: Jul 2016
|
posted 08-22-2016 01:48 AM
Each space shuttle was originally suppose to be reusable up to 100 flights. This didn't prove to be true. Does anyone know what estimates there were for the reusability of the X-20?And were there any studies done on reusing the Apollo Command Module? Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Jim Behling Member Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 08-22-2016 11:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by Jim_Voce: This didn't prove to be true.
It wasn't disproved, it just wasn't allowed to be proven true. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-22-2016 12:01 PM
Further, the 100 flights rating was in regards to the airframe only. All of the other systems that sat atop the frame needed periodic recertification, which is one of the reasons (if not the primary reason) NASA accepted the recommendation from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to retire the orbiters after completing the space station (the cost of a recertification would have been prohibitive). |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3160 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-22-2016 01:10 PM
In 2014 I had the opportunity to view the ASTP Apollo command module at the Los Angeles Science Center. I couldn't help noticing how fresh and "new" the inside of the main hatch looked, as if it had never been flown. In used car parlance, the capsule had "one careful owner" although it would be a stretch to claim "low mileage!" Sadly, there were no opportunities for those shiny hatch components to be reused. |
oly Member Posts: 971 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 08-22-2016 08:21 PM
During early water landing tests the boilerplate command module suffered structural failure and sank following "splashdown" there were redesigns to the structure and manufacturing processes but the main focus was to design the spacecraft to survive the first landing. Reusability was not a consideration being built into the structure within the 10 years timeframe. Following the successful Apollo 11 landing then the program began to look into future spacecraft requirements, as well as other applications for Apollo hardware, and even a possible space station. A view was formed that the space station would only be possible if space flight costs could be reduced which in turn led to a reusable spacecraft requirement. The final result turned out that the Shuttle or space station did not reflect the original plan. |
mikej Member Posts: 481 From: Germantown, WI USA Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 08-22-2016 08:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lou Chinal: Was the same heatshield used on Gemini 2 and MOL?
Apparently not. The spacecraft is displayed with its MOL heatshield.The Smithsonian believes that it displays the Gemini 2 heatshield at the Udvar-Hazy Center. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-23-2016 04:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by oly: During early water landing tests the boilerplate command module suffered structural failure and sunk following "splashdown" there were redesigns to the structure and manufacturing processes but the main focus was to design the spacecraft to survive the first landing.
One assumes that this is a reference to the impact test using BP-28 on 30th October 1964. In this test the aft heat shield pierced the aft bulkhead inner structure and the capsule sank in two minutes.However, it should be noted that BP-28 was not a production configuration but was sufficiently similar to show that a re-design was necessary. It's worth noting also that the capsule was recovered and used to test the modifications being eventually scrapped in November 1971. On edit - BP-28 was recoverable because this test was part of a series conducted at the NAA plant at Downey, Cal. using the facility as shown here - |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-25-2016 05:33 AM
Further to my post above and for the technically minded, the damage to BP-28 was the result of testing the capsule under the most severe three parachute landing conditions. This meant it hit the water travelling at 34.2 ft/sec (some 23mph) in a vertical direction and 44.5 ft/sec (about 30.5mph) in a horizontal direction. |
Lou Chinal Member Posts: 1332 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 08-25-2016 07:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by mikej: Apparently not.
Thanks Mike. |