Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Reusing/re-flying Apollo command modules

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Max Q   Click Here to Email Max Q     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for mikej   Click Here to Email mikej     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for micropooz   Click Here to Email micropooz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Max Q   Click Here to Email Max Q     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for NASAROB     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Proponent     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for micropooz   Click Here to Email micropooz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Proponent     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for garymilgrom   Click Here to Email garymilgrom     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for MrSpace86   Click Here to Email MrSpace86     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for carmelo   Click Here to Email carmelo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Proponent     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for E2M Lem Man   Click Here to Email E2M Lem Man     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim_Voce   Click Here to Email Jim_Voce     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for oly   Click Here to Email oly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for mikej   Click Here to Email mikej     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mikej:
Apparently not.
Thanks Mike.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement