|
Author
|
Topic: Photo of the week 64 (January 21)
|
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-21-2006 07:54 AM
   
 Technicians and engineers gather to monitor a land impact test of the Apollo Command Module 009 in a test area at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) on March 14, 1968. In this view, the Command Module test vehicle is released from the tower at left to fall to the ground. Ed Hengeveld [This message has been edited by heng44 (edited January 27, 2006).] |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 01-21-2006 10:14 AM
I don't see any picture, Ed. |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-21-2006 10:58 AM
Sorry, forgot to add the link.Ed |
Sy Liebergot
Member Posts: 501
From: Pearland, Texas USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 01-21-2006 01:07 PM
Odd that I cannot recall seeing this land impact test facility while I worked at MSC all through Apollo. :-(( However, I do recall the water impact facility while working at NAA in Downey, CA: http://www.lilesnet.com/paul/career/apollo/downey_was_home_of_apollo.htm Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of a Lifetime" www.apolloeecom.com |
Astro Bill
Member Posts: 1329
From: New York, NY
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 01-22-2006 10:02 AM
Are the above mentioned tests similar to the "Drop Tests" at KSC in 1967 as shown in the following link?
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1967/captions/KSC-67C-9951.html |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-22-2006 01:28 PM
Yes, it is the same type of test. I guess that the setup at JSC wasn't permanent and perhaps was only there for a few weeks or months. Easy to miss, maybe?Ed |
mensax
Member Posts: 861
From: Virginia
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-22-2006 02:43 PM
What a great photograph Ed! This CM is a thing of beauty... I like the shadow on the grid in the background. Do you have any more photos of the sequence? How did the CM fair after this?Noah |
dtemple
Member Posts: 729
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 01-22-2006 02:56 PM
This photo shows command module 009 which had been launched on a suborbital flight on the first flight of a Saturn 1B in early 1966. |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-23-2006 12:03 AM
Interesting David, I hadn't realized that.Noah, I don't have any other shots from this test. Ed |
Glint
Member Posts: 1040
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 01-23-2006 04:12 PM
Excellent, Ed!This is the CM curently exhibited at the SAC Museum. For many years it was displayed outside Morrill Hall at UNL. Many was the day I paused to visit it while working on my B.S. There was a large crack from the drop testing (maybe from the test in the photograph above). 
1995 article [This message has been edited by Glint (edited January 23, 2006).] |
dtemple
Member Posts: 729
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 01-23-2006 09:17 PM
I am going to rock the boat a bit with this posting. The spacecraft formerly on display at UNL and now at the SAC Museum probably cannot be spacecraft 009. I just don't see how that is possible. The photo posted here of it at UNL shows the "large" window CM (as do the modern pics of it on the Fieldguide to American Spacecraft website). CM 009 was a "small" window CM. I am referring to the outer windows (those outside the rendezvous windows). CM's after 009 (or maybe 010) had the larger, nearly square windows while the earlier ones were proportioned as tall and narrow. Only the width may have been changed. I believe this CM is actually 011 and the one on the Hornet is 009. Unless both spacecraft were dismantled and reassembled with mismatched parts or the original windows on "009 " replaced (which doesn't seem possible unless the surrounding area is actually a removable panel). I don't see how I can be wrong on this point, but if I am please explain. Last year I emailed the NASM about this, but received no response.[This message has been edited by dtemple (edited January 23, 2006).] |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-26-2006 09:51 AM
David, you are right: it is not CSM-009. It is CSM-008. See JSC's Roundup of April 26, 1968.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/issues/68-04-26.pdf Ed Edit: It now appears this article is incorrect and the photo actually shows CSM-009. CSM-008 was used for thermal vacuum tests in 1966. [This message has been edited by heng44 (edited January 27, 2006).] |
dtemple
Member Posts: 729
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 01-26-2006 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by heng44:
David, you are right: it is not CSM-009. It is CSM-008. See JSC's Roundup of April 26, 1968.
Ed, I suspect either the JSC site or the old Roundup has an error. Check these links.
Land impact test of the Apollo Command Module at MSC (S68-25167)
Land impact test of the Apollo Command Module at MSC (S68-25169)In my previous posting on the subject I was not questioning whether or not 009 was the CM in your photo. I had seen the photo on the JSC site and read the details so I was familiar with your photo. My question is in regard to the CMs at SAC Museum and on the USS Hornet. Block 1 spacecraft 007, 009, and 011 (don't know on 010) had smaller side windows compared to 008, 012, 014, 017, and 020. I suspect somehow the identifications of the 009 and 011 got swapped. I have photos of 009; I will try to post one later. Its outer windows were about half the width as those on 011 (as well as the other listed above). Here is a link to a photo of the recovery of 011. Apollo spacecraft 011 Command Module during recovery operations Compare its side window with the one shown here: http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/apollo/CM-009.html The window size on the alleged CM009 matches that of 011 shown on the previous link. Now look at this: http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/apollo/CM-011.html
The side window matches with original NASA glossy photos I have of the recovery of 009. [This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited January 26, 2006).] |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-27-2006 09:11 AM
 David sent me this photo of CSM-009 and wrote:
Notice the window size. This is a closeup of a photo showing the recovery of 009. It is an original NASA photo (ID 108-KSC-266-8/7, dated February 26, 1966. This matches with the CM identified as 011 which is on the USS Hornet. It looks like someone made a mistake a long time ago and now the respective identities of these two command modules have been reversed. Ed |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 01-27-2006 09:34 AM
To further illustrate David's point, here are two more photos. Compare the size of the left window on both:
The photo above is CSM-009, which flew on AS-201 on February 26, 1966. 
The photo above is CSM-011, which flew on AS-202 on August 25, 1966. So it appears that the photo below is not CSM-009:
 as is stated by the Field Guide, because the windows are too large. Also, the Field Guide states that CSM-009 was used for water tests, but that was 007. After flying on AS-201 CSM-009 was used for land impact tests, as illustrated in my original photo at the top of this thread. And this is NOT CSM-011:
 despite what is stated on the display stand, because it has the smaller windows. Confusion! Thanks for pointing this out, David. Ed Hengeveld [This message has been edited by heng44 (edited January 27, 2006).] |
RICK DRAPAL
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-20-2006 12:52 AM
I worked on and did the historical research on CSM-009.The mission it flew on was SA-201.It was suborbital & then the capsule was test dropped just as the photo shows.Most of the information was from Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine
When NASA gave the capsule to UNL university officials were told it was CSM-009.If you look at the recent display photo you will notice that the heat shield is missing.We were told it came off in the test drop.You will also notice damage showing on the left front bottom which we were told happened in the test drop.Before restoring it there were alot of scorch marks.
I think the mix up is unlikely but if it was done it was by NASA. RICK |
mensclub10@aol.com
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-20-2006 08:37 AM
Ed, just wanted to thank you for all the photos you display on Cs. They are all fantastic and your explanations are very helpful. Keep it up. I look forward to all your postings.
Dave |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 02-20-2006 09:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mensclub10@aol.com:
Ed, just wanted to thank you for all the photos you display on Cs. They are all fantastic and your explanations are very helpful. Keep it up. I look forward to all your postings.
Dave
You're welcome, Dave. Selecting these photos is very enjoyable, although I slowed down a bit to one photo per week, posted on Saturday. When I reach 100 I will offer them all for sale on CD  Ed |
advertisement