Apollo Block I vs. Block II?
Marcus Lindroos INF
CSM in late 1961, although NASA only decided to use lunar orbit
rendezvous in 1962... Consequently the first series of Apollo capsules
were not designed to be compatible with the new Lunar Module, they
were going to be used in Earth orbit only. Several unmanned Block I
capsules flew on Saturn I and IB rockets in 1964-66, and the first two
unmanned Saturn V launches (Apollo 4 and 6) also carried Block I Apollos.
---
I believe the original plan was to launch manned Block I capsules as well
(Apollo 1), although I could be mistaken. Unfortunately, North American
encountered many difficulties while building the Block I CSM and most
changes were left to the new Block II design that actually would fly to
the Moon. The Block I CM was not popular with the astronauts for this reason.
Not sure if the Apollo capsule that killed the Apollo 1 crew was a Block I
though. Perhaps Tom Frieling or Henry have more information?
---
MARCU$
Daga1
anyone interested in this topic read bock about North American designer
Harrison "Stormy" Storms. Can't recall title of book, but you library or
bookstore ought to be able to able to locate based on subject search.
Good story, seems to be a fair presentation. Storms took the blame for
Apollo 1.
David Wilke
accounts a clunker. The fire that killed Grissom, White and Chaffee did
indeed occur on board a block I. The original intent was for the first
several flights to be aboard block I's. They were loathed by the
astronauts and after the fire they felt they had made their point. They
flat out refused to fly on any block I's.
NASA, being the sensitive souls they are, dropped the issue. They also
dropped the block I's.
Henry Spencer
>My understanding is that North American began work on the Apollo
>CSM in late 1961, although NASA only decided to use lunar orbit
>rendezvous in 1962... Consequently the first series of Apollo capsules
Actually it goes a little deeper than that. Apollo originally wasn't a
dedicated lunar-landing-mission spacecraft at all. It was going to be
NASA's general-purpose manned spacecraft, replacing the obviously limited
Mercury. (Gemini was an afterthought when it became clear that there
would be a considerable delay before the first Apollos were ready.) For
example, the choice of a three-man crew had nothing to do with the needs
of a lunar landing -- it was simply based on the theory that long, complex
missions, perhaps in deep space, might need to have someone awake at all
times. Circumlunar missions were a major design driver, but although the
planning acknowledged possible use in lunar landings, this was a "we'll
think about it later" option which had little influence on the design.
All this had changed by the time the money began to flow seriously, of
course, but the early decisions still had considerable influence because
the new deadline discouraged lengthy reconsideration.
>I believe the original plan was to launch manned Block I capsules as well
>(Apollo 1), although I could be mistaken.
That's correct. Grissom, White, and Chaffee died in a Block I CSM,
training to fly the first manned Block I. It was already clear that the
Block I would be superseded fairly quickly by the Block II, and the delays
caused by the fire eliminated manned Block I missions from the plans
altogether. Like the Saturn I, the Block I CSM was something that seemed
like a good idea at the time but was, in the end, overtaken by events.
--
There is a difference between | Henry Spencer
cynicism and skepticism. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Andrew Madison
: In article <3kv98m$4...@josie.abo.fi> mlin...@news.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
: >My understanding is that North American began work on the Apollo
: >CSM in late 1961, although NASA only decided to use lunar orbit
: >rendezvous in 1962... Consequently the first series of Apollo capsules
: >were not designed to be compatible with the new Lunar Module...
:
: Actually it goes a little deeper than that. Apollo originally wasn't a
: dedicated lunar-landing-mission spacecraft at all. It was going to be
: NASA's general-purpose manned spacecraft, replacing the obviously limited
: Mercury. (Gemini was an afterthought when it became clear that there
: would be a considerable delay before the first Apollos were ready.) For
: example, the choice of a three-man crew had nothing to do with the needs
: of a lunar landing -- it was simply based on the theory that long, complex
: missions, perhaps in deep space, might need to have someone awake at all
: times. Circumlunar missions were a major design driver, but although the
: planning acknowledged possible use in lunar landings, this was a "we'll
: think about it later" option which had little influence on the design.
<snip>
Okay, this is good stuff. What started this thread initially in
rec.models.scale and got cross-posted to sci.space.policy, was the
following question:
"What are the differences between a Block I CSM and a Block II".
Why? To model an accurate Apollo 11. And like a fool, I forgot to save
a posting about this very topic last summer. However, I also sort of
remember that while the posting had detailed verbiage, I'm not sure if it
was sufficient to actually perform the correction to the Revell 1/96 SV
kit. So, is there a reference that won't "break the bank" with drawings
in it? For instance will Alway's book do the trick? Does someone
have an address handy for ordering Alway's book?
The patience of those in s.s.p is, of course, highly appreciated.
--
A.J. Madison PHONE: (508) 490-6972
Stratus Computer Inc.
55 Fairbanks Boulevard INTERNET: a...@sw.stratus.com
Marlboro, MA 01752 OR: Andrew_...@Vos.Stratus.com
Brenna Rose Toblan
interview with Wally Schirra who mentioned that he had spoken to
Gus Grissom and had wanted to warn him away from the Block I
design and skip right to the Block II.
The Documentary "Spaceflight" showa this interview.
Hope that helps,
Adrian Kleinbergen (On Her Majesty's Account)We are, all
of us, living in the shadow of Manhatten - Prof. Milton Glass
--
Brenna R. Toblan Astrophysicist at extra large!
bto...@acs.ucalgary.ca No SNU's is not good news!!
Henry Spencer
>Apollo 1 capsule that resulted in fatalities was Block 1. Recommend
>anyone interested in this topic read bock about North American designer
"Angle Of Attack". Poor book, historically inaccurate, should be read
for entertainment value only. Fairly obviously meant to be the script
for a movie, not a serious attempt at accurate history.
David Wilke
: Why? To model an accurate Apollo 11. And like a fool, I forgot to save
: a posting about this very topic last summer. However, I also sort of
: remember that while the posting had detailed verbiage, I'm not sure if it
: was sufficient to actually perform the correction to the Revell 1/96 SV
: kit. So, is there a reference that won't "break the bank" with drawings
: in it? For instance will Alway's book do the trick? Does someone
: have an address handy for ordering Alway's book?
Why didn't you say so? There are two glaring differences in appearence.
The first is color: Block 1's were white, block 2's were highly
reflective gold.
The second chief difference is the wiring tunnel. On the block 1's the
tunnel was near the crew hatch. On the block 2's it was moved almost 180
degrees around the base to the rear of the spacecraft.
Hope this helps,
Dave <dave...@netcom.com>
David Wilke
couple of photocopies illustrating the block 1 vs. 2 spacecraft.
Marcus Lindroos INF
: : "What are the differences between a Block I CSM and a Block II".
Rather than list the major, visible differences between the block 1 & 2
CSM again, I would suggest you get the Monogram 1/32 scale Apollo CSM
kit from Four Star Collectibles... It is a Block II, fairly inexpensive
at $70 and quite accurate. There are several good photos available of
the Apollo 9-17 CSMs. The Block I is much more difficult to find.
---
Anyway, what were the major technical differences between Block I & II??
I know the redesign after Apollo 1 added several hundred kg of additional
systems, which meant the SM fuel tanks had to be enlarged. Block I
had no docking probe/tunnel. The basic layout of the SM (fuel cells, SPS,
fuel tanks, equipment bays) apparently remained the same, but there are
numerous modifications as well.
: Hope this helps,
: Dave <dave...@netcom.com>
MARCU$
CECorway
>The first is color: Block 1's were white, block 2's were highly
reflective gold.
Actually, both Block I and Block II CMs were covered in a highly
reflective aluminum foil that ablated (burned away) on reentry. The gold
color as seen in some photographs and as plated in the Monogram 1/32
Apollo CSM is incorrect (the color photo printing process at the time
imparted a reddish-gold tint to the highly polished areas of the
spacecraft). Both Block I and Block II spacecraft were covered by a white
Boost Protective Cover (BPC) to which the Launch Escape System was
attached. It was jettisoned shortly after second-stage ignition.
Hope this helps,
Chuck Corway
"Well, boys... Ah reckon' this is it... nu-cu-lear com-bat toe-to-toe with
th' Russkies! -- Major T.J. "King" Kong, from _Dr. Strangelove_
henryudd...@gmail.com
Gary R. Schmidt
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
RobG
> No one has posted here in nearly 22 years.
The Old Man
Regards,
John Braungart
wire monkey
Wow, it doesn't seem that long ago ......
.
RobG
> > > No one has posted here in nearly 22 years.
> >
> > This newsgroup took a nose dive around 1999-2000 when genre specific model forums arrived. Ship modeling sites, armor modeling sites, car modeling sites, aircraft, space, science fiction, figures all basically drew the crowd away from the newsgroups.
>
> That and a number of people that thought because they were "professionals" they could harass many of the posters, especially newbies because the of politics or simply because they thought that they owned the place.
>
> Regards,
> John Braungart
The Old Man
Regards,
John Braungart
Rufus
access. Which drastically silenced and saddened quite a few of us.
I've found a free service where I can make one or two odd(?) posts like
this one, but I'm still looking for a service provider that can get me
back into the real mix.
--
- Rufus
RobG
theother...@gmail.com
> No one has posted here in nearly 22 years.
Cheers
Mike