Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Apollo question
18 views
Skip to first unread message
rfd...@optonline.net
Apr 25, 2012, 6:12:41 PM4/25/12
to
How much room was in the Apollo capsules? I've seen diagrams, and recently
purchased a very nice scale model of a capsule which has a removeable hatch and
quite a detailed interior, but it doesn't look like there's much room. Reason I
ask is that in many videos I've seen, it appears the crew is moving around
without a problem. Did the seat stow away when not needed? How about the
instrument panels? Were the moveable? How did they get out through the hatch to
the LEM? Thanks.
purchased a very nice scale model of a capsule which has a removeable hatch and
quite a detailed interior, but it doesn't look like there's much room. Reason I
ask is that in many videos I've seen, it appears the crew is moving around
without a problem. Did the seat stow away when not needed? How about the
instrument panels? Were the moveable? How did they get out through the hatch to
the LEM? Thanks.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 25, 2012, 9:43:07 PM4/25/12
to
wrote in message news:phtgp71d3j2vcb26h...@4ax.com...
It had an interior volume of 6.2m^3.
The seats did stow away after launch and there was a lot of room beneath
them. (In fact enough room to add two seats for the "rescue" CSM that was
prepped for Skylab.
The instrument panels did not move. They did not use the hatch to get to
the LEM. There was a tunnel that went through the nose of the capsule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_CSM#Cabin_interior_arrangement
and
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm
are good references.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
The seats did stow away after launch and there was a lot of room beneath
them. (In fact enough room to add two seats for the "rescue" CSM that was
prepped for Skylab.
The instrument panels did not move. They did not use the hatch to get to
the LEM. There was a tunnel that went through the nose of the capsule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_CSM#Cabin_interior_arrangement
and
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm
are good references.
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
rfd...@optonline.net
Apr 25, 2012, 10:53:48 PM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:43:07 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>wrote in message news:phtgp71d3j2vcb26h...@4ax.com...
>>
>>How much room was in the Apollo capsules? I've seen diagrams, and recently
>>purchased a very nice scale model of a capsule which has a removeable hatch
>>and
>>quite a detailed interior, but it doesn't look like there's much room.
>>Reason I
>>ask is that in many videos I've seen, it appears the crew is moving around
>>without a problem. Did the seat stow away when not needed? How about the
>>instrument panels? Were the moveable? How did they get out through the
>>hatch to
>>the LEM? Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>It had an interior volume of 6.2m^3.
>
>The seats did stow away after launch and there was a lot of room beneath
>them. (In fact enough room to add two seats for the "rescue" CSM that was
>prepped for Skylab.
>
>The instrument panels did not move. They did not use the hatch to get to
>the LEM. There was a tunnel that went through the nose of the capsule.
>
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_CSM#Cabin_interior_arrangement
>
>and
>http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm
>
>are good references.
Thanks. Good links. And I guess I used the wrong word in "hatch". I know they
<moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>wrote in message news:phtgp71d3j2vcb26h...@4ax.com...
>>
>>How much room was in the Apollo capsules? I've seen diagrams, and recently
>>purchased a very nice scale model of a capsule which has a removeable hatch
>>and
>>quite a detailed interior, but it doesn't look like there's much room.
>>Reason I
>>ask is that in many videos I've seen, it appears the crew is moving around
>>without a problem. Did the seat stow away when not needed? How about the
>>instrument panels? Were the moveable? How did they get out through the
>>hatch to
>>the LEM? Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>It had an interior volume of 6.2m^3.
>
>The seats did stow away after launch and there was a lot of room beneath
>them. (In fact enough room to add two seats for the "rescue" CSM that was
>prepped for Skylab.
>
>The instrument panels did not move. They did not use the hatch to get to
>the LEM. There was a tunnel that went through the nose of the capsule.
>
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_CSM#Cabin_interior_arrangement
>
>and
>http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm
>
>are good references.
didn't go out the hatch to get to the LEM. I just wondered if the tunnel to the
LEM was always unobstructed or if they had to move anything to get to it.
Brian Gaff
Apr 26, 2012, 1:38:38 AM4/26/12
to
I can remember the capsule the UK Science museum had. I thought it was
pretty small though, but then with no gravity, I suppose it was a lot easier
to move about in there.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:hsKdncNkF5y2NQXS...@earthlink.com...
pretty small though, but then with no gravity, I suppose it was a lot easier
to move about in there.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:hsKdncNkF5y2NQXS...@earthlink.com...
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 26, 2012, 9:42:47 AM4/26/12
to
>"Brian Gaff" wrote in message news:jnan0v$oih$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>I can remember the capsule the UK Science museum had. I thought it was
>pretty small though, but then with no gravity, I suppose it was a lot
>easier to move about in there.
> Brian
>
Ayup. 3D in space is a lot roomier ;-)
>I can remember the capsule the UK Science museum had. I thought it was
>pretty small though, but then with no gravity, I suppose it was a lot
>easier to move about in there.
> Brian
>
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 26, 2012, 9:43:14 AM4/26/12
to
wrote in message news:v3ehp7h5sdgdf35ha...@4ax.com...
>
>
>Thanks. Good links. And I guess I used the wrong word in "hatch". I know
>they
>didn't go out the hatch to get to the LEM. I just wondered if the tunnel to
>the
>LEM was always unobstructed or if they had to move anything to get to it.
>
>
I believe it was unobstructed.
>
>Thanks. Good links. And I guess I used the wrong word in "hatch". I know
>they
>didn't go out the hatch to get to the LEM. I just wondered if the tunnel to
>the
>LEM was always unobstructed or if they had to move anything to get to it.
>
>
bob haller
Apr 27, 2012, 9:13:55 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 9:43 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:v3ehp7h5sdgdf35ha...@4ax.com...
they had to remove the docking prope before using the tunnel
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:v3ehp7h5sdgdf35ha...@4ax.com...
Jeff Findley
Apr 27, 2012, 1:36:44 PM4/27/12
to
In article <5360f588-b4b0-414b-abd3-
b6d0b9...@r13g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
Docking probe, not prope, but otherwise correct. Note though that the
probe was on the *unpressurized* side of the hatch in the tunnel, so it
didn't pose an obstruction until after that hatch was opened.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
b6d0b9...@r13g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
probe was on the *unpressurized* side of the hatch in the tunnel, so it
didn't pose an obstruction until after that hatch was opened.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 27, 2012, 2:12:48 PM4/27/12
to
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.2a04a33a2...@news.eternal-september.org...
the hatch, not after the hatch ;-)
But in case I'm wrong, Jeff and Bob(with spelling corrected ;-) are correct.
>Jeff
news:MPG.2a04a33a2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>In article <5360f588-b4b0-414b-abd3-
>b6d0b9...@r13g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>>
>> On Apr 26, 9:43 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> > wrote in messagenews:v3ehp7h5sdgdf35ha...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >Thanks. Good links. And I guess I used the wrong word in "hatch". I
>> > >know
>> > >they
>> > >didn't go out the hatch to get to the LEM. I just wondered if the
>> > >tunnel to
>> > >the
>> > >LEM was always unobstructed or if they had to move anything to get to
>> > >it.
>> >
>> > I believe it was unobstructed.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Greg D. Moore
>> > http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
>> > CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net
>>
>> they had to remove the docking prope before using the tunnel
>
>Docking probe, not prope, but otherwise correct. Note though that the
>probe was on the *unpressurized* side of the hatch in the tunnel, so it
>didn't pose an obstruction until after that hatch was opened.
>
Exactly. I assumed the original poster meant between the main crew area and
>In article <5360f588-b4b0-414b-abd3-
>b6d0b9...@r13g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
>>
>> On Apr 26, 9:43 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> > wrote in messagenews:v3ehp7h5sdgdf35ha...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >Thanks. Good links. And I guess I used the wrong word in "hatch". I
>> > >know
>> > >they
>> > >didn't go out the hatch to get to the LEM. I just wondered if the
>> > >tunnel to
>> > >the
>> > >LEM was always unobstructed or if they had to move anything to get to
>> > >it.
>> >
>> > I believe it was unobstructed.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Greg D. Moore
>> > http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
>> > CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net
>>
>> they had to remove the docking prope before using the tunnel
>
>Docking probe, not prope, but otherwise correct. Note though that the
>probe was on the *unpressurized* side of the hatch in the tunnel, so it
>didn't pose an obstruction until after that hatch was opened.
>
the hatch, not after the hatch ;-)
But in case I'm wrong, Jeff and Bob(with spelling corrected ;-) are correct.
>Jeff
Jeff Findley
Apr 27, 2012, 5:16:23 PM4/27/12
to
In article <D7GdnZQ4ycg9fAfS...@earthlink.com>,
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
I'd personally consider the CM's docking probe to be "outside" of the
CM. In other words, I thought your original answer was quite
sufficient. ;-)
moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com says...
CM. In other words, I thought your original answer was quite
sufficient. ;-)
0 new messages