apollo command module refurb?

[scubadude402]

On the apollo missions, as the only hardware to return to earth were the CM's with all the rest discarded, the CM's pretty much became museum peices after splashdown. Was there ever any consideration to sending the modules back to North American Avaiton for a complete refurb /checkout/upgrade ( like the srb's on the shuttle) then reused for a future mission? In other words, rather than build a custom Command Module for each mission, would it have been possible enginnering wise (and cheaper) to have built, say, 4 or 5 modules then keep them in rotation on mission's ?

[Grand Lunar]

I believe it was a one time use only.

A partial reusability is supposed to be part of the Orion spacecraft, with each being able to be reused 5 to 10 times.
I only can hope the the ship becomes reality.

[gwiz]

The Russians did a bit of refurbishing and re-using of the return capsules of the Zenit reconnaissance satellites, which were a variant of the Vostok/Voskhod manned spacecraft. As I recall, they typically flew them about three times each.

[JayUtah]

If reusability is desired, it has to be accommodated into the design from the very earliest stages. Full reusability has to address all the load cycles (thermal, mechanical, electrical, etc.) and prove that the design will endure many of them. Partial reusability has to establish the proper interfaces between expendable and reusable components.

Reusability incurs costs in design effort, testing, and manufacturing. Those in turn have to be dealt with in schedules and budgets. Apollo's primary design goal was a manned landing before 1970. That means spacecraft that tend toward ease of design and manufacturing.

Consider the thermal protection as an example. If you want to reuse the spaceframe but expend the heat shield, you need to design the interface between the shield and the structure such that the shield is very reliably fastened to the structure during flight, yet can be removed post-flight without damage to the structure. That's harder and more expensive to design than, say, a series of welds.

It also requires more testing, since it's more complex and its reliability cannot be as effectively inferred from the design itself. You can x-ray a weld and determine its integrity. If the weld has been properly executed, then the structural strength is essentially the same as if it were the material itself, and that can be validated analytically. An articulated joint equipped with fasteners and interlocking parts has to be tested for its response to mechanical loading.

You typically gain little or nothing try to refurbish an object that was not designed to be refurbished. And a decision to design something for refurbishment has to weigh the design, manufacturing, and refurbishment infrastructure cost against the nature of the application. Sometimes disposable is better in several variables.

[scubadude402]

thanks Jay. I guess that NASA was fairly sure the apollo program would be done by the early 70's ,or soon after the 1st landing, so there was no need to keep refurbing them and dealing with testing as oppsed to the Shuttle which was meant to last 30 years or so. joe

[JayUtah]

Apollo was only scheduled up through 20 anyway. That means 1973 or 1974 at the latest. But the Apollo-type command module wasn't originally intended to go away entirely. Although the method used for the two Blocks of CSM was intended to get it to production quickly, there were plans for follow-on missions and mission types that would have used the CSM. Skylab was one; and in fact the Orion's first job will also be as an ISS personnel ferry. The Skylab CSMs were built slightly differently to accommodate their missions.

Had the space shuttle not been funded, I'm certain a Block III CSM, redesigned for partial reuse, would have been attractive.

[Hypersonic]

I recall that there was talk early in the space station program about using CMs as escape vehicles. Calls were even made to museums about using flown Command Modules. Nothing came of it, as "they" probably figured out what Jay just wrote.

[PhantomWolf]

Apr 29, 2008 19:46:33 GMT -4 Hypersonic said:

I recall that there was talk early in the space station program about using CMs as escape vehicles.

Part of the premise of Stranded which I have to agree with the user review is [Comicbook Guy]Worst Space Station Movie.... ever[/Comicbook Guy]

[graham2001]

Apr 29, 2008 16:24:51 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

Apollo was only scheduled up through 20 anyway. That means 1973 or 1974 at the latest. But the Apollo-type command module wasn't originally intended to go away entirely. Although the method used for the two Blocks of CSM was intended to get it to production quickly, there were plans for follow-on missions and mission types that would have used the CSM. Skylab was one; and in fact the Orion's first job will also be as an ISS personnel ferry. The Skylab CSMs were built slightly differently to accommodate their missions.

Had the space shuttle not been funded, I'm certain a Block III CSM, redesigned for partial reuse, would have been attractive.

North American looked at the concept before the launch of the first Apollo spacecraft.

They examined one of the early Apollo test CMs (Spacecraft 011) to see just what damage the re-entry/water landing would cause and considered a renovation technically feasible.

This 1966 report(27mb), gives some idea what they were planning to do.

CMs would either be refurbished so they could be used again or converted into orbital laboratories.

It's not clear just how many times they thought a CM could be refurbished, but I'm guessing it would have been no more than once per CM after the first flight.