This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Does anyone have any objections to me renaming this page Apollo Command and Service Module. This seems to be a more accurate description of what the spacecraft was, with two separate parts.-- enceladus 02:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I support (now years later ;-) the rename suggestion. Here's why: Eric Jones uses the phrase "command and service module" is his phenomenal historical work, available online as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. See for example, http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CSMdocs.html and http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.engin.html. ( sdsds - talk) 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reason this hasn't been done? From what I can see most sources (especially contemporary ones) use "Command and Service Module", or "Command Service Module". Not only is the slash inconsistent with the MOS but it often implies "either/or", either in terms of the actual hardware or just the name, which clearly gives the wrong impression here.
ChiZeroOne (
talk)
09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Apollo Command and Service Module - the current '/' implies alternate names. Since/if they only flew together (apart from reentry) a single article seems fine (but it is tempting to name it with a final 's') - Rod57 ( talk) 11:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The article lists the crew capacity of the Apollo CSM as being 3. While it did carry three crew members in all the manned missions, it actually had the capacity to carry five. The stowage area behind the crew seats could be configured for two additional crew members. This was considered for space station use, but no capsules ever flew in this configuration. Skylab Rescue was the only capsule ever to be configured in this manner, but it never was used.
I think it is worth mentioning that it had a higher capacity if used in LEO missions for crew transport. It just never was used in this manner. DrBuzz0 ( talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the extra seating capacity for the Skylab Rescue is worth mentioning, and should be added to the "Modifications for Saturn IB flights" section. Consideration for space station use would require a source for verification; I would guess that fell by the wayside with the "Apollo X (expansion)" plans which preceeded Skylab. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not list the location of training apollo command modules along with the actual command module locations? Many where used in naval bases and is an exact 1 to 1 replica of the real command modules externaly and in weight.
It would be nice if information about the Apollo subsatellite (from Apollo 15) can be added to the article [1].
This article is going nicely, and I believe has potential to make a Featured Article. But I see some things in the structure of the Service Module section that could be improved:
There are also a few minor style / link issues.
Basically, the information that's there is all good, but I've made a pass at rewriting it with improved organization. I haven't removed any of the existing information. JustinTime55 ( talk) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What the heck is a scimitar antenna, you ask? It's an antenna shaped like a scimitar. Both the CSM and LM had them to communicate with each other on the VHF band. I'm going to create this new article and link to it shortly. JustinTime55 ( talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
These seems to need to be corrected: The cells were fed by two spherical 26-inch (0.66 m) diameter tanks, each holding 326 pounds (148 kg) of liquid hydrogen, and two hemispherical-cyllindrical 31.75-inch (0.806 m) diameter tanks, each holding 29 pounds (13 kg) of liquid oxygen (which also supplied the environmental control system). After the Apollo 13 accident, a third oxygen tank was added.
The dimensions of the containers makes no sense, in fact it would need 77 cubic feet to store 326 lbs of LH2, and CSM only has less then 20 cubic feet in both bottles combined. Put it simply the smaller tank does not hold 10 times as much of less dense LH2 as the bigger tank holds the more dense LO2. It only makes sense if you conclude the labels were switched and the bigger tank holds 29 lbs of LH2 and the smaller tank holds 326 lbs of LO2. -- BerserkerBen ( talk) 06:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why this article is listed in the Category:1971 in space exploration? I'd think it would be either listed in 1967, or in every year that a CSM combination flew...? RadioBroadcast ( talk) 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a misguided idea to represent the power system by the Apollo 13 picture which exposes it. The picture is very blurry and does not serve to illustrate what the system looks like in its normal (undamaged) state. This serves no encyclopedic purpose, and could only serve to inflame the Apollo 13 controversy, which this article is not about. So I am reverting it. If you could find another picture of the complete fuel cell bay, say during assembly, that would be another matter. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Dutch astronomer and TV presenter Chriet Titulaer famously bought an unfinished CM for $1 from Rockwell after the Apollo program was scrapped. He stated this in a 1996 interview (which is from WAVE, a former Wired-like Dutch magazine, and is in Dutch) and on this forum thread at CollectSpace.com (in English) there is a picture of which is claimed to be the module at a space exhibition in the Netherlands (which Titulaer organized). More discussion at this thread. Apparently someone posting in the first thread contacted Titulaer and he said it was CM 21 but another poster there doubted it. So does anyone have any information about this, about which one it might be? SpeakFree (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"But the Apollo 1 flight was cancelled by a cabin fire which killed the crew and destroyed the Command Module during a launch rehearsal test"
Was the Apollo 1 flight really cancelled or was it... destroyed? Also, this should be changed to something to the effect of "The Apollo 1 flight was cancelled by a cabin fire which killed the crew and destroyed the Command Module during a launch rehearsal test" (without the 'but'). 69.174.58.132 ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We really should have citations for the CM and SM specs listed. And there's some confusion about the CM RCS: the engine massis given as a single number; is this for only one engine, or for all 12? (I would guess the latter, since 880 pounds is extremely large; this times 12 is 10,560 pounds, close to the entire Command Module mass! Dividing this by 12, 73.33 is more reasonable.) Also, it doesn't make much sense to include all 12 engines in a meaningful thrust number, since all 12 were never fired at once; they were fired in pairs. For this reason, it's more consistent to report the mass as twelve x 73.3. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The article would probably be improved by giving the reader a better sense of the breadth of the sub-contractor base North American Aviation drew upon. Chariots for Apollo covers this pretty well at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/ch4-2.html, in the chapter called "The Team and the Tools." Collins Radio, AiResearch Manufacturing, Honeywell, Radioplane, Lockheed, Marquardt, Aerojet, Avco, Thiokol; all are mentioned. Probably best to distribute these into the article in the subsections covering the subsystems the subcontractors worked on? ( sdsds - talk) 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Since a heat shield separated the service and command modules, how were things such as controls and communication lines routed between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.71.217 ( talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought this would be the most likely article to give the L/D ratio of the CM but I couldn't find it. - Rod57 ( talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
page shows Launch mass 32,390 pounds (14,690 kg) Earth orbit 63,500 pounds (28,800 kg) Lunar , I suspect these numbers are backwards, and that the larger number is the earth orbit number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.0.70 ( talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Should there be such a section here? There were several films made that showed CSM or at least CSM-like spacecraft. The Lunar Module article has such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.139.203 ( talk) 04:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The image caption says the Skylab command module was painted white. Only the side facing the sun was white. Details here with photo that shows it clearly [4] in NASA Spaceflight.com forum. Not sure where to go to find out more but it's obviously right.
The photo used in this article must be taken at just the right angle to show the white side only. Robert Walker ( talk) 05:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how to make the changes, but figure it's safe to request help here, CSM-107 is not currently where the wiki says it is (at NASM), it is on tour and will be at the St Louis Science Center starting 4/14/2018 as part of the Destination Moon Traveling Exhibit. [1] Thanks for fixing. 75.100.175.2 ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't see it here or in Apollo program. When did the SMs separate from the CMs (as late as possible - after targeting the CM landing area) ? Presumably the SMs all burned in earths atmosphere, but how accurately were they targeted (after separation from CM ?), and where did they burn up (or crash) ? How far from the CM reentry ? Where any SM reentries observed ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We need to find a source to see if the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project exhibit on display at the National Air and Space Museum includes the SM-105. This craft never flew, so it's possible the Service Module is included. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. This proposal hinged upon the application of the MOS:CAPS and NCCAPS guidelines. According to those guidelines, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation. Specifically, MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalised in Wikipedia". The evidence brought to the table by the nominator, and also by other participants in this discussion, such as Mandruss, makes clear that this term is not consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Those opposed to the move largely ignored Wikipedia policy or guidelines in their reasoning, instead relying on appeals to "historical importance", and personal feelings. As none of them were able to refute the evidence or policy-based argument presented by the supporters of this proposal, I believe that there is a consensus to move this article as proposed. The question of the stroke (slash) was not adequately discussed in this RM, and so I would suggest either a new RM, or an RM/TR technical request to deal with that issue. ( closed by non-admin page mover) RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Apollo Command/Service Module → Apollo command/service module – Sources overwhelmingly treat these as not proper names; so per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we use sentence case. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see section #More sources analyzed below before adding new !votes. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, many books and articles have lower-cased Command Module during its actual use, or in later reporting.This is explicit (though unintended) confirmation and acknowledgement that, per the criteria at MOS:CAPS (specifically wrt and iaw sources) the subject noun phrase (and hence the title of the article) should not be capped. Further, it does not meet the onomastic criteria to be considered a proper name per above (noting also that a proper noun is a single word and not a noun phrase). NASA is not an onomastic authority.
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.but, if challenged, there must be a consensus to sustain ignoring the rule. For a consensus, there must be strength in the case to ignore the rule: NASA did it; it is the anniversary; or, I think it is important, are not strong arguements. They are arguements of the type which are specifically identified as weak and even, inconsequential.
It's very disappointing to see a raft of opposes above with either flimsy stated justification or reasoning, or none at all (like Andy Dingley's ... yet he is a sophisticated editor). Where is the compelling logic, the balanced evidence, that might counter Dicklyon's request? For the record, it's a Support from me. Tony (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
NASA never said "Command and Service Module", NASA's website appears to disagree. We can debate the relative strengths of different evidence, but this is not a good place to make claims with no evidence at all to back them up. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Apollo_8#What_sources_say for an analysis of all the sources cited in Apollo 8, a pretty big list. Lowercase module is the overwhelming majority. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Also let's look specifically at the sources this article was built from (I just editted out everything but the refs to make this snapshot so we refer to them by number):
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Which ones use lowercase module, and which use uppercase? I've annotated all by number, with bold for the one that treats as proper name. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
1. lowercase "the command module, service propulsion module"
2. lowercase "the command module" and "the lunar module"
3. lowercase "An Apollo service module mockup"
4. lowercase throughout (except in some table headings and where the acronyms are defined)
5. no modules
6. lowercase "the command module"; no service module
7. lowercae "the command and service module (CSM)"
8. lowercase the Apollo command and service modules and the lunar module"
9. uppercase "The Apollo Command Service Module" (but is Mark Wade's defunct astronautics.com website a reliable source?)
10. lowercase "command module"; mixed "service module" and "Service Module"
11. lowercase "the Apollo command and service modules", "command module", "service module", etc.; same astronautics.com site as 9, but different page
12. lowercase "within the service module" and "the command module computer (CMC)"; no others except caption ("Service Module Sectors") (I OCR'd it to search)
13. lowercase "The Apollo command service module"
14. lowercase (same doc as 13)
15. lowercase (same doc as 12)
16. lowercase "the command and service modules"
17. no "module"
18. can't find online
19. Skylab doc; uppercase "the Command Service Module (CSM)" and "Command Module (CM)"; nothing relevant to Apollo here
20. no source here
21. hard to search (protected so Acrobat won't OCR it) mostly tables and figures, not sentences
22. can't find source via Wayback Machine
23. lowercase "Apollo 11 command module Columbia" (but also capped in sub-head sentence)
24. lowercase "NASA's last Apollo command module"
25. lowercase "The Apollo command module"
26. lowercase "NASA's last Apollo command module"
And I didn't come across any that use the slashed "command/service" naming. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
If nobody objects, I will replace the slash by "and" after this closes, unless the closer does. The slash is exceptionally rare in sources, and has no reason for being used in Wikipedia. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
A user recently broke the 3RR on this page, undoing my removal of bold face from the text "Command Module" and "Service Module" in the lead section. They didn't bother to give any rationale for their reverting. The closest they came was a false claim that the MOS is generally ignored.
The WP:MOS says of bold face:
So what reason is there to bold this text? For emphasis? Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text. Because they are new terms? Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms. The only reason advanced by the user who broke the 3RR was essentially "just because".
When there is a clear unambiguous guideline, it should be followed (and when there is a clear unambigious rule like the 3RR, it should not be violated). Ignoring style guidelines, in general, makes articles look sloppy and amateurish. So there should be a very good reason to ignore them - such as, applying them would make the encyclopaedia look even more sloppy and amateurish than not applying them. Putting text in bold face just because you really want to is not a good reason. So, I suggest the clear and unambiguous guidelines be followed here, unless someone has an actual strong reason to override them. 46.208.152.45 ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I spotted some errors in the "CSMs_produced" section for CMs and SMs -014, -017, -020 and corrected them based on some (IMO) decent sources. It would probably be a good idea to go through the rest of the list and fix any errors/add relevant details based on those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHajnal ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this article would benefit from a split. It would be much easier to write better articles if we treated them separately. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering what the contents of the service module on apollo 11 where, particularly, the part where experiments and cameras are stowed, i did multiple searches but i couldnt find it. 85.97.28.38 ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Ringslot is a descriptive term for a parachute, one whose slots are cut like rings. Ringshot is a typo. https://www.ebay.com/itm/223907191657 RPellessier | Talk 07:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
https://airborne-sys.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aiaa-1999-1700_evolution_of_the_ringsail.pdf
See image: http://www.collectspace.com/review/spaceaholic/para/cmpilot_data-lg.jpg
See page 5: https://www.scribd.com/document/49197880/The-Apollo-Parachute-Landing-System
In the RCS section of the SM section, the article states that "Each quad assembly measured 8 by 3 feet (2.44 by 0.91 m)". What exactly does this refer to? It surely does not refer to each of the 4 thruster clusters, as 2.44m is nearly 2 thirds the entire diameter of the CSM, and from the picture at the top of the article it is clear that a single thruster cluster is far smaller than that. Nebisan ( talk) 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The current version of the page states that the CSM displayed with the Saturn V at JSC is CSM-115a. This is apparently a longstanding edit, and is sourced to Jim Gerard's A Field Guide to American Spacecraft. After some searching, I can find no other prominent sources for this claim, I believe it originates with the Field Guide and all other sources are copying it.
However, I've come to doubt the reliability of the Field Guide in this matter. The Field Guide states that the author originally read sections of a NASA publication, The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, that had references to both CSM-115 and CSM-115a and interpreted this to mean they were two separate CSMs. But then, after restoration work 'conclusively proved' the command module at JSC was CSM-115a, he concluded the two CSMs were actually one and the same.
All of this, however, goes against a variety of official documentation. A 1970 report to congress clearly lists CSM-115 and CSM-115a separately. A 1972 report also lists them separately, and states that CSM-115a was structurally incomplete when it was placed into storage in Downey, CA. A 1977 report says that CSM-115 will sent to JSC for display with its Saturn V and CSM-115a will be temporarily transferred to the Japan Science Society for an exhibit. The March 1978 listing of major Apollo/Skylab end items says that CSM-115 will be transferred to JSC in April 1978, and that the location of CSM-115a was unknown at that time but believed to be Japan. Finally, this article on Skylab B cites a 1993 NASA report stating that CSM-115 is on display at JSC, and CSM-115a's location is still unknown.
All of which is to say that the Field Guide's statement that CSM-115 and CSM-115a are the same vehicle is demonstratively false, and its claim that CSM-115a is on display at JSC is questionable. The restoration it speaks about is most likely the 2005 one, but there isn't any discussion of that discovery in news coverage. Unfortunately I cannot find any official reference to the CSM at JSC post-2005, which would confirm or deny this occurred. However, a 2015 Ars Technica describing an official tour of JSC states that the CSM on display is CSM-115.
Given the dearth of evidence that CSM-115a is on display at JSC, and the large amount of evidence that CSM-115 is, I've changed to article to state that fact. Voteins ( talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! An excellent article which I am translating into Afrikaans. In the subsection Forward Compartment the author stated the heat shield get jettisoned at 25,000 feet and in the section Earth Landing System he stated at 24,000 feet. Not a big issue looking at the bigger picture but it is there. Or is roughly at that height? Regards from South Africa. Oesjaar ( talk) 06:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The image in this section labelled "Engineers at Arnold Air Base with an Apollo service module engine" does not actually depict an SPS engine and the source gallery doesn't identify it as such. It appears to be an LR91 engine for the Titan I missile. 121.99.224.5 ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
correct link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690029435/downloads/19690029435.pdf Ogurecheck ( talk) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Does anyone have any objections to me renaming this page Apollo Command and Service Module. This seems to be a more accurate description of what the spacecraft was, with two separate parts.-- enceladus 02:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I support (now years later ;-) the rename suggestion. Here's why: Eric Jones uses the phrase "command and service module" is his phenomenal historical work, available online as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. See for example, http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CSMdocs.html and http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/apollo.engin.html. ( sdsds - talk) 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reason this hasn't been done? From what I can see most sources (especially contemporary ones) use "Command and Service Module", or "Command Service Module". Not only is the slash inconsistent with the MOS but it often implies "either/or", either in terms of the actual hardware or just the name, which clearly gives the wrong impression here.
ChiZeroOne (
talk)
09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Support Apollo Command and Service Module - the current '/' implies alternate names. Since/if they only flew together (apart from reentry) a single article seems fine (but it is tempting to name it with a final 's') - Rod57 ( talk) 11:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The article lists the crew capacity of the Apollo CSM as being 3. While it did carry three crew members in all the manned missions, it actually had the capacity to carry five. The stowage area behind the crew seats could be configured for two additional crew members. This was considered for space station use, but no capsules ever flew in this configuration. Skylab Rescue was the only capsule ever to be configured in this manner, but it never was used.
I think it is worth mentioning that it had a higher capacity if used in LEO missions for crew transport. It just never was used in this manner. DrBuzz0 ( talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the extra seating capacity for the Skylab Rescue is worth mentioning, and should be added to the "Modifications for Saturn IB flights" section. Consideration for space station use would require a source for verification; I would guess that fell by the wayside with the "Apollo X (expansion)" plans which preceeded Skylab. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not list the location of training apollo command modules along with the actual command module locations? Many where used in naval bases and is an exact 1 to 1 replica of the real command modules externaly and in weight.
It would be nice if information about the Apollo subsatellite (from Apollo 15) can be added to the article [1].
This article is going nicely, and I believe has potential to make a Featured Article. But I see some things in the structure of the Service Module section that could be improved:
There are also a few minor style / link issues.
Basically, the information that's there is all good, but I've made a pass at rewriting it with improved organization. I haven't removed any of the existing information. JustinTime55 ( talk) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What the heck is a scimitar antenna, you ask? It's an antenna shaped like a scimitar. Both the CSM and LM had them to communicate with each other on the VHF band. I'm going to create this new article and link to it shortly. JustinTime55 ( talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
These seems to need to be corrected: The cells were fed by two spherical 26-inch (0.66 m) diameter tanks, each holding 326 pounds (148 kg) of liquid hydrogen, and two hemispherical-cyllindrical 31.75-inch (0.806 m) diameter tanks, each holding 29 pounds (13 kg) of liquid oxygen (which also supplied the environmental control system). After the Apollo 13 accident, a third oxygen tank was added.
The dimensions of the containers makes no sense, in fact it would need 77 cubic feet to store 326 lbs of LH2, and CSM only has less then 20 cubic feet in both bottles combined. Put it simply the smaller tank does not hold 10 times as much of less dense LH2 as the bigger tank holds the more dense LO2. It only makes sense if you conclude the labels were switched and the bigger tank holds 29 lbs of LH2 and the smaller tank holds 326 lbs of LO2. -- BerserkerBen ( talk) 06:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why this article is listed in the Category:1971 in space exploration? I'd think it would be either listed in 1967, or in every year that a CSM combination flew...? RadioBroadcast ( talk) 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a misguided idea to represent the power system by the Apollo 13 picture which exposes it. The picture is very blurry and does not serve to illustrate what the system looks like in its normal (undamaged) state. This serves no encyclopedic purpose, and could only serve to inflame the Apollo 13 controversy, which this article is not about. So I am reverting it. If you could find another picture of the complete fuel cell bay, say during assembly, that would be another matter. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Dutch astronomer and TV presenter Chriet Titulaer famously bought an unfinished CM for $1 from Rockwell after the Apollo program was scrapped. He stated this in a 1996 interview (which is from WAVE, a former Wired-like Dutch magazine, and is in Dutch) and on this forum thread at CollectSpace.com (in English) there is a picture of which is claimed to be the module at a space exhibition in the Netherlands (which Titulaer organized). More discussion at this thread. Apparently someone posting in the first thread contacted Titulaer and he said it was CM 21 but another poster there doubted it. So does anyone have any information about this, about which one it might be? SpeakFree (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"But the Apollo 1 flight was cancelled by a cabin fire which killed the crew and destroyed the Command Module during a launch rehearsal test"
Was the Apollo 1 flight really cancelled or was it... destroyed? Also, this should be changed to something to the effect of "The Apollo 1 flight was cancelled by a cabin fire which killed the crew and destroyed the Command Module during a launch rehearsal test" (without the 'but'). 69.174.58.132 ( talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We really should have citations for the CM and SM specs listed. And there's some confusion about the CM RCS: the engine massis given as a single number; is this for only one engine, or for all 12? (I would guess the latter, since 880 pounds is extremely large; this times 12 is 10,560 pounds, close to the entire Command Module mass! Dividing this by 12, 73.33 is more reasonable.) Also, it doesn't make much sense to include all 12 engines in a meaningful thrust number, since all 12 were never fired at once; they were fired in pairs. For this reason, it's more consistent to report the mass as twelve x 73.3. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The article would probably be improved by giving the reader a better sense of the breadth of the sub-contractor base North American Aviation drew upon. Chariots for Apollo covers this pretty well at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/ch4-2.html, in the chapter called "The Team and the Tools." Collins Radio, AiResearch Manufacturing, Honeywell, Radioplane, Lockheed, Marquardt, Aerojet, Avco, Thiokol; all are mentioned. Probably best to distribute these into the article in the subsections covering the subsystems the subcontractors worked on? ( sdsds - talk) 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Since a heat shield separated the service and command modules, how were things such as controls and communication lines routed between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.71.217 ( talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought this would be the most likely article to give the L/D ratio of the CM but I couldn't find it. - Rod57 ( talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
page shows Launch mass 32,390 pounds (14,690 kg) Earth orbit 63,500 pounds (28,800 kg) Lunar , I suspect these numbers are backwards, and that the larger number is the earth orbit number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.0.70 ( talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Should there be such a section here? There were several films made that showed CSM or at least CSM-like spacecraft. The Lunar Module article has such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.139.203 ( talk) 04:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The image caption says the Skylab command module was painted white. Only the side facing the sun was white. Details here with photo that shows it clearly [4] in NASA Spaceflight.com forum. Not sure where to go to find out more but it's obviously right.
The photo used in this article must be taken at just the right angle to show the white side only. Robert Walker ( talk) 05:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how to make the changes, but figure it's safe to request help here, CSM-107 is not currently where the wiki says it is (at NASM), it is on tour and will be at the St Louis Science Center starting 4/14/2018 as part of the Destination Moon Traveling Exhibit. [1] Thanks for fixing. 75.100.175.2 ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't see it here or in Apollo program. When did the SMs separate from the CMs (as late as possible - after targeting the CM landing area) ? Presumably the SMs all burned in earths atmosphere, but how accurately were they targeted (after separation from CM ?), and where did they burn up (or crash) ? How far from the CM reentry ? Where any SM reentries observed ? - Rod57 ( talk) 12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We need to find a source to see if the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project exhibit on display at the National Air and Space Museum includes the SM-105. This craft never flew, so it's possible the Service Module is included. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. This proposal hinged upon the application of the MOS:CAPS and NCCAPS guidelines. According to those guidelines, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation. Specifically, MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalised in Wikipedia". The evidence brought to the table by the nominator, and also by other participants in this discussion, such as Mandruss, makes clear that this term is not consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Those opposed to the move largely ignored Wikipedia policy or guidelines in their reasoning, instead relying on appeals to "historical importance", and personal feelings. As none of them were able to refute the evidence or policy-based argument presented by the supporters of this proposal, I believe that there is a consensus to move this article as proposed. The question of the stroke (slash) was not adequately discussed in this RM, and so I would suggest either a new RM, or an RM/TR technical request to deal with that issue. ( closed by non-admin page mover) RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Apollo Command/Service Module → Apollo command/service module – Sources overwhelmingly treat these as not proper names; so per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we use sentence case. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see section #More sources analyzed below before adding new !votes. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, many books and articles have lower-cased Command Module during its actual use, or in later reporting.This is explicit (though unintended) confirmation and acknowledgement that, per the criteria at MOS:CAPS (specifically wrt and iaw sources) the subject noun phrase (and hence the title of the article) should not be capped. Further, it does not meet the onomastic criteria to be considered a proper name per above (noting also that a proper noun is a single word and not a noun phrase). NASA is not an onomastic authority.
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.but, if challenged, there must be a consensus to sustain ignoring the rule. For a consensus, there must be strength in the case to ignore the rule: NASA did it; it is the anniversary; or, I think it is important, are not strong arguements. They are arguements of the type which are specifically identified as weak and even, inconsequential.
It's very disappointing to see a raft of opposes above with either flimsy stated justification or reasoning, or none at all (like Andy Dingley's ... yet he is a sophisticated editor). Where is the compelling logic, the balanced evidence, that might counter Dicklyon's request? For the record, it's a Support from me. Tony (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
NASA never said "Command and Service Module", NASA's website appears to disagree. We can debate the relative strengths of different evidence, but this is not a good place to make claims with no evidence at all to back them up. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Apollo_8#What_sources_say for an analysis of all the sources cited in Apollo 8, a pretty big list. Lowercase module is the overwhelming majority. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Also let's look specifically at the sources this article was built from (I just editted out everything but the refs to make this snapshot so we refer to them by number):
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Which ones use lowercase module, and which use uppercase? I've annotated all by number, with bold for the one that treats as proper name. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
1. lowercase "the command module, service propulsion module"
2. lowercase "the command module" and "the lunar module"
3. lowercase "An Apollo service module mockup"
4. lowercase throughout (except in some table headings and where the acronyms are defined)
5. no modules
6. lowercase "the command module"; no service module
7. lowercae "the command and service module (CSM)"
8. lowercase the Apollo command and service modules and the lunar module"
9. uppercase "The Apollo Command Service Module" (but is Mark Wade's defunct astronautics.com website a reliable source?)
10. lowercase "command module"; mixed "service module" and "Service Module"
11. lowercase "the Apollo command and service modules", "command module", "service module", etc.; same astronautics.com site as 9, but different page
12. lowercase "within the service module" and "the command module computer (CMC)"; no others except caption ("Service Module Sectors") (I OCR'd it to search)
13. lowercase "The Apollo command service module"
14. lowercase (same doc as 13)
15. lowercase (same doc as 12)
16. lowercase "the command and service modules"
17. no "module"
18. can't find online
19. Skylab doc; uppercase "the Command Service Module (CSM)" and "Command Module (CM)"; nothing relevant to Apollo here
20. no source here
21. hard to search (protected so Acrobat won't OCR it) mostly tables and figures, not sentences
22. can't find source via Wayback Machine
23. lowercase "Apollo 11 command module Columbia" (but also capped in sub-head sentence)
24. lowercase "NASA's last Apollo command module"
25. lowercase "The Apollo command module"
26. lowercase "NASA's last Apollo command module"
And I didn't come across any that use the slashed "command/service" naming. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
If nobody objects, I will replace the slash by "and" after this closes, unless the closer does. The slash is exceptionally rare in sources, and has no reason for being used in Wikipedia. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
A user recently broke the 3RR on this page, undoing my removal of bold face from the text "Command Module" and "Service Module" in the lead section. They didn't bother to give any rationale for their reverting. The closest they came was a false claim that the MOS is generally ignored.
The WP:MOS says of bold face:
So what reason is there to bold this text? For emphasis? Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text. Because they are new terms? Avoid using boldface for introducing new terms. The only reason advanced by the user who broke the 3RR was essentially "just because".
When there is a clear unambiguous guideline, it should be followed (and when there is a clear unambigious rule like the 3RR, it should not be violated). Ignoring style guidelines, in general, makes articles look sloppy and amateurish. So there should be a very good reason to ignore them - such as, applying them would make the encyclopaedia look even more sloppy and amateurish than not applying them. Putting text in bold face just because you really want to is not a good reason. So, I suggest the clear and unambiguous guidelines be followed here, unless someone has an actual strong reason to override them. 46.208.152.45 ( talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I spotted some errors in the "CSMs_produced" section for CMs and SMs -014, -017, -020 and corrected them based on some (IMO) decent sources. It would probably be a good idea to go through the rest of the list and fix any errors/add relevant details based on those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHajnal ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this article would benefit from a split. It would be much easier to write better articles if we treated them separately. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering what the contents of the service module on apollo 11 where, particularly, the part where experiments and cameras are stowed, i did multiple searches but i couldnt find it. 85.97.28.38 ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Ringslot is a descriptive term for a parachute, one whose slots are cut like rings. Ringshot is a typo. https://www.ebay.com/itm/223907191657 RPellessier | Talk 07:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
https://airborne-sys.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/aiaa-1999-1700_evolution_of_the_ringsail.pdf
See image: http://www.collectspace.com/review/spaceaholic/para/cmpilot_data-lg.jpg
See page 5: https://www.scribd.com/document/49197880/The-Apollo-Parachute-Landing-System
In the RCS section of the SM section, the article states that "Each quad assembly measured 8 by 3 feet (2.44 by 0.91 m)". What exactly does this refer to? It surely does not refer to each of the 4 thruster clusters, as 2.44m is nearly 2 thirds the entire diameter of the CSM, and from the picture at the top of the article it is clear that a single thruster cluster is far smaller than that. Nebisan ( talk) 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The current version of the page states that the CSM displayed with the Saturn V at JSC is CSM-115a. This is apparently a longstanding edit, and is sourced to Jim Gerard's A Field Guide to American Spacecraft. After some searching, I can find no other prominent sources for this claim, I believe it originates with the Field Guide and all other sources are copying it.
However, I've come to doubt the reliability of the Field Guide in this matter. The Field Guide states that the author originally read sections of a NASA publication, The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, that had references to both CSM-115 and CSM-115a and interpreted this to mean they were two separate CSMs. But then, after restoration work 'conclusively proved' the command module at JSC was CSM-115a, he concluded the two CSMs were actually one and the same.
All of this, however, goes against a variety of official documentation. A 1970 report to congress clearly lists CSM-115 and CSM-115a separately. A 1972 report also lists them separately, and states that CSM-115a was structurally incomplete when it was placed into storage in Downey, CA. A 1977 report says that CSM-115 will sent to JSC for display with its Saturn V and CSM-115a will be temporarily transferred to the Japan Science Society for an exhibit. The March 1978 listing of major Apollo/Skylab end items says that CSM-115 will be transferred to JSC in April 1978, and that the location of CSM-115a was unknown at that time but believed to be Japan. Finally, this article on Skylab B cites a 1993 NASA report stating that CSM-115 is on display at JSC, and CSM-115a's location is still unknown.
All of which is to say that the Field Guide's statement that CSM-115 and CSM-115a are the same vehicle is demonstratively false, and its claim that CSM-115a is on display at JSC is questionable. The restoration it speaks about is most likely the 2005 one, but there isn't any discussion of that discovery in news coverage. Unfortunately I cannot find any official reference to the CSM at JSC post-2005, which would confirm or deny this occurred. However, a 2015 Ars Technica describing an official tour of JSC states that the CSM on display is CSM-115.
Given the dearth of evidence that CSM-115a is on display at JSC, and the large amount of evidence that CSM-115 is, I've changed to article to state that fact. Voteins ( talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! An excellent article which I am translating into Afrikaans. In the subsection Forward Compartment the author stated the heat shield get jettisoned at 25,000 feet and in the section Earth Landing System he stated at 24,000 feet. Not a big issue looking at the bigger picture but it is there. Or is roughly at that height? Regards from South Africa. Oesjaar ( talk) 06:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The image in this section labelled "Engineers at Arnold Air Base with an Apollo service module engine" does not actually depict an SPS engine and the source gallery doesn't identify it as such. It appears to be an LR91 engine for the Titan I missile. 121.99.224.5 ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
correct link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690029435/downloads/19690029435.pdf Ogurecheck ( talk) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)