Talk:Apollo command and service module

message: 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)
replies: text: My personal opinion is, why not go back to having the Apollo Command Module and the Apollo Service Module? They really are two different things... Tuvas 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On a related point the "Apollo" seems a tad redundant. The name of the craft is the Command and Service Module (hence CSM, not ACSM), Apollo is simply what some sources use to disambiguate, but then I'm unaware of any other programme which used a vehicle called anything similar so it seems a bit unnecessary. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Title

message: 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)
thread_title: Crew Capacity

message: 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:
* Paragraph cohesion: a well-written paragraph should be about a single topic, but there are some paragraphs about two or three things bundled together.  Also, information about the same topic is sometimes spread out over several paragraphs.
* Ordering: the topics seem to jump around.  Also, there are two paragraphs down below the Service Module Sectors section which should be up in the text above it.
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)
thread_title: Service Module section

message: 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)
thread_title: Scimitar antenna

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right; the words "hydrogen" and "oxygen" are switched.  I'll fix it soon. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've now fixed this to be the way I intended, with the hydrogen tanks before the oxygen.  I apparently didn't finish my cut-and-paste. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxygen and Hydrogen need to be switched

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it doesn't make any sense to categorize it under any year, since it refers to hardware and not an event or a spaceflight.  (And it was designed and flown before 1967, anyway.)  It should be replaced with Category:Space exploration (assuming that exists) or Human spaceflight. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specifications: Citation and clarification needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subcontractors 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is covered in the Service Module section; search on the word umbilical. The umbilical housing is described in the paragraph on the forward faring. Is this not highlighted sufficiently? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to find before realise it's called CM-SM umbilical connection. Would be great to have a subsection heading under CM ? - Mention the early and late versions.  Also includes 'plumbing' - O2 ?, water ?, any other fluids ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

text:  shows images of the only CSM umbilical left - with cover removed. - Rod57 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be disproportional to dedicate a section to this. I re-wrote the introduction to mention the connection between the modules, which should help make it clear. I also added wikilinks to umbilical cable and did some copyediting where the umbilicals are mentioned in the CM and SM. The differences between the Block I and Block II umbilical designs are highlighted in Major differences between Block I and Block II. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to have "umbilical" appear in the Contents. It was called the Umbilical Assembly or Umbilical Structural Assembly. There were about 100 electrical connections, including Bus-A and Bus-B DC power, and some fluid connections, including go-and-return for primary and backup water-glycol cooling circuits. Block II was flown and still exists. - Rod57 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Questions-need for section - CM-SM umbilical connection 

message: 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)
replies: text: Space capsule says "the Apollo CM had a lift to drag ratio of about 0.35" but no source. </br> Lift-to-drag ratio says "Hillje, Ernest R., "Entry Aerodynamics at Lunar Return Conditions Obtained from the Flight of Apollo 4 (AS-501)," NASA TN D-5399, (1969)." says Apollo 4 measured at 0.368 -  Fig 9 shows it slowly rose from ~0.27 to a brief peak ~0.37. -Rod57 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What lift to drag ratio during reentry 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, your suspicion is mistaken. The fully fueled CSM weighed about 63,500 lb, and the full fuel load was carried on the lunar missions. The Earth orbit missions didn't require nearly as much fuel as the lunar missions, so carried approximately half the fuel load (there were two sets of tanks, and one was left empty), yielding around 32,390 lb. The CSM engine had to perform the Lunar Orbit Insertion braking maneuver, the trans-Earth injection maneuver to get back home, plus midcourse corrections, and on the later missions, also the Descent Orbit Initiation maneuver, plus a little reserve. For the Earth orbit missions, besides making a few orbit changes for testing purposes (and the rendezvous maneuvers for Skylab), it only had to provide the retro-fire to deorbit the spacecraft. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in specifications ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Depiction in Film and Television" 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Skylab Apollo Command module half white half unpainted 

message: 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.   https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/destination-moon    Thanks for fixing.
75.100.175.2 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of CSM-107 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to the service modules 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks like it is, , and I made a bad revert to the IP addition of it. TJRC (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSM-105 on display 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because even though the sources are near equal, people know that historically, looking at long term significance, the Apollo Command Module is the Apollo Command Module and not the Apollo command module (that doesn't even make sense, what else is a "command module"  aside from the Apollo Command Module?). If you want to look at policy or guideline for this one, exception, pure and simple, with a good dose of common sense - the two things spelled out in the introduction to every guideline. The Apollo Command Module is a thing, a proper noun, and there's really nothing to tell you if you don't know that, and that Wikipedia should not be changing the name of such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Randy, the article has 26 references.  Can you find any other than number 9 that treat these as proper names?  Why should we if sources (including NASA) don't?  You and BilCat seem to think that "even though many sources do not" is a reason. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you claim that the only sources available for Apollo are those already listed here?  Why?  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  He obviously made no such claim. See Straw man.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a good NASA page which upper-cases and has a large array of related links (I haven't looked at any as yet). The NASA page I linked to above also upper-cases the relevant terms. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

text: What I'm suggesting is that the existing references have not been cherry-picked for case, yet only a tiny fraction of them (perhaps only 1) treat these as proper names.  Clearly others exist on both sides, but just as clearly the treatment as proper name is a small minority – even more so if you restrict to sources from before the time that Wikipedia started to influence by capping the article title in 2004; most article titles do start capped because people don't know about WP:NCCAPS, but then they get fixed.  This one could have been fixed when it first got a reference to two in 2006–2008, if someone had noticed that the refs didn't cap it, but that didn't happen.  So now we're noticing that the article is a great of mass of overcapitalization, not just in the title, and trying to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I concur with Tony that eye-roll "not again" comments are not useful in discussions like these (or any other discussions, for that matter). If an editor can't participate constructively and with respect for their opponents, they shouldn't participate. Dicklyon continues to operate fully within the system that he didn't create. And of course Dingley's not-not-vote will be discarded for the reason obvious to any editor with a smattering of experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I think the CSM is usually considered one spacecraft, with the SM being a part that gets discarded before reentry.  The SM is never used alone, the way CM and LM are.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

text: As for the suggestion from way back then, I'm OK with that, as long as we get the case fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I'd support replacing the slash with " and ", but I think that should be a separate RM after this one completes. They are different issues with different considerations. I doubt I'd support splitting the article into CM and SM, per Dicklyon (although I never say "never"). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. We're back to "what did NASA call it"? (And my reading, which I confess isn't extensive, has always seen caps.) On no slash, AFAIK, NASA never said "Command and Service Module": it was always treated as a joint vehicle, except in ref its functions. WP should not, yet again, be creating a convention used nowhere else.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere else except (at least) all of my five books on Apollo, listed above. As for , 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)

text: A search like this can shed light on what's in old docs, to refresh one's memory.  I don't find the "slash" version back then; not sure when that came in, or when the caps started. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  – have you had a chance to look at sources yet, so you can follow up on your desire to stay closer to how NASA originally did it, by supporting this move proposal?  Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: More sources analyzed

message: 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:
* The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section. The title of the article is Apollo Command/Service Module, and that text appears in bold face.
* This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. Neither are synonyms, though "Command Module" indeed redirects to the article. "Service Module" does not. However, the first occurrence of each of these phrases is in the very title of the article, "Apollo Command/Service Module", which is already in bold face in the first sentence.
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)
replies: text: Generally as little bolding as possible at the opening, please. It very soon dilutes the meaning of the highlighting, and looks ugly. Andy Dingley, why are you being so dogged? Tony (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has been blocked for disruptive editing and socking. DNFT is probably good advice here. Once they've grown bored of this tangent, perhaps we can revisit the issue then? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If an IP-somebody has a problem with it, take it to MOS talk, or something. It may be a bit odd, in this instance, but it's not the only case where lead bolding is a bit odd, & this page is not the place to settle the matter    TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless bold face 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Verify the accuracy of the list of CMs and SMs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split 

message: 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)
replies: text: It sounds like you're talking about the orbital scientific instrument package, which was not carried until the last three missions, Apollo 15, 16, and 17. This was not carried on Apollo 11. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was the contents of the service module on apollo 11 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for providing sources. I found both terms on Google and couldn't tell which one is correct (must be a widespread error). Can you take the time to fix Apollo command and service module, and add "ringslot" to Parachute to eliminate future confusion, or should I? That will give something to wikilink in the Apollo article. JustinTime55 (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised Parachute doesn't even mention the ringsail, which as I understand your AIAA source paper is descended from the ringslot. JustinTime55 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I take it from the crickets, that the answer is no, you're too busy to fix this and document ringslot parachutes in Wikipedia. Sigh...I'm willing to roll up my sleeves, but you sound like you're a parachute expert, which I tagged Parachute as needing. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringslot vs "ringshot" parachute 

message: 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)
replies: text: That size figure obviously is the dimension of each of the four panels which hold the complete system, including the propellant and helium pressurant tanks. The term "quad" is usually used to refer to just the box and the four engine nozzles attached. It should be reworded to be less confusing. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Or at least the 8-foot length does. Three feet must be the width of just the quad, as the engine nozzle is quoted as one foot diameter. I have a scale drawing, and can get the dimensions of the thruster quad box and the panel. I'll fix it when I get a chance. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

text: In fact: each quad measures 33.6 inches long by 26.6 inches wide; each RCS panel measures 99.1 inches (8.25 feet) by 33.8 inches (2.82 feet). JustinTime55 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of RCS thruster cluster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CSM-115 and CSM-115a 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jettison the heat shield 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Service Propulsion Module image