The Flickr Apollocommandmodule Image Generatr

About

This page simply reformats the Flickr public Atom feed for purposes of finding inspiration through random exploration. These images are not being copied or stored in any way by this website, nor are any links to them or any metadata about them. All images are © their owners unless otherwise specified.

This site is a busybee project and is supported by the generosity of viewers like you.

Inside the Apollo Command Module - April 1980 - Shot on Film by Robb Wilson

© Robb Wilson, all rights reserved.

Inside the Apollo Command Module - April 1980 - Shot on Film

This is a closer view of the same Apollo capsule, looking inside. This shows us that when the other two astronauts went into the LEM (lunar excursion module), the remaining astronaut sat in the middle seat, having all of the controls at his disposal easily.

The pilot of the command module had the thankless and unglamorous job of staying with the "mother ship" while the other two landed on the moon and did their exploring. But the command module pilot wasn't just sitting it out, he had to be ready to engage in the rendezvous and docking of both the command module and the lunar lander once the excursion was over and it was time for the two astronauts to return to the command module. Both radio and radar contact was necessary for the two objects to hook up. They did, with hundreds of hours of training paying off as a result. Once the two astronauts returned inside the command module they jettisoned the lunar lander, leaving it to wander in orbit until gravity pulled it down to crash land somewhere on the lunar surface.

The flight would begin with the Apollo capsule atop a humongous Saturn V rocket, taller than some tall buildings. By the time the astronauts would return it would only be the single capsule (which you see in the previous photo). One of the greatest (if not the greatest) endeavors of humankind was accomplished, but at the same time something had to be done so that return trips wouldn't be such an act of attrition, using materials that could not be utilized a second or third time. Hence the shuttle program.

And the first shuttle launch would not be for another year after my visit to the Air Space Museum, which is why you will not see any photographs of it here.

This photo was shot with my Vivitar 400 S/L 35mm camera, using Eastman Kodak 5247 motion picture stock, rated at ASA 100. I used my Vivitar 50mm lens. The image was scanned at Samy's Camera in Pasadena, California.

Apollo 7 Module at Frontiers of Flight Museum, 17 Mar 2023 by photography.by.ROEVER

© photography.by.ROEVER, all rights reserved.

Apollo 7 Module at Frontiers of Flight Museum, 17 Mar 2023

The Apollo 7 Command Module inside the Frontiers of Flight Museum at Dallas Love Field.
Dallas, Texas
Friday afternoon 17 March 2023

ELA_v_c_o_KPP (ca. 1993, unnumbered poss. General Dynamics or NASA photo) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

ELA_v_c_o_KPP (ca. 1993, unnumbered poss. General Dynamics or NASA photo)

1. INTRODUCTION
EARLY LUNAR ACCESS (ELA) was a "cheaper-faster-better" manned lunar mission study, carried out by General Dynamics in 1992-93. It was intended as a joint US-European pathfinder for NASA's more capable 4-man First Lunar Outpost (FLO). The project tried to reduce total costs by a factor of ten compared with Apollo, by utilizing existing launch vehicles rather than developing a large Saturn V-class rocket. This would be feasible since modern electronics, rocket engines and materials are more capable and weigh less than their Apollo-era counterparts. Hence a modern manned lunar spacecraft need not be as heavy as the Apollo Lunar Module. General Dynamics also claimed that an ELA-type program would have major scientific merit. It would offer major improvements beyond what was accomplished with Apollo, since ELA would enable 2–3-week crew stays on the Moon. Politically, it would encourage cooperation between NASA and ESA (or other foreign space agencies) which would make it appealing to US politicians.

2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
To reach the main goals (low development cost and improved scientific return compared with Apollo), General Dynamics identified the following system and mission requirements.

Table 1 - System Requirements
- Maximize use of existing systems and subsystems or their derivatives
- Achieve first piloted lunar mission by 2000
- Provide capability for crew stay times for up to three weeks on the Moon
- Provide shirtsleeve environment for Intra-Vehicular Activity functions (telerobotic lunar rovers)
- Emplace permanent facilities that can support expansion to larger base operations

Table 2 - Mission Objectives
Lunar science:
- Characterize geology and physical properties
- Establish early astronomy outpost
- Demonstrate lunar oxygen processing pilot plant
Human Life Support Technologies:
- Assess effectiveness of EMU lunar spacesuits
- Evaluate crew capabilities for moderate (14-21 day) stay times
- Determine crew effectiveness during lunar night
Support of NASA's First Lunar Outpost:
- Survey and map potential landing sites
- Deploy navigation aids, communication links
- Determine effectiveness of telerobotic rovers
- Test materials & equipment exposed to long duration lunar environment
- Deploy critical supplies and equipment

3. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
Early Lunar Access would use the Space Shuttle and a large expendable launch vehicle such as the Ariane-5 or Titan IV. The former would carry a manned Lunar Exploration Vehicle spacecraft while the latter launches a wide-body Centaur G' rocket stage. Both payloads would rendezvous and dock in low Earth orbit. The Centaur then fires its engine to accelerate the complex toward the Moon and is then jettisoned.

Travel time to the Moon is about three days. To save fuel, the LEV makes a direct landing rather than enter an intermediate lunar parking orbit as Apollo did. The vehicle retains sufficient propellant to perform a later ascent burn to return the crew to Earth. For unmanned cargo missions, the LEV carries a heavier payload and uses up all its fuel for landing.

The launch vehicles (Shuttle plus Titan IV or Ariane-5) would have required some upgrades. The Shuttle would have needed either a lightweight Al-Li External Tank or Advanced Solid Rocket Motors to carry 25,720kg payloads to a 300km orbit. The new ET is now available but the ASRMs were cancelled in 1994. The ELVs would have been uprated to carry a 27t payload into Earth orbit. Proposed modifications included new aluminum-lithium tanks for the Titan IV plus a pair of additional solid rocket boosters for the Ariane-5.

The Centaur G' would have been modified for missions lasting up to ten days rather than a few hours. A single uprated RL-10 engine (since developed for the Delta III project) would have replaced the previous twin-engine configuration to save weight and improve reliability. The propellant tanks would have been enlarged and additional thermal insulation, power and reaction control propellant would have increased the in-orbit lifetime.

The crew capsule would be derived from the Apollo Command Module that last flew in 1975. It retains the external size and shape of the original Apollo CM design to take advantage of the existing aero- and thermodynamic databases developed during that program. The interior has however been scaled down since it only supports a crew of two instead of three, and the capsule is lighter since its design is based on modern materials, lightweight electronics and construction methods.

The lunar habitat (where the crew would live during their 21-day stay) would also be derived from previously developed hardware; in this case the Space Station Freedom mini-pressurized logistics module built by Italy's Alenia Spazio for NASA. The MPLM was later replaced with a larger module that presumably would be too heavy for Early Lunar Access. However, a scaled down version could still be taken from ESA's Ariane Transfer Vehicle which utilizes the same basic Alenia-built module.

Entirely new systems include a multiple payload adapter plus lunar science equipment and surface elements carried on the first unmanned ELA mission. The major new element is the Lunar Transfer Vehicle itself. It features an advanced high performance four-engine liquid oxygen/hydrogen propulsion system that throttles to enable soft landings on the Moon. The engines would be based on the RS-44 or similar systems. Redundancy is achieved through the capability to shut down a diametrically opposed pair in the event of a failure.

The payload mass exceeds the Shuttle's landing limits in the event of an abort, so a mechanism that dumps the LEV propellant in case of emergency would have to be incorporated. NASA safety requirements probably require that the propellants be carried outside the Shuttle cargo bay during ascent as well. Fortunately, Boeing has studied a system that would transfer excess propellant from the Shuttle External Tank in orbit.

4. SPACE OPERATIONS
Lunar missions using low Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) are constrained by critical launch window opportunities. The LEV is deployed and checked one day after the Shuttle reaches orbit. If there is a problem that cannot be fixed in orbit, the LEV and its 2-crew is retrieved and returned to Earth with the Shuttle. Under normal conditions, however, the expendable launch vehicle would then place the Centaur rocket stage in a co-orbit with the Shuttle. The LEV and Centaur then dock (possibly assisted by the Shuttle) and depart from low Earth orbit a day later, when the launch window opens.

If the LEV/Centaur fails to depart on time (the launch window is in the order of one minute), there will be another translunar injection opportunity on the next orbit 90 minutes later. The Moon, however, will no longer be at the same point as the spacecraft when it is time to land three days later. A midcourse correction will be required to "catch up" with it. Consequently, the LEV would carry an additional 2% propellant for unplanned midcourse plane change maneuvers. This will provide a total delta-V or velocity change capability of 205 meters per second, sufficient for 13 lunar departure opportunities over 18 hours. In contrast, Apollo only had about four translunar injection opportunities, but of course there was Earth orbit rendezvous requirement. If the departure window is missed completely, there will be another series of 13 departure opportunities 3-11 days later. The Shuttle, Centaur and LEV can wait up to a week in Earth orbit so there would typically be two translunar injection opportunities per mission.

5. PROGRAMMATICS SUMMARY
EARLY LUNAR ACCESS MANIFEST EXAMPLE (Lunar Missions 1 through 4 (Cryogenic LEV)):
Mission 1: Initial Science & Exploration
Mission 2: Habitation System Deployment
Mission 3: First Crew Landing
Mission 4: Expanded Science & Exploration

Mission 1 is primarily science oriented and would offer immediate returns (geophysics, ultraviolet & optical telescopes) after the first landing. Mission 2 lands the habitat module, an environmental control & life-support system (ECLSS), fuel cells and other equipment. The first crewed mission then occurs with Mission 3. The total cost at this point would be $13 billion (1992 rates) over seven years for a "business as usual" all-NASA program. This figure includes all costs (research & development, launch, production, operations, testing) apart from the scientific payloads associated with the missions. European cooperation (where ESA would provide three Ariane-5 launchers, the habitation module and participate in some development & production work on the LEV/crew capsule) would reduce this figure by about $4 billion. A "cheaper faster better" approach would reduce the US share further, to $6 billion and total program costs to $10 billion. The marginal cost of continuing the program after this would be $2 billion per mission. The fourth expedition (not rigorously investigated by General Dynamics) would land additional equipment, supplies and spares for an additional 2-3 piloted missions to the same site.

If it had been approved, the ELA project would have started in 1994 with a number of 1-year hardware definition studies. Hardware development would have started in 1995, leading to a first unmanned landing in mid-1999. General Dynamics assumed that at most two Shuttles and two expendable launchers would be available per year. Mission 2 would take place six months later, followed by the first manned landing six months after that. Early Lunar Access would then have given way to NASA's advanced First Lunar Outpost (FLO) program in 2002.

6. POSTSCRIPT
In some ways, Early Lunar Access was ahead of its time both technically and politically. The political basis quickly evaporated when the Clinton Administration ordered yet another Space Station redesign only months after General Dynamics unveiled the project in early 1993. The International Space Station and Shuttle has commanded virtually all of NASA's shrinking manned spaceflight budget ever since. Technically, ELA also ran into problems when NASA subsequently discovered that General Dynamics had underestimated the weight of the Lunar Exploration Vehicle. Had the project been approved, it would have required further costly upgrades to the Shuttle (=Advanced Solid Rocket Motors in addition to the currently approved super-lightweight External Tank) and Titan IV (=stretched aluminum-lithium propellant tanks).

The design philosophy behind Early Lunar Access appears solid, however. The major space powers (USA, Russia, ESA, Japan) continue to uprate their expendable rockets while new vehicles are on the drawing board. For example, the US Delta IV and Russian Angara boosters will soon provide the required lifting capability without any modifications. Spacecraft electronics keep getting cheaper and more capable while propulsion and materials advantages will make it possible to launch heavier payloads on smaller vehicles. This trend has continued for decades, and the major design driver today is economic in nature -- not political. Someday it will be possible to assemble a manned lunar spacecraft entirely from existing off-the-shelf "building blocks" already developed for the Space Station and commercial satellite programs. If Early Lunar Access was not technically feasible in 1994, it certainly will be in 2004 or 2014.”

The above, along with additional excellent graphics & tables at/from:

www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https://forum.nasaspacefl...
Credit: “NASA Spaceflight Forum” website (although formatting suggests its source to be the “PMView Pro” website, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

Also, another excellent article, along with the image (featured as the cover for the January 18, 1993 of Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine) at/from:

www.thespacereview.com/article/4511/1
Credit: “The Space Review” website

Understandably, plenty of other rehashed ELA references/articles abound online.

Whatever…it’s all water under the bridge. Bottom Line: Another gorgeous work by Roy Gjertson for General Dynamics. This is the first/only high-resolution version of this I've ever seen, and it's now online...at 1200 dpi.
You're welcome. 😏

a06 (AS-502)_v_bw_o_n (S-68-27086) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a06 (AS-502)_v_bw_o_n (S-68-27086)

“APOLLO 6 RECOVERY----Recovery personnel from the USS Okinawa participate in the recovery of the Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module. A U.S. Navy frogman team attaches a flotation collar to the Command Module. The USS Okinawa was the prime recovery ship for the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned space mission.”

The photograph is left-to-right reversed.
THIS is NOT the “rocket science” part! Dumbasses.

Also applicable, I assume from the caption of another Apollo 6 recovery photo:

“A U. S. Navy frogman team prepares the Apollo Spacecraft 020 Command Module (CM) for hoisting aboard the USS Okinawa. The USS Okinawa was the prime recovery ship for the Apollo 6 (Spacecraft 020/Saturn 502) unmanned space mission. Splashdown occurred at 4:58:45 p.m. (EST), April 4, 1968, at 375 nautical miles north of Honolulu, Hawaii. Objectives were to demonstrate trans-lunar injection capability of the Saturn V with a simulated payload equal to about 80% of a full Apollo spacecraft, and to repeat demonstration of the Command Module's (CM) heat shield capability to withstand a lunar re-entry. The flight plan called for following trans-lunar injection with a direct return abort using the Command/Service Module's (CSM) main engine, with a total flight time of about 10 hours.”

a_v_c_o_AKP (NASA-S-66-11003) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a_v_c_o_AKP (NASA-S-66-11003)

“ENTRY INTO EARTH ATMOSPHERE”

1966 artist’s concept of an Apollo Command Module during reentry into earth’s atmosphere.

Associated with the linked image below:

"Artist concept of the Apollo Command Module reentering the earth's atmosphere upon its return from a lunar mission."

I think it’s by Gary Meyer…on behalf of North American Aviation (NAA).

a (CM-007)_v_c_o_AKP (ca. 1966, unnumbered NASA photo) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a (CM-007)_v_c_o_AKP (ca. 1966, unnumbered NASA photo)

The following wonderful extracts provide information regarding CM-007/007A, the first specifically pertaining to the circumstances of the photograph. I highly recommend reading both in their entirety:

From an article by Amy Shira Teitel for Popular Science magazine online:

”Spacecraft 007 arrived at NASA’s Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston on April 18, 1966. Designed to test the spacecraft’s post-landing systems – the crew egress, survival, communications, location, power, and ventilation systems astronauts would rely on after returning from the Moon – this test article was a Block I version of the command module with the same configuration as flight articles. There was just one key difference: in place of the ablative heat shield, spacecraft 007’s was made of cork.

The first test in a natural body of water was the first delayed recovery test and it took place in the Gulf of Mexico. It was a run through to see what would happen if, after splashdown, adverse weather or rough seas kept recovery forces from collecting the crew from the ocean. The spacecraft’s systems could give engineers technical data, but they needed human factors data as well and this meant the test had to be manned. In this case, the crew was three volunteer “astronauts” associated with the Apollo program: Texas M. Ward, head of the Apollo egress training program, fellow Apollo astronaut trainer Louis DeWolf, and member of the Apollo Landing and Recovery Division Harry Clancy. Each of these three men knew that sitting in for astronauts on this test would give them a unique perspective on their work, but none were sure what lay in store sitting in a spacecraft at sea for two days.

The test started on Friday, September 30 at 4pm once the main test requirement was met: the water was rough enough to produce the desired three-to-four-foot waves. The three volunteers were strapped into their couches, the hatch was closed, and spacecraft 007 was lowered from the deck of the Motor Vessel Retriever.

The first part of the test was a test of the spacecraft’s ability to right itself. Spacecraft 007 was immediately flipped upside-down to its Stable-Two position (the thin end of the cone was facing down into the water and the heat shield was facing the sky), which left Ward, DeWolf, and Clancy suspended from their harnesses. Before long, the spacecraft’s two electric air compressors inflated the three uprighting bags, flipping the command module to its Stable-One position, the upright (heat shield down) position that had the stand-in astronauts lying comfortably in their couches.

This first objective achieved, the less exciting duration test began. Spacecraft 007 drifted south for 24 hours before starting to move parallel to the coast while a weather front moved through the test area generating waves 12 feet high. All the while, the Retriever was nearby keeping an eye on the spacecraft and establishing voice communication with the crew at least once an hour on the hour. As would be the case on the first two manned Apollo missions, one man out of three men was awake at all times to monitor the spacecraft systems and keep the test operators in the loop.

The test ended on Sunday night, and for the crew this meant a very welcome shower, shave, and steak dinner. The three men unanimously agreed that the test had overall been quite a ride. Especially when things got rough during the flip to Stable-Two and when the waves picked up; during these dynamic moments there was little for the volunteer astronauts to do but hang on. But more importantly, the spacecraft had weathered the rough waves and lengthy float very well. Ward noted that the Apollo spacecraft was a far better boat than the Gemini spacecraft, more stable and comfortable. All in all, the test subjects agreed it was a “pretty seaworthy craft.”

At:

www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/when-astronauts...

Along with:

“CM-007/007A is a North American Aviation production-line Apollo Command Module (CM) spacecraft designated as a ground test vehicle for water impact, acoustic and vibration, and postlanding tests. The CM was skinned with cork on the aft and crew compartment heat shields to simulate the flight ablator. CM-007 was in the Block I configuration and initially used in impact and acoustic testing at the manufacturer in Downey, California. It was the first Apollo Command Module delivered to the NASA-Manned Spacecraft Center (NASA-MSC) and was assigned to be used in manned postlanding tests to be conducted by the Landing and Recovery Division. These tests included systems operational and crew compatibility tests for uprighting, postlanding ECS, postlanding communications systems and recovery.

After delivery to Houston in April, 1966, CM-007 was prepared for open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico to operationally qualify the Block I CM postlanding systems. The manned Block I 48-hour open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico were successfully conducted with a NASA test subject crew (Harry Clancy, Tex Ward, Lou DeWolf) onboard CM-007 on September 30-October 2, 1966. Following completion of the Block I tests, CM-007 was shipped back to North American Rockwell in 1967 for modification to Block II (CM-101/Apollo 7 had a two-hatch configuration in the tunnel as compared to subsequent missions which had a single unified tunnel hatch configuration.) After modification, CM-007 was designated CM-007A and returned to NASA-MSC for testing. After the modifications, the manned Block II 48-hour open water tests in the Gulf of Mexico were successfully conducted with an astronaut crew (James A. Lovell, Jr., Stuart A. Roosa, and Charles M. Duke, Jr.) onboard CM007A on April 5-7, 1968. After returning to NASA/MSC, the tunnel hatch was reconfigured to the single unified hatch by a contractor team. Additional static water testing of the uprighting system bag failure modes continued in 1968 in NASA-MSC Building-260 water tank.”

At:

www.jonessite.net/upload/LRD/stories/CM007A.pdf
Credit: Coye Mac Jones' website

I wish I had more information regarding Mr. Jones! Other than:

“Welcome to Broomfield in the Denver/Boulder Colorado area. We moved here from Pagosa Springs Colorado almost three years after CMJ retired from NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston TX on 1/3/03 after 38 years of service, including the historic Project Apollo and Space Shuttle Program. We love our cats Rusty and Berry.”

Also:

photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPBNJ4rFImUqIJsn2mpVVvFrwZr0...
Credit: Coye Jones/Google Photos

Finally:

www.museumofflight.org/spacecraft/north-american-aviation...
Credit: 'The Museum of Flight' website

Tangential but pertinent:

ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730010171/downloads/1973001...

a (BP14)_v_c_o_TPMBK (ca. Aug 1974, unnumbered personal photo) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a (BP14)_v_c_o_TPMBK (ca. Aug 1974, unnumbered personal photo)

For the “Apollo Command Module Boilerplate/Mockup” edition of Trivial Pursuit, therefore an insignificant missing link in the history/life of Boilerplate No. 14 (BP-14), aka “HOUSE SPACECRAFT I”. Per the below linked discussions regarding the largely undocumented post-NASA life of the spacecraft, in a March 26, 1971 letter, NASA directed North American Rockwell to dispose of the capsule through “regular property disposal procedures.” The only other subsequent unofficial tracking/documentation I've come across, indirectly (discussions linked below), is that per 1978 NASA documentation, it was sold to a Tuscon-based salvage yard. Further, according to a discussion participant, the sale purportedly also occurring in 1978.

This photograph, obviously a personal photo taken no later than August 1974, would seem to possibly shift the timeline, or at least fill in a long moot gap. The bright sunshine, blue sky, attire (i.e., work uniform) of the gentleman…even his gesture, would seem to support this to be unofficial documentation of its acquisition/arrival at the salvage yard.
I ‘say’ NLT August 1974, bearing in mind that the stamped date of the photograph reflects the date a photo lab processed the film, which may have been exposed earlier. Granted, not too much earlier…all of us that remember those days were cautioned to not leave film in your camera too long.

3.5” x 3.5”.

In comparing the capsule with the below linked image, note the rounded corner of the hatch opening. Possibly an actual hatch 'frame' that had been attached/reattached? Also, a panel underneath the hatch opening seems to have been removed. Finally, the lack of the heat shield, which I believe it did once have.

I do get it, they couldn’t all be saved. It’s still sad, especially with NASA’s woeful & negligent track record of correct/accurate historical documentation & accountability, let alone preservation. And that’s only regarding Apollo.

a04 (AS-501)_v_c_o_AKP (107-KSC-67PC-391, 107-KSC-67-9207 eq) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a04 (AS-501)_v_c_o_AKP (107-KSC-67PC-391, 107-KSC-67-9207 eq)

“SATURN APOLLO 501 IN HIGH BAY 1, WITH WORK PLATFORMS RETRACTED. VAB HIGH BAY 1.
5-24-67”

Note access arm No. 8 “Service Module (inflight)” directly behind the CSM. Access arm No. 9 “Command Module (preflight)” is to the far right. Speaking of the CSM, note also the lack of RCS thrusters on the SM. Kind of clue as to vehicle identification.

And, unless something else surfaces, maybe on the verso of a “S-67-XXXXX” version of this photo - if such exists - the following lame, I’m sure contemporary pablum is apparently what’s meant to pass as the official description/caption:

“This photograph depicts the Saturn V vehicle (SA-501) for the Apollo 4 mission in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). After the completion of the assembly operation, the work platform was retracted and the vehicle was readied to rollout from the VAB to the launch pad. The Apollo 4 mission was the first launch of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Objectives of the unmanned Apollo 4 test flight were to obtain flight information on launch vehicle and spacecraft structural integrity and compatibility, flight loads, stage separation, and subsystems operation including testing of restart of the S-IVB stage, and to evaluate the Apollo command module heat shield. The Apollo 4 was launched on November 9, 1967 from KSC.”

Surprisingly, the above, with a bullshit, probably arbitrarily assigned “NASA ID” of 6754387 is actually available at:

images.nasa.gov/details-6754387

Unfortunately, as with many others, the description has been propagated everywhere. While I’ve read MUCH worse, it’s merely a copy/paste from some Apollo 4 document, which doesn’t address the context of the photograph…that is, what’s actually going on…the REASON the photograph was taken.

With that, the recognition/correct identification of the content of this photograph, along with the date, hence its pertinence to the problematic history of the SA-501 vehicle, has been…take your pick: lost, overlooked, unrecognized, omitted…something unacceptable.
For starters, the NASA photo ninjas, especially at the time of the photo’s processing, i.e., 1967, should’ve recognized that the CSM atop the vehicle was NOT the flight CSM (CSM-017). It ALSO should’ve been easily/readily identified as M-11, the Flight Verification Vehicle (FVV), it having been photographed a bazillion times during 1966 as part of SA-500F photo documentation.
As if that weren’t enough, within the multiple regurgitations of the trials & tribulations of making Apollo 4 happen, there’s not a mention of M-11, other than within the following, which although incomplete, with its own errors, at least references it…ONCE:

“The third stage (S-IVB) was the first major component of Apollo 4 to be delivered at KSC. It arrived from Sacramento aboard the Guppy aircraft on 14 August 1966 and went immediately into a low bay of the assembly building for inspection and checkout. The following week the spacer and instrument unit arrived. On 12 September, as Peter Conrad and Richard Gordon prepared to blast off in Gemini 11, the barge Poseidon sailed into the Banana River with the first stage. Boeing gave it a lengthy checkout in the transfer aisle of the high bay before erecting the booster on 27 October. During the following week, technicians stacked the remaining launch vehicle stages, using the spool for the absent S-II. There were a few problems - the checkout of the swing arms took an extra two days and a cooling unit for the instrument unit sprang a leak - but the launch team, still counting on the mid-November delivery date for the S-II, hoped to roll the complete vehicle out to pad A by 13 January 1967.

By late November the Apollo Program Office had moved the S-II's arrival back to January, and the launch back to April. Since spacecraft 017 would not arrive for another three weeks, KSC erected the facilities verification model of Apollo on 28 November.

[The first linked black & white photograph by Cliff Steenhoff below, depicts such.]

This allowed North American to check out some of its spacecraft support equipment. The first week in December the memory core in a digital events evaluator failed after intermittent troubles; cracked solder joints were blamed. A hurried repair put the computer back on line.

The command-service module arrived at KSC on Christmas Eve and was mated to the launch vehicle on 12 January 1967. That tardy prima donna, the S-II stage, finally appeared on 21 January. Tank inspection, insulation, and engine work were in progress by the 23rd. Test crews found damaged connectors on three recirculation pumps and set about investigating the extent of the rework that would be necessary. While inspecting the liquid hydrogen tank on the second stage, the North American team found 22 cracked gussets. These triangular metal braces, used to support the horizontal ribs of the stage framework, had to be replaced. Plans to move the second stage into a low bay checkout cell on the 29th were temporarily set aside because of a late shipment of the aft interstage (the cylindrical aluminum structure that formed the structural interface between the first and second stages). The interstage arrived on 31 January, and by the end of the next day the stage was in a low bay cell with work platforms around it.

Despite the delay with the S-II stage, KSC officials expected to meet the new launch date in May. The fire on 27 January placed all schedules in question. Although Apollo 4 was an unmanned mission, NASA officials wanted to give command-module 017 a close examination. On 14 February, a week before the S-II could be inserted into a fully assembled vehicle, the spacecraft was removed from the stack and taken to the operations and checkout building. When inspection disclosed a number of wiring errors, KSC's Operations Office cancelled the restacking of the spacecraft. By 1 March electrical engineers had discovered so many wiring discrepancies that the test team stopped their repair work, pending a thorough investigation of all spacecraft wiring. Within two weeks the North American and NASA quality control teams recorded 1,407 discrepancies. While North American repaired about half of these on the spot, modifications, repair work, and validations continued into June. During the break technicians performed pressure tests on service module systems at pad 16. It would be mid-June, with the wiring modifications for the command module finally completed, before North American could remate the spacecraft and take it back to the assembly building.

As the extent of the wiring problems was not immediately recognized, the launch vehicle team forged ahead to recoup the time lost on the S-II stage. In mid-February Boeing's airframe handling and ordnance group removed the instrument unit and spacer from the 501 stack and on the 23rd erected the S-II. The operation involved incredibly close tolerances. To qualify crane handlers, Stanley Smith, Bendix senior engineer of the crane and hoist group, stated, "We give them a technical examination and then check their reflexes and response to commands in training sessions." During a mating, an operator and an electrician boarded the crane and another man helped guide movements from the floor by communicating with the operator via a walkie-talkie. Smith set a high goal for his team: "We strive to train our men to the point where they could conceivably lower the crane hook on top of an egg without breaking the shell."

After a stage was properly aligned on the Saturn stack, a crew of one engineer, two quality control inspectors, one chief mechanic, and eight assistants took eight hours to complete the mating. Three 30-centimeter pins on the second stage fitted into brackets located 120 degrees apart on the periphery of the first stage. Then the mechanics inserted 216 one-centimeter, high-strength fasteners into matching holes around the perimeter where the two stages joined. The team torqued the fasteners in a staggered sequence to secure the bolts evenly and ensure a uniform distribution of stress. The mating of the second and third stages was conducted in much the same manner. The 501 was now set up except for the missing CSM.

[This is where something about the FVV (M-11) being reincorporated into the stack should’ve been referenced.]

The lengthy delays with the flight hardware aided the Site Activation Board in its efforts to get LC-39 ready for its first launch. The board's first flow [see chapter 15-1] included firing room 1, mobile launcher 1, high bay 1, and the other facilities required for the support of Apollo 4 - 1,280 activities altogether. During the first quarter of 1967, PERT charts showed less than 1% of these activities behind schedule. The decision in mid-April to modify the LOX system on launcher 1 and pad A put five weeks of negative slack into the site activation schedule. The modifications were made necessary by excessive pressure in the LOX system. KSC engineers added an automatic bleed system, relief valve supports, and a block valve that prevented purging through the drain line. As continued vehicle problems further delayed the rollout, the five weeks of negative slack disappeared.

On 24 May the S-II stage was in trouble again. NASA announced it would be dismantled for inspection, consequent on the discovery of hairline cracks in the propellant tank weld seams on another S-II at the factory in California.

[The photograph is dated 5-24-67. If correct, then the image was taken as part of documenting preparations for destacking M-11 & the S-IVB in order to remove the S-II stage.]

Additionally, thanks to the remarkable “CAPCOM ESPACE” website:

“For Apollo 4, the M11 was placed on launcher 501 on November 28, 1966 and removed at the end of 1966 following delays in stage S2. It will be put back in place on April 6, 1967 and removed on May 26.”]

Above, along with much more good stuff, at:

www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apollo/vaisseaux/...

So, somewhere out there, there’s some documentation from which the above was gleaned. I probably don’t have it & certainly didn’t find it online.]

The additional checks were not expected to delay the flight of 501 "more than a week or so." By mid-June the inspection, which included extensive x-ray and dye penetrant tests, was completed and the stage returned to the stack. On 20 June, the command-service module was mechanically mated to the Saturn V, and 501 was - at last - a fully assembled space vehicle. A revised schedule on 21 July set rollout for mid-August. On 26 August 1967, the big rocket emerged from the high bay slightly more than a year after its first components had arrived at KSC, and a good six months after its originally scheduled launch date. It had been a year of delay and frustration, and the end was not yet.”

The above, other than the inserted (bracketed) astute comments, observations & additional useful links, at/from:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch19-3.html

Inexcusable, incompetent, confounding at least, considering the importance/significance of this vehicle. But then again, for an organization that seems to have “officially/formally” misidentified the Command Module on display at Expo ’67 – to this day – the oversight, ignorance & tacit mis/non-identification of a lowly FVV is both literally & figuratively a no-brainer. The buffoonery continues. At least this shit is so far back in the rearview mirror that no one remembers, those that did are probably dead, and no one now cares, or will in the future. No harm, no foul, all good. 👍

a_v_bw_o_AKP (NAA photo no. 7005-01-30J (Raytheon Co. neg. no. 037-222), 1-30-63) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a_v_bw_o_AKP (NAA photo no. 7005-01-30J (Raytheon Co. neg. no. 037-222), 1-30-63)

Official North American Aviation (NAA) documentation photograph of an early (1963) itty-bitty (~3.5” diam.) model of the Apollo Command Module (CM). I would’ve assumed a model this small to have been used in wind tunnel testing. However, I’m pretty sure those were normally machined & unpainted.
This bears decals & even the outline of the hatch. This may be the first photograph I've come across that depicts strakes on a Command Module model, early artist's concepts being way more prevalent.
The photo was obviously meant for internal consumption, although apparently released to Raytheon for limited distribution.
Really cool & rare…but why so small? Its ‘presentation’ reminds me of how returned lunar samples were photographically documented. Interesting.

8.5” x 11”.

a (CM-011/AS-202) (S66-49413, Internet Archive website download) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a (CM-011/AS-202) (S66-49413, Internet Archive website download)

“A/S 202 Command Module attached to flotation collar Recovery Area, Central Pacific Ocean.”

The above & image, at:

archive.org/details/S66-49413
Credit: Internet Archive website

And/or:

“Apollo spacecraft 011 Command Module floats in the Pacific Ocean during recovery operations following the successful unmanned Apollo/Saturn Mission 202 test flight.”

At:

apolloarchive.com/apollo/gallery/S66-49413_t.jpg
Credit: ‘Apollo Image Gallery’ website

CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROMOTED & APPARENTLY, BLINDLY ACCEPTED, SINCE 1967(?),

THIS CAPSULE (CM-011)...

IS NOT...

I SAY AGAIN...

NOT...

THE COMMAND MODULE THAT WAS ON DISPLAY AT EXPO '67.

THE DISPLAYED CAPSULE WAS CM-009, AND IT’S PRETTY DAMNED OBVIOUS.

HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS PERSIST - AND HAS EVEN BEEN REINFORCED - BY WHAT I THOUGHT WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE, OBSERVANT AT LEAST - FOLKS???

WOW.

JUST WOW.

AS-201 (CM-009/EXPO '67 display veh)_v_c_o_AKP (NAA photo no. 7008-55-224A, 1-31-67) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

AS-201 (CM-009/EXPO '67 display veh)_v_c_o_AKP (NAA photo no. 7008-55-224A, 1-31-67)

CM-009, flown February 26, 1966 as part of AS-201 is seen here, January 31, 1967 at North American Aviation’s Downey facility, and based on the double-row window configuration, possibly in Building 290? Knowing neither squat nor diddly regarding timelines for Command Module post-flight inspections, who knows what prompted this photograph. Possibly as documentation in preparation for display at Expo '67, which commenced April 28, 1967. It does look like it’s about to be crated/or has just been uncrated.

According to NASA releases, the vehicle was subsequently used in two land impact tests conducted in 1968, on March 7 & October 26.
Uhm, NO, NO & NO.
If other NASA documentation is to believed (HAH, right?!), it was CM-011.

Additionally, note the hatch, just right of the capsule’s center. Specifically, its trapezoidal window opening. ‘Opening’, because to me, it looks like there’s no glass anymore…at all. Furthermore, the fact that it is clearly/only (in this photograph at least), only a trapezoidal opening is also noteworthy. Its outward appearance was/is the source of some confusion & confoundment…at least as far as subsequent identification of the vehicle is concerned:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000063.html
Credit: collectSPACE website

Space History: CM-009 was the first production Command Module to launch on a Saturn rocket, that also being the first flight of a Saturn IB.

But wait, the ‘best’ is yet to come:

As if all of the above wasn’t enough, there’s the dependable & perpetual NASA…’photo identification, cataloging, description, reproduction, articulation, ad infinitum’ debacle:

The capsule in the photograph I've posted is the one that was on display at Expo ‘67 - with all markings matching up - which is universally, as per the following - possible source document - identified as CM-011, flown on AS-202. WRONG.
Where would’ve the content & identification in the press release originated? Hmm…one guess:

www.worldsfairphotos.com/expo67/documents/press-releases/...
Credit: Bill Cotter, at his superb Expo '67 website. It MOST DEFINITELY merits one's attention!

A confirmed photograph of CM-011/AS-202 during recovery operations is at the following link. The capsule clearly bears a large, intense & conspicuous scorch mark, well-placed for comparative purposes, which then should be visible, or its remnant, in either my, or any/all of the above/linked below images. There are multiple other features, markings, damage, etc., exclusive to CM-011. Also at the link is the following, possibly its official NASA caption. It may even be correct:

"Apollo spacecraft 011 Command Module floats in the Pacific Ocean during recovery operations following the successful unmanned Apollo/Saturn Mission 202 test flight".

At:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-S66-4...
Credit: "The Project Apollo Image Gallery" website

Contrast to CM-009 recovery photos at the following, which, I think to be correct, and which support all above:

www.alternatewars.com/SpaceRace/SP-4205/Chapter_08.htm

Also, great information & discussion & further visual proof/evidence of Expo '67 vehicle confirmation, despite erroneous identification in the discussion:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001008.html
Credit: collectSPACE website

AN INEXPLICABLY ENDURING & INEXCUSABLE BLUNDER, OF EPIC (IN MY WORLD) PROPORTIONS.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS...ANYMORE...BUT HOW DID IT PERSIST…FOR ALL THIS TIME? IN FACT, IT’S ACTUALLY EVEN BEEN "CONFIRMED" BY FOLKS I CONSIDERED KNOWLEDGEABLE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, OBSERVANT.

WOW.

Almost, and other than the blatant error regarding the Expo, a good article:

roundupreads.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/1754

HUH?!?!?! How the f**k did they arrive at the WRONG idenfication??? Again, wow...just WOW:

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29899.0
Credit: "NASA SPACEFLIGHT" Forum website

And...I'M SURE...the ORIGINAL SIN/F**K UP of this spacecraft's 'unidentification' exacerbated, and to whatever degree, was the genesis for the following thread of discussion & CONFUSION - by intelligent & otherwise knowledgable folks!!!
The subsequent muddled & likely erroneous 'chain of custody' - IF SUCH EVEN EXISTED, for CM-009 - is obvious:

www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum40/HTML/000063.html
Credit: collectSPACE website

DUMBASS, DEFICIENT, DOLT N(Ass)A BUFFOONS.
JUST WOW...MIND-BLOWING.
THERE'S REALLY NO EXCUSE FOR THIS. NONE. PATHETIC ACTUALLY.
Whatever, right? It is what it is.

a_v_bw_o_n (ca. 1964, unnumbered Minneapolis-Honeywell Reg. Co. photo) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a_v_bw_o_n (ca. 1964, unnumbered Minneapolis-Honeywell Reg. Co. photo)

“Spacesuits and computers were used in combination with a simplified mockup of NASA's Apollo moonship (background) at the Aeronautical Division of Honeywell in Minneapolis, where the stabilization and control system for the three-man spacecraft was developed. In the photo engineer Bill Summers (left) made final adjustments on one of a number of computers which would feed simulated flight information to engineer-test pilot Jim O'Neil (right) when he was inside the command module mockup.
--Minneapolis-Honeywell photo”

Despite the “sepiation” of a large portion of the photograph, it’s wonderfully vivid, sharp, glossy & detailed…absolutely delightful.

A wonderful & unexpected surprise, the above description, along with the image is at the following (Adobe Acrobat page 202, of 297):

history.nasa.gov/SP-4009vol2.pdf

If the following information/identification is correct, Mr. O’Neil appears (to me) to be wearing a Mark IV full pressure suit, manufactured by Arrowhead Manufacturing Company (as a competitor to the B.F. Goodrich suit):

airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/pressure-suit-mark-...

And:

www.si.edu/object/helmet-flying-full-pressure-mark-iv-uni...
Both above credit: Smithsonian NASM website

Additionally, pertaining to the Mark IV image:

"This is a United States Navy Mark IV high altitude pressure suit. The Arrowhead Products Company made this suit in the mid-1950s at the request of the Navy as a competition suit. The B. F. Goodrich Company made a similar suit that the Navy later adopted as it as its emergency pressure suit., One interesting feature of this suit is the use of the molded rubber convolutes in the joints. These joints allowed pilots greater mobility in the arms, legs and waist than previous suits and were lighter weight, too. However, they were hard and uncomfortable for pilots while sitting in the aircraft cockpit. Nevertheless, NASA obtained this suit from the Navy during the course of evaluating pressure suits to turn into spacesuits for the Mercury program. Even though NASA opted to use the B.F. Goodrich design for Mercury, they kept the convolute joint in mind and selected the ILC Industries as the contractor for Apollo suits when that company proposed a similar joint system., NASA transferred this suit to the Museum in 1975."

At:

www.omnia.ie/index.php?navigation_function=2&navigati...
Credit: OMNIA website


Last, but certainly not least. And I may be reaching; however, could this possibly be the same Jim O’Neil??? To me, the eyes, nose, even filtrum & upper lip contour look to be of the same person. Although the timeline of his biography doesn’t fully support such, he was in a staff position at this time…so maybe?:

www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=996
Credit: Veteran Tributes website

a_v_c_na_na (MSFC 68-MS-G 1335 variant/crop, “pocketmags”/ad Astra download) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a_v_c_na_na (MSFC 68-MS-G 1335 variant/crop, “pocketmags”/ad Astra download)

"A vintage illustration of the Apollo Command Module"

Above at/from:

pocketmags.com/us/ad-astra-magazine/2019-2/articles/61855...
Credit: Jay Chladek/”pocketmags” & ad Astra (online magazine?) websites

Artwork by Rosemary A. Dobbins.

Apollo Command Module by HendrikSchulz

© HendrikSchulz, all rights reserved.

Apollo Command Module

Rosemary Dobbins: Illustrating the Space Age by aarthi_gemini

© aarthi_gemini, all rights reserved.

Rosemary Dobbins: Illustrating the Space Age

Rosemary Dobbins was an artist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. via NASA ift.tt/gHViwd8

Rosemary Dobbins: Illustrating the Space Age by doctorgibberish

© doctorgibberish, all rights reserved.

Rosemary Dobbins: Illustrating the Space Age

Rosemary Dobbins was an artist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. via NASA

a (BP06/PA-1)_v_bw_o_n (S-63-13884) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

a (BP06/PA-1)_v_bw_o_n (S-63-13884)

“Overall view of BP-6 command module and launch escape system on adapter ring in firing position at Apollo-Little Joe II launch area, WSMR, N. M.”

I love the austere ‘field expedient/field exercise’ look, and how it’s accentuated from/by this elevated perspective.

1963, six years before Apollo 11.
Unprecedented.
Never to be replicated. IMHO at least.

In color:

pin.it/1vzHM29sI

Along with other excellent photographs of BP-6…and a whole lot more:

georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/DATA/JoePhotos2.html

Specifically:

georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/DATA/JoePhotos5/s6313884.jpg
Both above credit: the wonderful website of Mr. George Gassaway, “GEORGE’S ROCKETRY PAGES”

mga_v_bw_o_n (LOC 63C-3233, 11-5-63; M-MS-G-77-63, SEPT 6, (prob 1963)) by Mike Acs

© Mike Acs, all rights reserved.

mga_v_bw_o_n (LOC 63C-3233, 11-5-63; M-MS-G-77-63, SEPT 6, (prob 1963))

“CHART: Capsule Comparison. Shot for Heiser & Deberk.”

A wonderful & most gratifying find…in several ways. First, I’d never seen this particular ‘capsule comparison’ depiction; ranging from the Mercury capsule’s non-standard cutaway depiction, i.e., it pointing away, to the Apollo Command Module being of the Direct Ascent variety, with periscopes extended (although pointing in the wrong direction).
Most significantly – in my world – the Gemini capsule depiction – the only spacecraft firing its reaction control system thruster btw – in combination with the sun-earth?/moon? conjunction permitted identification of the artist. That being the (I’m sure unintentionally) enigmatic Arnold Pierce. A major WIN.
This then leads to/supports other similar & derivative early works to also be potentially attributable to Mr. Pierce. Although, I exclusively associated Mr. Pierce to be a McDonnell Aircraft Corporation artist, this however being a Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)-issued photo.
Yessiree, too many tedious & pointless observations, but to me, good stuff…preserved.

Heiser: Joseph M. Heiser Jr.?

Deberk: I think this is a botch job of Gerd De Beek, whose position & other "shot for" reference pretty much confirms. If you wish to go down the rabbit hole with me a little, see the below linked TM-1 LEM photo.

Apollo Command Module CSM-116, Skylab 2 by Eric Friedebach

Available under a Creative Commons by license

Apollo Command Module CSM-116, Skylab 2

Skylab 2 (also SL-2 and SLM-1) was the first crewed mission to Skylab, the first U.S. orbital space station. The mission was launched on an Apollo command and service module by a Saturn IB rocket on May 25, 1973,[5] and carried a three-person crew to the station. The name Skylab 2 also refers to the vehicle used for that mission. The Skylab 2 mission established a twenty-eight-day record for human spaceflight duration.

From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_2


Photo by Eric Friedebach

Apollo Command Module CSM-116, Skylab 2 by Eric Friedebach

Available under a Creative Commons by license

Apollo Command Module CSM-116, Skylab 2

Skylab 2 (also SL-2 and SLM-1) was the first crewed mission to Skylab, the first U.S. orbital space station. The mission was launched on an Apollo command and service module by a Saturn IB rocket on May 25, 1973,[5] and carried a three-person crew to the station. The name Skylab 2 also refers to the vehicle used for that mission. The Skylab 2 mission established a twenty-eight-day record for human spaceflight duration.

From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_2


Photo by Eric Friedebach