In 1959, a cement mixer with a full load of cement, wrecked near Winganon, Oklahoma πΊπΈ
By the time a tow truck came to haul it away, all of cement had hardened inside of mixer. Tow truck was not able to remove all wreckage at same time because of weight, and decided to haul only cab/frame and would come back for detached mixer later, which never happened.
Today, 67 years later, it still sits where it fell. Locals have painted it and added "rocket thrusters" to make it look like a space capsule.
like this
reshared this







Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Archaeo-Histories • • •Honestly, this is what a space capsule should look like.
Knightmare
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Knightmare • • •Knightmare
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •Cadbury Moose
in reply to Knightmare • • •@LanceJZ @isaackuo
That's a piece of Art, and congratulations to the locals for maintaining it.
(Actually the capsule would have had thrusters: there would be Capsule:Flotation Bag:Heat Shield:Thruster Pack, with the thruster pack held on by straps so it could be jettisoned after deceleration but before hitting atmosphere. On one mission they re-entered with the thruster pack attached because the flotation bag light had come on and they were concerned about the heat shield.)
Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Cadbury Moose • • •@Cadbury_Moose @LanceJZ While this is true of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules (including the Apollo service module), a reusable capsule could enter nose first rather than tail first.
Nuclear missile reentry heat shields are blunt cones entering nose first.
That said, Dragon does do tail first reentry, placing the thrusters on the sides rather than the tail. I just think it "looks" wrong.
Urwumpe
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •@isaackuo @Cadbury_Moose @LanceJZ That is only true for modern ballistic missile RVs, initially they were launched blunt end forward, since the materials of that time didn't allow a more accurate short end forward reentry because these cause higher temperatures. (That is also why the Space Shuttle got a rather blunt nose)
Also, there are far more than just one kind of capsule. Imagine this as a biconic lifting body, and it isn't that much fictive to retain its aft thrusters.
Knightmare
in reply to Cadbury Moose • • •@Cadbury_Moose @isaackuo there has never been a capsule with thrusters on them from Apollo on.
Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Knightmare • • •@LanceJZ @Cadbury_Moose This is what people think of when they think of the Apollo "capsule". It has a big main thruster in the tail, and lots of thruster clusters all over the place.
That's the reason why the artists modifying the cement mixer tank felt the need to add thrusters. It didn't look right without them, because the overall shape looks like a capsule plus its service module.
Cadbury Moose
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •Rachel Greenham
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •Knightmare
in reply to Isaac Ji Kuo • • •Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Knightmare • • •@LanceJZ @Cadbury_Moose I know what you mean, but that's what people think of.
One reason they think of the Apollo "capsule" as the Command Module and Service Module is that there isn't any footage of the Command Module by itself in space. No one left on the Service Module to shoot the Command Module after separation.
(The Command Module is just the return capsule.)
@ NovaNaturalistπ¨π¦π©π°π¬π±π΅π¦π²π½π±πΈπ³π«πΊπ¦π³οΈβπ #FBPE
in reply to Knightmare • • •Bob Jonkman reshared this.
Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to @ NovaNaturalistπ¨π¦π©π°π¬π±π΅π¦π²π½π±πΈπ³π«πΊπ¦π³οΈβπ #FBPE • • •@NovaNaturalist @LanceJZ @Cadbury_Moose It's okay for a boilerplate mass simulator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilerplβ¦
spacecraft; nonfunctional craft or payload
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Knightmare
in reply to Cadbury Moose • • •@Cadbury_Moose @isaackuo @archaeohistories
jack
in reply to Knightmare • • •iwein
in reply to jack • • •@jackeric @LanceJZ
schematic drawing of capsule including two astronauts engaged in pause 6 7
#ALT4you
@Cadbury_Moose @isaackuo @archaeohistories
Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to iwein • • •Dave Volek
in reply to Archaeo-Histories • • •Cute, but a big hazard if a vehicle has to leave the road. I would move this thing off.
Or at least further away from the road. A crane could do this in less than four hours. Much cheaper than having a vehicle plow into it.
Paul Turnbull π¨π¦
in reply to Dave Volek • • •@davevolek That would likely require someone to pay for it. Given the little bits I've gleaned about local governance in the U.S. I can easily see no one having any spare budget for it.
@archaeohistories
Isaac Ji Kuo
in reply to Paul Turnbull π¨π¦ • • •@Chigaze @davevolek I read that too fast as:
"I can easily see no one having any space budget for it."
skryking
in reply to Dave Volek • • •Dave Volek
in reply to skryking • • •@skryking
The photo looks like a rural highway to me. This means fairly high speeds. If a car "hits the ditch," a bumpy ride turns into a fatal accident.
I suspect the jurisdiction belongs to whoever owns the highway. It could be the state or it could be the county.
A couple of heavy tow wreckers could move this machine. Less than $5000.
But there may be political pressure to keep the machine in place. It does look cute.
skryking
in reply to Dave Volek • • •Dave Volek
in reply to skryking • • •@skryking
There may indeed be more to the story.
I come from a rural background. Many people drive 80 kph (50 mph) on these roads. And they hit the ditch more often.
There might be some weight restrictions that prohibit big trucks on this road. The pavement in the photo (or oily gravel) looks a little on the weak side to me.
Anyways, we need more info to know why this thing has remained in the ditch for 67 years.
Bob Jonkman
in reply to Dave Volek • • •@davevolek
> Cute, but a big hazard if a vehicle has to leave the road.
It's been 67 years, presumably all of them with no roadside accident.
Depending on one's grasp of statistics, an accident is either unlikely to happen at all, or there's one due any day now.
@skryking