Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Apollo 1 237

Posted by michael from the risks-of-pushing-the-boundaries dept.
Last year we looked at the Challenger. This year: Apollo 1. On January 27, 1967, the three-man crew of Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White who were in training for the first Apollo flight were asphixiated in their capsule during a training exercise. The men reported communications glitches prior to the disaster, and it is believed that a spark in their pure-oxygen atmosphere quickly started an unstoppable blaze, consuming the many flammable components in the capsule. There were three hatches between the men and the outside of the capsule, which were not designed to be opened in less than 90 seconds. In addition, it is doubtful that the astronauts could have opened the internal hatch at all since pressure inside the spacecraft rose rapidly after the fire, exceeding the capacity of the pressure-equalization valves. Future designs were modified to remove most of the flammable components from the crew area and include a new quick-opening hatch. NASA has a retrospective.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apollo 1 More

Apollo 1

Comments Filter:

  • The hatches (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MoonFacedAssassin ( 539728 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:08PM (#2910472)
    The reason the hatches took no less than 90 seconds to open is because NASA wanted to prevent another Liberty Bell 7 incident (MR-4) where the hatch supposedly blew off prematurely. Poor Gus Grissom was apparently not intended to make it out of the space program alive.

    • Re:The hatches (Score:5, Informative)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:13PM (#2910632) Journal

      The reason the hatches took no less than 90 seconds to open is because NASA wanted to prevent another Liberty Bell 7 incident (MR-4) where the hatch supposedly blew off prematurely.

      You're referring to explosive hatch bolts -- but modern journalists have speculated that a pad leader would not have have allowed an explosive bolt system to be armed during an apparently safe countdown test. The more serious design flaw in the hatch was the fact that it opened inward -- a tradeoff to save weight since the cabin pressure kept it closed, but which sealed the astronauts inside when the fire broke out.

  • Incompetence (Score:5, Interesting)

    by archnerd ( 450052 ) <nonce+slashdot...org@@@dfranke...us> on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:10PM (#2910480) Homepage
    Every astronaut that has ever been KIA has had buerocratic imcompetence to blame. There have been two NASA tragedies: Apollo 1 and challenger. In the case of Apollo 1, NASA was too lazy to use a proper atmosphere: "The committee can only conclude that NASA's long history of successes in testing and launching space vehicles with pure oxygen environments at 16.7 p.s.i. and lower pressures led to overconfidence and complacency.". In challenger, the O-ring manager knew very well that they were likely to rupture and demanded that the launch be scrubbed, but was overruled by his ignorant superiors. It seems to me that astronauts are alot more likely to be killed as a result of someone else's incompetence than their own. They certainly deserve the accolade of bravery since trusting others takes alot more of it than trusting yourself.

    • Re:Incompetence (Score:2, Informative)

      by theRhinoceros ( 201323 )
      At least with the Challenger launch, the pressures from on high to keep schedule with the high profile crew (Mrs. MacAuliffe) must have been rather high, and not just from the immediate supervisors to the O-ring managers. The launch was a big media event, and the pressures of delivering on the promise of a historic launch date probably swayed more than a few otherwise clear heads at NASA.

    • Re:Incompetence (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:56PM (#2910585)
      Anyone interested in the Challenger failure and the debate between the engineers at Morton Thiokole and NASA, there is an excellent treatment in Visual Explanations [edwardtufte.com] by Edward Tufte. Chapter 2 deals with the Challenger and explains how and why the people at Thiokol, who knew the O-ring would fail, were unable to convince the people at NASA through a series of confusing charts and misinformation.
    • It seems to me that astronauts are alot more likely to be killed as a result of someone else's incompetence than their own

      Ghee, it had never occured to me that an astronaut sitting in a contraption designed by thousands of people, controlled mainly by computers, was at the mercy of other peoples compentence. ;-)

      Just kidding, I know what you are saying, that one sounded just a little too obvious. :)

    • Re:Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:08PM (#2910622) Journal

      In the case of Apollo 1, NASA was too lazy to use a proper atmosphere

      In addition to being more complex, a two-gas system was shown to be dangerous in itself. In Apollo: The Race to the Moon by Murray and Cox, there is a reference to a case where a test pilot nearly died precisely due to errors made in implementing a two-gas atmosphere. It's easy to sit back and blame incompetent bureaucrats, but more often than not the engineers make design tradeoffs with no completely safe alternatives.

    • ... overruled by his ignorant superiors.

      When are organizations going to learn that people who don't understand technology shouldn't be making decisions about that technology.

      Maybe after a few hundred more NASA disasters, botched software projects, and total-idiot pieces of legislation, people will figure that out.

      But that's a big maybe.

    • Re:Incompetence (Score:3, Informative)

      by jnik ( 1733 )
      The committee can only conclude that NASA's long history of successes in testing and launching space vehicles with pure oxygen environments at 16.7 p.s.i. and lower pressures led to overconfidence and complacency
      North American was told that the CM would be pressurized at 5psi pure oxygen, which was true during flight. It was fireproofed to these specs. Nobody informed them that launch pressure was sea level. The CM was definitely not fireproof at that pressue.
      • Nobody informed them that launch pressure was sea level.


        And this is an excuse why? Really, where else would you launch a space capsule from? Space?

        LV
        • > > Nobody informed them that launch pressure was sea level.

          > And this is an excuse why? Really, where else would you launch a space capsule from? Space?

          I think in that case he actually means the pressure inside the capsule during launch is kept the same pressure as outside at sea level.
    • Gus Grissom actually hung a lemon from the orbiter module the morning of the disaster to express his displeasure with the engineering of the craft.

  • from the earth to the moon (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Everyone who saw the original HBO series 'From the Earth to the Moon' knew that. It is very well done, and you should go check it out if you haven't seen it. I'm not sure if you can rent it as it's about 6 VHS tapes. Maybe you can get it on a DVD format now?

  • a sad day to remember (Score:4, Insightful)

    by marktwain ( 523893 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:13PM (#2910494)
    While many Slashdot readers will not recall the sad events of 1967, a bit younger than I perhaps, I remember it too well. I was about to finish my undergraduate studies and like many of my generation had an intense interest in the Apollo project. Too many today write off Apollo as a waster of funds and one of little accomplishment. It was anything but that. It was the fulfillment of the dream of President John F. Kennedy, a symbol of mankind's thirst for knowledge. Symbols can be costly and unnecessary, and all too often are, but Apollo was anything but that. Those who died will always be remembered as the trail blazers for those who would one day walk on the moon. And when that happened the whole world tuned in. The peoples of our planet everything that a television set could be found sat glued to the tube with the expansion of the possibilies for the future a much clearer and important vision than being locked in the mud and muck of daily toil. These men died for a reason, a reason in which we who read this thread all have an interest. They sacrified their lives for the sake of the future. I have spent some time, not enough perhaps, browsing the remembrance that NASA has. But it was in part written, I can easily tell, by those who weren't there and done that. You had to be there to share the grief, but you had to, and most did, keep hope alive. I lift my fist in their memory and with my thoughts of their great moment.
    • I wasn't alive when this happened, but my wife's family was close to it. The picture of the crew on that website is the same one that my brother in law has. His is signed by all three of those astronauts, about a month before they died. My father in law (passed on now), was an engineer at Rockwell during the Apollo missions.

      Why is that important? Because it's easy to read history like it doesn't involve real people. My mother in law still gets teary eyed when she hears the names of the Apollo 1 crew. I think today when I go over there, I'm going to look on the wall at the photo of Grissom, White, and Chaffee and thank them. For what? For having the courage to do something I don't think I could have ever done, and for believing in a dream that still is important today.

    • i was a month away from my second birthday when this happened but, as i grew up in the apollo years, it always hung over me as a cautionary, an anchor grounding all the wonder and promise of space exploration in the context of possible human cost. though i had all the apollo patches, a snoopy astronaut doll and all that -- and fully expected to be living on the moon, at least, by now -- i never forgot that anyone involved in the endeavor could end up as the men of apollo fire.

      years later, i was standing in a bookstore on newbury street, a sophomore at mit, when i couldn't get the clerk's attention. he told me something had gone wrong with the shuttle and was trying to listen to the radio. i walked across the harvard bridge in the cold to get to the school student center where the nearest tvs i could watch were. and it was as unbelievable as everyone said. we'd scaled back our goals for space flight so radically, yet still there could be a disaster of this magnitude.

      i don't have any conclusions from this. would i risk my life for this venture? yes. would i hope it would help us learn something? yes. would i think my life had been wasted? definitely not.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        we'd scaled back our goals for space flight so radically, yet still there could be a disaster of this magnitude.

        And that's perhaps the most bitter irony of the Challenger disaster: We set our sights lower, but we couldn't eliminate the risks. It seems that people draw one of two conclusions from accidents like Apollo 1 or Challenger:
        • Exploration is dangerous and we should therefore minimize our contact with the unknown.
        • Exploration is dangerous but crucial so we should honor their memory, learn from their loss, and get on with it.

        Obviously, I fall into the latter camp. What is so depressing about the loss of the Challenger crew, in contrast to the loss of the Apollo 1 crew, is that, due to loss of vision and scaled-down expectations, the Challenger crew gave their lives for a program less audacious, less worthy, of the sacrifice than Grissom, et al. This is not meant to denigrate that sacrifice but to lament the reduced times in which we live.



        In any event, let us all spend a moment in memory and thanks of these pioneers who gave their all for a vision of the human spirit and its dignity. Ad astra per aspera indeed -- but we will get there.

    • The thing that gets me the most about Apollo is how few people got how SIGNIFICANT it was. Folks, once upon a time humans could GO TO THE MOON. They couldn't do that for THOUSANDS of years, and they can't do it now, only thirty years later. As the rate things are going, nobody alive today may ever see a human on another world again. Forging the national or international will or concensus to do it may be impossible to achieve, ever again. And the one chance humans had, that Americans had, to insure a future for humanity across the solar system and perhaps to the stars will be / already is GONE. To let our eyes be diverted from such a prize because of Vietnam and Watergate and Watts is a tragedy of mythic Greek proportions. To forget we ever had such a chance because of HDTVs and six-part miniseries DVDs and the Internet have effectively become our reality is even worse. The Fermi paradox about where is everybody - why havent aliens /human colonized the Galaxy - may be as simple as before a species gets out of the gravity well of their home world, they just stop giving a damn. Pretty pictures on an ever-changing screen becomes their reality as the populations get ever larger and and the resource wars begin...
      • The thing that gets me the most about Apollo is how few people got how SIGNIFICANT it was. Folks, once upon a time humans could GO TO THE MOON. They couldn't do that for THOUSANDS of years, and they can't do it now, only thirty years later.

        If we choose to, we could certainly go to the moon again. The boosters exist, (Shuttle, Ariane, Proton, Titan), the capsules could be developed with (relatively speaking) little trouble. Don't confuse lack of existing hardware with lack of capability.

        As the rate things are going, nobody alive today may ever see a human on another world again.

        The problem is there is very little point in going. Science is nice, but pure exploration, unlike pure research, rarely goes on to pay the bills. Make no mistake, the great 'explorers' of the past were, to a man, in the game for the profit, *period*. The idea of exploration for explorations sake is very young, and it's far too early to predict if it will last.

        Don't forget the entire Mercury-Apollo sequence were political stunts, for political purposes. Our entire space program started as a path to national prestige, and surivives only because it's become a habit to have one, and it's considered a sign of being a Great Nation. (Compare the list of nations in the Nuclear club with a list of nations with an active, independent space program sometime. The almost one-for-one correspondence will surprise you.)

  • Well.. (Score:1, Troll)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 )
    Asphyxiated? That means suffocated.

    It was my impression they burned to death in the veritable blast furnace the capsule turned into.

    As for design flaws.. the major flaw was the test itself. In space, they would have been okay.
    Why?

    They used a very high concentration of O2 in the air, and raised the pressure a few PSI above normal, to simulate the forces on the capsule?

    The result? ALthough all forces were the same on the capsule, and yes, they would use the same o2 mix in space.. there was WAY, WAY, WAY more oxygen in there considering they were at a few PSI over 1 Atmosphere, rather than a few PSI over vacuum. That's a HUGE difference in the amount of O2 available to burn.

    So what would have been a potentially minor smoldering in space turned into a blast furnace on the ground.

    • Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by zer0vector ( 94679 )
      Yes they asphyxiated. Their deaths were caused by the inhalation of the fumes from the burning surfaces in the capsule. The only part of their bodies that were burned were the exposed surfaces (hands, faces) under their suits they were completely unscathed.
      • Actually, the report findings says:

        Death of the crew was from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. A contributory cause of death was thermal burns.

        which means the fire had a contributing factor to their deaths, not just the smoke.
        • As I recall, when an oxygen environment goes up in flames, anything combustable goes up as well... As the hoses were disconnected and/or burned through, that means the air in the astronauts' lungs were exposed to superheated gases, if not also subject to setting the lung tissues on fire... There's been occasional cases where this has happened with people in oxygen tanks or smokers who were on supplemental oxygen, when they were unlucky enough to have the gas magnify the burning potential of the materials involved by several times... So more than likely, the astronauts died from the interior of their lungs being scorched to the point of being nonfunctional...

      • > The only part of their bodies that were burned were the exposed surfaces
        > (hands, faces) under their suits they were completely unscathed.

        Bull-SHIT!

        And I QUOTE:

        "A medical board was to determine that the astronauts died of carbon monoxide asphyxia, with thermal burns as contributing causes. The board could not say how much of the burns came after the three had died. Fire had destroyed 70% of Grissom's spacesuit, 25% of White's, and 15% of Chaffee's"

        How the hell did the mindstrm's post get moderated as a Troll?? The first time I read the report I myself wondered whether they were just guessing in order to save the families (and everyone else) from wondering. Sure it's not pleasant to think about, but it's a valid thing to wonder.

        It's quite well known that police and fire departments will mis-quote the cause of death in order to save a family greif. But every so often the expressions and positions of a charred corpse make it clear that the person was getting plenty of oxygen for quite some time while dying. (It is possible to get 3rd degree burns from thermal raditation alone.) Remember how long you can hold your breath?

        It is theorized that if you inhale hot enough gases that the excruciating pain in your lungs will cause you to black out quickly, but we don't exactly have too much first hand knowledge of that.

    • Re:Well.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mhrmnhrm ( 263196 )
      Where did you get this idea? The question of whether or not the external pressure on the capsule is 1ATM or 0ATM is moot, because the whole idea of hatches and airlocks is to keep everything on the inside of the capsule in. In fact, the astronauts would have an EASIER time getting out here on earth because there would be a smaller pressure differential to work against in opening the airlock than there would be enroute to the moon. You can get a similar experience by trying to open a door in a facility with intentional pressure differences, such as a lab. If the door opens inward to the office, and the lab is kept at a lower pressure than the hallway (common precaution for vaporous chemicals and biotoxins), the door will be easy to open as hallway air rushes in to equalize the pressure. But what if your lab were pressurized higher than the hallway? The door would be harder to open, because you would not only have to work to open the door, but also work against the air trying to rush out (and pushing the door shut as it does so!)

      So now that we've got that little bit of science out of the way, the next problem with your "analysis" is that a difference between 1ATM and 16.7PSI does not result in a *HUGE* difference in available O2. For the clueless, 1ATM=14.7 PSI, or a difference of just 2PSI. I'm not going to do the math here, but needless to say, a balloon has a higher PSI than that capsule did. Are you suggesting that a balloon filled with O2 will just smoulder in space? I think not.

      The problem of using a pure O2 mixture is simply because O2 is such a volatile thing that the smallest spark can ignite the closest flammable object (wire insulation, if memory serves), and once that's started, anything else in the area is a juicy target for more combustion fun.

      • Combustibles plus pure oxygen = disaster (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:23PM (#2910656)
        I think there were two issues that led to the disaster of Apollo 1:

        1. There was WAY too much exposed combustible material inside the capsule. Even if the atmosphere inside the capsule during the test sported a gas mix similar to regular air if a fire broke out it would have been extremely difficult to douse the fire.

        2. The fact the atmosphere was close to pure oxygen meant that if a fire broke out it would have burned with extreme ferocity.

        That was why by the time Apollo 7 flew in October 1968 the entire capsule owed almost nothing to the original capsule design--all the combustible material were replaced by fire-retardant equivalents and the gas mixture on the launch pad was equivalent to air, which slowly changed to pure oxygen by the time the Apollo CSM was in orbit.

        What was not known to the Americans was in the early 1960's during a series of tests to develop Soviet manned space vehicles a fire broke out in a test space capsule design with a cosmonaut in it when it was filled with pure O2--the cosmonaut burned to death.

      • Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Pedrito ( 94783 )
        Actually, the pressure differential is correct in your explanation. The capsule doors were built to open in space, where the outside pressure would be close to 0 and the inside pressure would be close to 1ATM, however, that same fact is used to actually keep airplane doors from opening at high-altitude. The fact is that they are built in such a way that a higher pressure inside than outside makes it harder to open the doors. A lab door is not really as relevant in this arguement.
        • Actually the pressure inside would be about 1/5 atm. The whole concept at the time was that by taking the same amount of oxygen, but no nitrogen, then the partial pressure of oxygen would be the same. This would give a real pressure of 1/5 atm.

      • Re:Well.. (Score:2, Informative)

        by jeboyer ( 24453 )
        Er, I've got to respond to a few of the points raised above...

        Where did you get this idea? The question of whether or not the external pressure on the capsule is 1ATM or 0ATM is moot, because the whole idea of hatches and airlocks is to keep everything on the inside of the in. In fact, the astronauts would have an EASIER time getting out here on earth because there would be a smaller pressure differential to work against in opening the airlock than there would be enroute to the moon.

        The capsule atmosphere after launch was actually much less than sea level (5 psia [yarchive.net]), so the external pressure would make a significant difference. The point of pressurizing to greater than atmospheric during the test was to simulate the pressure difference between the capsule and outside, not the true internal pressure to be used after launch. In fact, since the capsule was designed to contain internal pressure greater than than outside, it probably wouldn't have been structurally possible to hold a sub-atmospheric pressure inside.

        So now that we've got that little bit of science out of the way, the next problem with your "analysis" is that a difference between 1ATM and 16.7PSI does not result in a *HUGE* difference in available O2. For the clueless, 1ATM=14.7 PSI, or a difference of just 2PSI.

        Bzzzzt. For the clueless, what is generally considered 1 atm (the stuff we breath) consists of about 79% nitrogen. Compare this with 16.7 psi pure O2, and I think you'll see a difference.

        I've got no idea why the original post of this thread is now rated "Troll" because the poster is essentially correct in many details, unlike the previous post. If the pressure in the capsule is a constant "few" psi over the outside, there is in fact a "HUGE" difference in the flammability and available oxygen inside when it is pressurized on the ground versus in space. Things are going to be way more flammable at an absolute pressure of 16.7 psi O2 than at the flight level of 5 psi O2 in the cabin. In fact, in normal air, the oxygen partial pressure is about 0.21*14.7 = 3 psi. Imagine having 5x more oxygen available! Anything not already completely oxidized will want to burn (and fast!), even materials that are essentially fire-proof in air and low O2 pressures.
      • But you missed the point.
        Firstly, I know what pressure is.

        Secondly.. no, there is not much difference between 14.7PSI and 16.7PSI (the 2PSI overpressure is to simulate the pressure in outer space.)

        The DIFFERENCE is that they were trying to simulate real conditions in space.

        But in space, yes, the cabin pressure would be 2PSI higher than outside. Which would make it.. 2PSI!

        So. 2PSI of pure oxygen, or 16.7PSI.. which is more? You guessed it.

    • Re:Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:22PM (#2910652)
      Actually, you're wrong. The consensus view is that they died of suffocation, not bruning to death. Yes, they were in a fire, but they were also in space suits designed to protect them from the extreme heat of the sun in space (it gets a hell of a lot hotter out there than it does here, thanks to our atmosphere.

      It wasn't just a design fault. It WAS, as you mention, a ridiculous test to put such a high concentration of O2 in the capsule. Much higher than it would ever receive in-flight.

      Still it was part of the price paid to advance the space program. As the saying goes, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. Going into space is/was, and probably always will be, to some degree, a dangerous endeavor. Just as going into submarine is inherently dangerous.

      In the case of a submarine the danger is always implosion. In the case of space, it's explosion. Space is also inherently more dangerous because of the types of fuels involved and the lower degree for margin of error.

      Anyway, the only design flaw, in regards to your post, was an overuse of velcro, which happens to be quite flammable, especially in a high oxygen atmostphere. The other flaw (the O2) level, wasn't a design flaw, it was a "execution" (for lack of having the proper vocabulary on hand) flaw.
  • ...and include a new quick-opening hatch

    Am I the only one thinking of the Simpsons episode where Homer jimmies the latch with a carbon rod which gets the fame rather than him?

    Ah yes, this is Slashdot. I thought not. ;-)

    --- Some say Netware is just like a wheel/ When you abend it, you can't mend it

  • A Tribute to the Pioneers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:32PM (#2910544) Homepage Journal
    The Phoenix
    by Julia Ecklar


    In a tower of flame in capsule twelve
    I was there
    I know not where they laid my bones
    it could be anywhere
    but when fire and smoke had faded
    a darkness left my sight
    and I found my soul in a spaceship's soul (hull?)
    Riding home on a trail of light

    Chorus:

    And my wings are made of tungsten
    My flesh of glass and steel
    I am the Joy of Terra
    for the power that I wield
    Once upon a lifetime I died a pioneer
    Now I sing within a spaceship's heart...
    Does anybody hear?

    Before each mornings launch
    they know that I am there
    To the soul that warms this vessel's hull
    they say a silent prayer
    I am father ship and spirit
    of the dream for which they strive
    for I am man (?) at the hands of man
    see us rocket for the sky

    (Chorus)

    My thunder rends the morning skies
    Yes, I am here
    Though lost to flame when I was man
    Now I ride her without fear
    For I am more than man now
    and man builds me with pride
    I lead the way, and I lead the way
    of Man's future in the sky

    (Chorus)

    This song still gives me chills up and down my spine when I listen to it - it is quite possibly the most moving memorial to those who lead the way that I have ever heard.

    Ad astra per aspera, Amen.

    --
    Evan

    • I always think of this from Heinlein...

      "I pray for one last landing
      On the globe that gave me birth;
      Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
      And the cool, green hills of Earth."
    • From John Denver, originally a tribute to the Challenger astronauts, but works well for the crew of Apollo 1 as well...


      Well, I guess that you probably know by now I was one who wanted to fly
      I wanted to ride on that arrow of fire right up into heaven
      And I wanted to go for every man, every child, every mother of children
      I wanted to carry the dreams of all people right up to the stars
      And I prayed that I'd find an answer there
      Or maybe I would find the song
      Giving a voice to all of the hearts that can not be heard
      And for all of the ones who live in fear
      And all of those who stand apart
      My being there would bring us a little step closer together

      They were flying for me, they were flying for everyone
      They were trying to see, a brighter day for each and everyone
      They gave us their light, they gave us their spirit, and all they could be
      They were flying for me

      And I wanted to wish on the Milky Way and dance upon a falling star
      I wanted to give myself, and free myself, and join myself with it all!
      Given the chance to dream, it can be done
      The promise of tomorrow is real
      Children of spaceship Earth, the future belongs to us all

      She was flying for me, she was flying for everyone
      She was trying to see, a brighter day for each and everyone
      She gave us her light, she gave us her spirit, and all she could be
      She was flying for me

      They were flying for me, they were flying for everyone
      They were trying to see, a brighter day for each and everyone
      They gave us their light, they gave us their spirit, and all they could be
      They were flying for me
  • Actually they were combining the pressure test and the O2 checks at the same time.(to save time because they were behind schedule) Unfortunatly the aluminum in thier suits burned at 14PSI of pure oxygen.

    good luck,
    sopwath

  • Cause of the fire (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Farang ( 552254 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @04:58PM (#2910591)
    I used to work for the company that made some or all (don't know which) of the wire in the Apollo module. At one point, it was suggested that our wire caused the fire: the insulation was said to flow under pressure, thus becoming thin and allowing for a spark. All that was required was that the wire be stretched across a hard, rather sharp edge. Our company lived in dread of bad publicity, and we talked of the charges in hushed tones only. There was a very unpleaeant feeling associated with any mention of the topic...not because people died, but because the bigwigs were afraid of being blamed. Some insulation flows under pressure, some does not. Wrong insulation for that wire? If so, who chose the insulation? There is a strong tendency both to place blame on someone and to do all you can to cover your behind.....that sort of "It was not my fault, he did it" attitude was the company's motto. I hated working there.
    • Blockquoth the poster:

      All that was required was that the wire be stretched across a hard, rather sharp edge.

      I believe this is what is thought to have occurred. In fact, the wire was accidently stretched along a hinge of some compartment and repeated openings/closings had worn it through. How did a wire get stretched across a hinge? Apparently the capsule was dropping in transit, falling through the supposedly miniscule distance of under 2 cm, but enough to dislodge the wire.


      For the want of a nail...


      Source: One of a zillion books called Apollo, currently on loan to a friend, so I can't provide bibliographic info. :(

      • I believe this is what is thought to have occurred. In fact, the wire was accidently stretched along a hinge of some compartment and repeated openings/closings had worn it through. How did a wire get stretched across a hinge? Apparently the capsule was dropping in transit, falling through the supposedly miniscule distance of under 2 cm, but enough to dislodge the wire.

        It's pretty well established that the notional wire was damage because of the ongoing work in the vicinity of the ECU and poor quality assurance of cable handling and routing.
  • Nasa's two disasters came on the 27th and 28th of January...
    • Yup, and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, yada yada [highrock.com]. Coincidences happen, especially when the involve a restricted name space, like alphabets or calendar years. Some are meaningful, but most are not. If we could compare the coincidences that do happen with those that don't, we'd be less impressed.

  • Leave it to the Americans ... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <be@@@eclec...tk> on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:13PM (#2910630) Homepage Journal
    ... to never give up. If there's one thing I've learned in history class it's that Americans are destined to never take defeat lighlty. Apollo 1 was a major setback for NASA and they had to re-think safety (as safe as sitting on top of a rocket can be) and with success the Apollo Series successfully landed on the moon on multiple occasions. A goal set by nasa and kennedy, but fullfilled by very brave and very smart people.

    American endurance has shown throughout the ages, though with a few setbacks like "war against communism" for instances, we never give up. I think that Apollo 1 should set as an example. America's war on terrorism will not stop and we were hit with a big blow, but we got right back up even more pissed off than we were before we got hit. Though not invincible, we as Americans, hold true in our beliefs. Democracy and the value of the individual American will always be held as a wonderful thing.

    Is America perfect? No, but I'll tell ya what, I wouldn't turn my back on my country for a damn thing. Patriotism is strong in every American and will always be that way. We've set the groundwork to never have a facist dictator ever lead us (how many other countries can say that? ... yeah about 3). We don't have all the best things, but we sure as hell try to make sure that everyone knows that we're on top in every endeavor we take up.

    Though the price was high, NASA has brought us things that were never once thought possible. To be able to sit in the heavens and sustain life. Maybe one day to be able to call even another planet, home. But that doesn't mean that Americans want to do it alone, hence the ISS.

    So I'm proud to be an American, and proud to know that 3 men risked their lives to advance science and safety. And I also am more than happy to remember the veterns and fallen soldiers who fought to keep my country a free country. Thank you.

    • I think what you forgot is that the Soviets had the chance to really take a step closer to a moon mission had the Soyuz 1 mission worked. Unfortunately, the Soyuz 1 capsule suffered all kinds of system failures during its flight, which resulted in a re-entry that resulted in a tangled parachute line. This caused the capsule to literally crash into the ground, killing the cosmonaut on the flight.

      The Soviet moon program never really recovered from that tragedy, because the a derivative of the Soyuz spacecraft was to have flown to the moon. Realizing its limitations, the Soviets decided to use Soyuz as an Earth-orbiting spacecraft, which has worked well to this day.
      • I think what you forgot is that the Soviets had the chance to really take a step closer to a moon mission had the Soyuz 1 mission worked. Unfortunately, the Soyuz 1 capsule suffered all kinds of system failures during its flight, which resulted in a re-entry that resulted in a tangled parachute line. This caused the capsule to literally crash into the ground, killing the cosmonaut on the flight.

        Not to mention their inability to make their moon booster (the N1) work. Not to mention their inability to control a spacecraft in the reentry from lunar orbit (the Zond missions). Not to mention that their lander was never really debugged enough for a test launch to even be considered.. Soyuz 1 was just one of *many* problems.

        The Soviet moon program never really recovered from that tragedy, because the a derivative of the Soyuz spacecraft was to have flown to the moon.

        Zond, did fly to the moon three times, (unmanned), and failed two of the three times during reentry.

        Realizing its limitations, the Soviets decided to use Soyuz as an Earth-orbiting spacecraft, which has worked well to this day.

        No, Soyuz was meant from day one to be a general purpose earth orbiter. (As the Apollo originally was as well.) Zond was not so much a derivative as it was a paralell line of evolution.

  • My Heros ! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beanerspace ( 443710 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:20PM (#2910645) Homepage
    I still have an empty spot on my heart, both for the crew of Apollo 1 and the Challenger. My father worked for NASA during the space race up until 10 years ago. I was neat getting the 8x10 publicity pictures for reports, the walls, etc.

    Even though I'm an old poop now, I still keep a few hanging, and one wall, is the crew of the Apollo 1 to remind me not to take things for granted.

    Yeah, I know, I sound like a big wuss ... but think about it.

    In spite of this tragedy, we still managed to put a man on the moon with little more than vaccum tubes and slide rules !

    • In spite of this tragedy, we still managed to put a man on the moon with little more than vaccum tubes and slide rules !

      Not only that... they did it in less that 18 months, following a major re-design of the interior of the CM! Hell, they had the re-designed CM (w/SM and LM) orbiting the moon less that a year later! (Apollo 8)

      Amazing stuff, that.

      Milalwi

  • beauracracy, accident, choices (Score:5, Informative)

    by starjax ( 554281 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @05:27PM (#2910669)
    what many of you that are commenting on are failing to realize is that you are using your perspective of "today" and not from that time. My dad was part of the apollo project and specifically was part of the accident and redesign team that focused on all aspects of the electrical system. I had the fortune to visit the launch pads and facilites in florida where he worked shortly before he passed away. The hatch may have prevented them from getting out, but fire in the capsule was not considered a possibility at that time. It was an engineering choice. After the accident they went through the entire design, testing, production phases and made significant changes on everything. the cause was a short in the oxygen panel in a rarified oxygen atmosphere. It was a flashfire that they could not have escaped even if they could have My dad was very proud to have helped to redesign the entire electrical system, but he also pointed out that they (engineers) took the time to go through every system on the entire craft. All the engineers took the acident personally and went out their way contribute to the improvements. It was a time of unknowns and great challenges and shows the quality of the human spirit in the face of adversity.
    • I do not intend any disrespect to you or your dad. In fact I admire the work of the Engineers at NASA, it was an incredible feat. The fault was not with the Engineers but the "higher ups" that decided what the engineers should do. For example, there was a report in 1962 that warned about the uncertainty of a pure oxygen environment, and there were countless test- accidents involving pure oxygen environments well before the Apollo fire. In fact, it wasn't until the production of the Apollo 012 craft that the NASA higher ups decided to comission tests of their own with pure oxygen environments, ie they wanted to prove that THEIR decisions right. The failings were more than obvious even during that time. Oxygen burns well.

  • Rocket Men (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xxSOUL_EATERxx ( 549142 )
    The film The Right Stuff gives a good feel for what it was like for these early pioneers: half hero, half guinea pig., funny way to be.

    These early explorers were in many ways treated like lab animals, yet they soared trough the heavens like living gods: can you imagine what it was like being the first humyn to see the earth from space?

    And yet, it is the fate of all pioneers for the trails they first blazed to be trod by myriad lesser souls. As the unspoiled lands explored by Lewis, Clark, and Sacajawea [powersource.com] are now criss-crossed by highways, so the ethereal realm of the early astronauts is now a playground for billionaires [asia1.com.sg].

    Oh well, on to Mars, I suppose.

    • what it was like being the first humyn to see the earth from space?

      What the hell is a humyn?????

    • Most of the people on the Apollo missions were engineers of some sort, and had college educations. The Mercury missions (what The Right Stuff was about) were mainly "let's find the first guy dumb enough to sit on top of a rocket and send him up there". Doesn't mean they were stupid, just emphasising that the Apollo missions required more brains. A monkey could handle the Mercury rockets.
  • I thought that breathing pure oxygen got you high, that it was like taking a drug. Why were they doing this then? Did they have some way of counteracting this? Or were they doing it because it would simulate the physical conditions of actually being in space?
    • I believe the reason was the same that deep sea divers use pure O2, it was to prevent the bends.

      When the spacecraft leaves the atmosphere the internal pressure of the capsule is much lower than it is at sea level. (It would be prohibitively expensive to pressurize the capsule to 1 ATM.)

      If at that time the astronauts still had any nitrogen in their bloodstream it would come out of solution and form bubbles, etc...
      • I believe the reason was the same that deep sea divers use pure O2, it was to prevent the bends


        Close, but not quite. It is true that to a certain point, divers can use pure O2 to prevent the bends (And often do during their decompression stages), but after a certain point, pure oxygen becomes poisonous, and so an inert gas (almost always pure helium) must be put into the mix. Since helium is inert, it doesn't cause the nitrogen narcosis problems at depth.
      • I believe the reason was the same that deep sea divers use pure O2, it was to prevent the bends

        Not quite. Divers almost never breath pure O2 in the water. Oxygen under pressure is toxic, and can cause seizures (bad when you're under water). The only exception to this would be what's called an oxygen rebreather. It's a closed circuit breathing system using pure O2. CO2 is scrubbed out with a chemical absorbant. The main feature of these systems is no exhaust bubbles. They were popular with military frogmen for sneaking into harbors and the like during WWII and sometime after, but they could only be 'safely' used shallower than about 30 feet. Deeper than that is asking for trouble.
        Nowadays closed circuit breathing systems use mixed gases for breathing and computers to maintain the proper O2 proportion.

        When divers do breath pure oxygen is out of the water in a decompression chamber. The idea is to 'wash' (not really what's happening, but the simple way to expain it) the nitrogen out of the divers tissues quicker than breathing air which is 80%+ nitrogen. It's not so much to directly prevent decompression sickness as it is to shorten decompression times.
        Fire is always a big concern when doing this, minimum combustibles in the chamber, absolutely no grease or oil on anything and usually special breathing masks that dump the exhaled gas outside the chamber. I used to be in that biz.
    • It is nitrogen which becomes narcotic under pressure. The effect is somewhat like being drunk which is what makes deepish diving a bit risky. It has the interesting characteristic that, upon ascent, the effect is removed like curtains unvieling your mind. It's a wierd sensation to suddenly feel your brain click back onto a normal clock speed.

      Nitrogen also has the dual effect of being absorbed into the tissue structure. Because Nitrogen is more soluble under pressure, as you ascend it comes out of solution and forms tiny bubbles which tend to accumulate in your joints with great pain, causing you to "bend" over. The effect is quite distinct from narcosis, and may not show up for many hours until you're home with a beer in your hand watching Lost In Space.

      The effect of O2 is quite different. Simply, under two atmospheres of pressure it becomes toxic. Breath pure oxygen while 33 ft under the water and you will go into convulsions and almost certainly die. Because Air(TM) is only one fifth Oxygen, you need to go five times deeper before you run the risk of dying from air.

      For this reason, deep divers phase out both O2 and N2, and substitute the volume with Helium, which has no nasty effects other than making you sound like Donald Duck(TM).

      In space, US astronauts going outside in space suits still use a low pressure pure oxygen environment, otherwise their suits are too inflexible. This not only means No Smoking, but also brings the risk of the bends because they're coming from a nitrogen-rich air environment, so the astronauts have to sit around breathing pure O2 through a face mask for a couple of hours before they suit up and go outside. Thus an emergency spacewalk from the shuttle would incapacitate the participant, demand an immediate re-entry, and a few days in a decompression chamber.

  • Interestingly enough, in order to keep with the desired "20% oxygen" atmosphere of the capsule, NASA decided that they would create a total O2 environment, but at only 20% of the pressure to give the same net result. Unfortunately, of course, this created a COMPLETE oxygen environment which allowed the fire to spread wildly. From then on (the next manned mission would be Apollo 7) and including today's Shuttle, the compatment contents are kept at 20% oxygen by means of an air consisting of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen.

    Apollo 7 and on also gave the astronauts complete and independent use of an emergency hatch opener, a lesson tragically learned from Apollo 1.

    • Umm, from my Chemistry and Physics background, having a 20% Oxygen 80% Nitrogen atmosphere at full pressure or a 100% Oxygen atmosphere at 1/5 pressure should not change the physics and chemistry of a fire. In either case you have exactly the same number of oxygen molecules occupying the same volume. (I could be wrong, but with my MSc in Physics, I'll want to hear from someone who *really* knows, not some other schmuck like you or me with a semi-informed opinion :)

      However, if you wanted to test the system at sea level and wanted to keep the system handling only Oxygen, then you'd be forced to use 100% Oxygen at full atmospheric pressure. Now *that* was a mistake.

      BTW: I'm quite annoyed at all the people saying "we didn't know an oxygen atmosphere was that dangerous".

      This was a standard Tombstone Technology incident. The US AirForce and others published lots of information in the preceeding 5-10 years showing just how dangerous a fire in a full oxygen atmosphere was, but *numerous* people have to die in numerous incidents (or one big/famous one) to make the awareness of the information global. Other sections of the NASA article that the slashdot article links to itself lists 6-12 references to prior publications that clearly indicated the danger of a fire in a 100% oxygen atmosphere.

      And don't give me any bull about why they built the door as it was. After the fire they made a door which opened outwards in 3 seconds with as little as a half pound of force, and the door was counterweighted to hold itself open.

      Now it *is* true that no-one knew how easily a fire could start in an atmosphere like that. If I remember correctly from reading a more fully detailed report, as a result of the Appolo 1 fire it was discovered that a spark, just one bloody spark, can cause a fire up to two feet away in a pure oxygen environment at atmospheric pressures. (Remember the last time you saw the sun-rays shining in through the window, and you thought to yourself, "wow, look at all that dust".)

      I found some paragraphs of the NASA pages linked to in this story to be somewhat self serving and incomplete.
      • And don't give me any bull about why they built the door as it was. After the fire they made a door which opened outwards in 3 seconds with as little as a half pound of force, and the door was counterweighted to hold itself open.

        I'd like to draw attention to an earlier portion of your response: I'll want to hear from someone who *really* knows. Why do you do that with the atmosphere, yet take such a combative attitude about the door? Anyhow, from someone who does know:
        • The new door weighed *four* times as much as the original (Apollo Block 1) doors (Capsule and BPC) that it replaced. (Weight on a spacecraft is a Bad Thing.)
        • The new door was far more complex than the old door, which mean many more things that could go wrong, increasing the cost of manufacture and the difficulty of checkout.
        • Lastly, the design change eliminated the BPC door, meaning that quite a bit of complex work was required to ensure that aerodynamic forces would not damage the BPC or the capsule.
        Engineering is a balancing act, and it's not always obvious, except to armchair engineers with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, which approach is correct. NASA bet the odds. Two gas mixtures have hazards and problems of their own, and NASA had experience in operating spacecraft with pure oxygen. NASA and the nation lost. Sometimes that happens.

  • The problem isn't always getting up there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kaladorn ( 514293 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @07:01PM (#2911000) Homepage Journal
    I forget which Apollo mission it was, but it was one of the ones that made it to land on the moon. The crew were down and they were getting ready to leave and a switch snapped off. Left them in quite a pickle. Of course, their suits bulky gloves couldn't depress it. And without it, they couldn't leave. IIRC, this was solved with one of the super-fancy space pens.

    Perhaps some other slashdotter will post the link to the story about this - some sci-fi author (Spider Robinson) wrote about it (in the context of whether it made sense to spend piles of cash developing a pen that could write in space).

    It just illustrates the point that space is the most unforgiving environment we're aware of. The Antarctic and the deep sea floor might be close competitors, but space still has them beat. If engineers and astronauts can overcome the kinds of challenges space presents, that is quite an achievement.

    We talk about the trickle down from space technologies... and we bitch about the costs of the space program. Quite frankly, it isn't that expensive when you think of the things that have worked there way down to us from that program, that might not have otherwise been developed.

    Add to that the fact that one of the major things lacking in our modern world is aspirations and dreams. The dream of getting off the planet to Mars, and then to other systems, should be a powerful draw. It offers us new horizons, new frontiers, a chance to be new pioneers, not just custodians of the remnants of the past. It offers us opportunities to expand our horizons, to learn, and maybe one day to discover other life forms. That has to be the single greatest opportunity I can imagine, and if the dream of going to space doesn't fire your blood, then you're already dead.

    Besides, we'd better get some of our populace into some other stable biosphere just in case a big chunk of space debris decides to make a bank shot and knock Earth into the Sun. (With apologies to Dave Lister, cosmic pool player extrordinaire).

    • in the context of whether it made sense to spend piles of cash developing a pen that could write in space

      This is an urban legend. The space pen was developed privately, and donated to NASA.

      • The Link (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kaladorn ( 514293 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @10:45PM (#2911642) Homepage Journal
        The article from Spider [google.com] thanks to Google cache.

        BTW, you'll notice I never mentioned who'd developed it. And the discussion about the merits of these kinds of projects is hardly urban myth, thanks very much. The point is people question whether these kinds of projects are worthwhile. Moreso, admittedly, if it is public money. But even if it is not. (and I never suggested it was!)

    • It was Apollo 11, the first ones to land on the moon.

    • I would have to contend that the deep-sea floor is a far more unforgiving environment. We're talking about a pressure differential of thousands of atmospheres as opposed to one. A tiny leak deep-sea can mean instant death. And rescue is no more of a possibility than it is on Mars.

      • I said it'd give space a run for its money. But, in space, in addition to the issues of pressure differential, no possibility of real rescue, etc. you can add in: radiation (both regularly dangerous amounts and storms), gravity (or lack thereof) which does everything up to and including inducing an AIDS like drop off in the human immune system as well as causing erosion of bone density, and heat issues (how to dispose of heat is a main concern because disposing of heat generally means disposing of some mass at the same time).

        Don't get me wrong: The sea floor is a very demanding environment. It is the best place we have on earth to train for space (not the same challenges, but the same degree of risk almost). But it doesn't quite have the cornucopia of threats (sudden and gradual) that space has, some of which (such as the gravity issues) are very hard to deal with effectively.

        • Point.

          I wasn't thinking about radiation or (lack of) gravity, I guess that evens things up a bit. I wasn't aware of the heat disposal problem. That's interesting; I guess I'd always assumed that a vacuum would act as a heat sink, but it can't really conduct heat(?)

          • Precisely. As I understand it (I'm a CompSci type with some EE background, not some PhysDude), it is hard to radiate heat because you lack anything to radiate it into (some thought of emitting heat as a wave of some kind, but the rate of radiation is really cut down because of the lack of a medium (matter) to transfer heat to).

            The gravity effects are scary. You can (in theory) put in spin-habs and such and there are fancy treadmills that help the astronauts keep up bone density, but I don't know if they've gotten over some of the effects like the immune system depression. (I think I read about that in an Analog issue a while ago).

            Let us just say space is nasty. The sea floor is nasty. The antarctic is nasty. Other planets will be nasty. But overcoming such challenges is part of the path to progress and growth. And at least it will never be boring! :)

  • Their deaths saved thousands more - and still do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @07:17PM (#2911062) Journal
    Nasa engineers believed that before the fire actually flashed (almost like a flashbulb, with all that exotic metal in a pure O2 atmosphere), the insulation smouldered for a bit. They decided that one way to prevent future accidents of that sort was to detect the smoke the preceededs the fire.

    So they commissioned research to do so. And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector. Which you can now buy at any hardware store for as low as ten dollars, and which is required by zoning for virtually all human-habitable houses in the US and many other countries.

    These devices have saved many thousands of lives so far, and will continue to do so.

    These devices use a small radioactive source to ionize smoke particles, so they don't need to depend on natural ionization and can thus detect extremely miniscule amounts of smoke. This greatly increases their sensitivity, giving much earlier warning. The anti-nuclear hysteria was in full cry at the time. So it's unlikely a private company would have tried to design and market such a device for consumers. But for a NASA project, for short-term use above the atmosphere, it made sense. Once the device was done and its characteristics known, it was easy to show that a tiny amount of short-lived isotope, whose radiation doesn't leak beyond the container during the device's service life, was a miniscule risk compared to the number of lives saved. And a classic NASA spinout occurred.

    So the fire and the deaths of the three astronauts was the direct cause of the invention and introduction of practical domestic smoke detectors, which otherwise certainly would not have been introduced for decades, if ever.

  • US vs USSR Engineering Parable? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cheshire Cat ( 105171 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @09:17PM (#2911422) Homepage
    Someone told me this (most likely apocrophyl) story about the differences between the US and the USSR engineers in the space program. The American's spent tens of thousands of dollars to come up with a pen that would work in the harsh enviroment of outter space: zero-g, temperature changes, uv rays, etc.

    The Russians used a pencil. :)
    • The American's spent tens of thousands of dollars to come up with a pen that would work in the harsh enviroment of outer space: zero-g, temperature changes, uv rays, etc.

      The Russians used a pencil. :)

      you mean the fisher space pen [thewritersedge.com] - AG7, designed to work in zero-g environments. Well may the Russians have used pencils but NASA had these pens for good reasons. Using pencils would result in the astronauts breathing in fine graphite particles :)

      Also heres an article describing how Buzz Aldrin used his pen to fire the LM engines to get off the moon.

      http://www.thewritersedge.com/story.main.cfm

  • A little bit of knowledge gleaned from Apollo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @10:07PM (#2911539) Journal
    Richard Muller at Berkeley used lunar soil gathered by the Apollo astronauts to demonstrate that impact cratering significantly increased around 500 million years ago. Moreover, the craters appear to cluster around every 26 million years (last cluster occured 13 million years ago.)

    Muller hypothesized that the periodic cratering is due to a star that orbits the sun. Every 26 million years, it comes swinging closer into the sundragging debris from the Oort cloud. Some of that debris ends up hitting either the earth or the moon.

    500 million years ago is referred to as the Cambrian explosion because the fossil record shows a huge proliferation of different species. There have been a number of hypothesis as to what precipated the increase in life forms and Muller's data does an excellent job of supporting comet/asteroid impact. There's more at Lawrence Livermore [lbl.gov]

    It may be that the Apollo program has yielded a significant clue as to why we aren't all just a bunch of jellyfish.
  • Hmmm, no-one seems to have mentioned Andrew Chaikin's excellent Apollo resource A Man on the Moon [amazon.com] - you can read the first few pages of the section on Apollo 1/AS201 using amazon's "Look Inside" feature [amazon.com]. If you can't abide to buy anything from amazon for whatever reason, the ISBN is 0140272011 for the most recent paperback edition, and 0783556799 for the bloody expensive illustrative commemorative boxed set edition.

    Probably one of the best, most accessible books on the subject of Apollo.
  • I had a simulation subcontract from NASA in 1966. I needed data on the characteristics of the ventilation control valve in the Apollo Command Module which allowed the crew to breathe module-supplied air or their suit's air (IIRC). My employer's contact man at the MSC had a great deal of trouble chasing down these data. He finally found them two hallways away from a man who should have had the data. He estimated that he had saved NASA two weeks from their normal data handling methods in getting that valve data to the right engineer.

    I told my wife afterward that I thought the people at the MSC would wind up killing someone.

    When the account fo the horrible pad accident was published, I felt sick about it; not because I could have done anything that might have prevented it, but because there was nothing I could do despite my offhand conviction.
  • NASA didn't just review the hatch & capsule design after this incident, they reviewed every aspect of the Saturn V design and made many improvements. Engineers who worked on the project have since said that without this review the Apollo missions would not have made it to the moon.

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close