Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Earth Space United States Technology

Today Marks 50th Anniversary of Fatal Apollo 1 Disaster (nasaspaceflight.com) 87

schwit1 writes: NASASpaceFlight.com reports: "Fifty years ago Friday, the first -- but sadly not the last -- fatal spaceflight accident struck NASA when a fire claimed the lives of Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White during a training exercise at Launch Complex 34. The accident, a major setback for the struggling Apollo program, ushered in the first understanding of the 'bad day' effects of schedule pressure for spaceflight and brought with it words and reminders that still echo today." The article provides a very detailed and accurate look at the history and causes of the accident, as well as its consequences, which even today influence American space engineering. Are there any Slashdotters who were old enough to remember the incident? If so, we'd love to hear your take on the disaster. Where were you when the news broke and how did it affect you and the country at that time...?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Today Marks 50th Anniversary of Fatal Apollo 1 Disaster

Comments Filter:
  • I was 8 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wireloose ( 759042 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @02:43AM (#53753589)
    I remember bits of it. I was in 3rd grade at the time. We had been talking about it at school in science class all week. It was late in the week, Thursday or Friday. We had no tv in the school, but we had radio. I don't recall which class I was in at the time, but I remember listening to early parts of the countdown on a radio the teacher brought to the classroom. After school, I had finished my homework and was watching something on tv before supper. A reporter broke in with a special announcement that the astronauts had burned to death. (They didn't really, they were asphyxiated inside their suits.) Mom heard that from the kitchen and came in and listened and then shut the tv off. The next day at school the morning prayer (Catholic school) was announced for the three astronauts' souls and their families left behind. That Sunday's mass was also dedicated to the tragedy. Up to that point, my friends and I used to talk about being astronauts, and who would get to go first. Several of them were no longer so excited about it within a few days. A few years later I was glued to the tv watching Apollo 11. Of that group of friends, I'm the only one that actually went into an aerospace field.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2017 @04:12AM (#53753741)

    First, wow, so many trolls... can't we get rid of some of this garbage?

    There's a lesson to be learned here. In a lot of fields, scientific research isn't safe. It's for the advancement of science and hopefully the betterment of the world that we put our lives at risk. I see people calling for SpaceX to be grounded and ridiculing them for their failed launch. These are complex systems, and sometimes things go wrong that have unexpected consequences. It's unfortunate, but it's a risk we take, and without the early attempts at spaceflight, there is no Apollo 11, shuttle, or ISS.

    This sort of thing happens in other branches of science, too. I am a meteorologist and I study tornadoes. That means chasing storms and, sometimes, getting close to the business end of a supercell thunderstorm to collect data. And yes, researchers occasionally do get killed, as unfortunately happened to Tim Samaras a few years ago. It's not safe out there, but it's because of research like that, that we're quickly moving toward a dramatic shift and perhaps a large improvement in how we issue severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings. Look up warn-on-forecasting if you're curious. We need the data to better understand the processes involved with tornado formation and what distinguishes tornadic supercells from non-tornadic ones. People have called for bans on storm chasing and ridicule the type of research meteorologists do as fringe science, but it may well save a large number of lives in the coming decades. It's not safe out there, but it doesn't mean we should walk away, give up, or ban the scientific research.

    Should we have banned chemistry and research on radioactive elements because it led to the deaths of many scientists? We're better off that we didn't do that. Would we be better off giving up on tornado research and not trying to improve warning lead times? I think not. And we shouldn't try to put an end to the work SpaceX is doing, despite an accident and some noisy critics.

    • I read the article but still I don't get why pure oxygen. While nitrogen narcosis is always a risk it's something that's easy to manage so it seems insane to try to avoid that with a pure oxygen environment which is an almost unmanageable risk.. The story says the danger of oxygen was not appreciated. Huh????? no way is that true. So I repeat why did they use pure oxygen??? makes no sense.

      • Digging a little I googled up this explanation of why they did something seemingly insane with pure oxygen.

        there were two reasons given:
        1. Weight. having a mixed gas system required added pounds.
        2. they planned to run it at 5 PSI in space, which was considered a safe level of oxygen. 5PSI would be the equivalent partial pressure as 33% oxygen at sea level. So perhaps not that much more than normal.

        However, in the test run they ran it at 16PSI oxygen. They needed to have positive pressure inside relativ

        • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @09:22AM (#53754233)

          The "more" aspect of this story is that the pure oxygen atmosphere was deemed "a solved problem" as it had been used during the Mercury and Gemini missions and had never posed a problem before. Note also that the astronauts were wearing pressure suits, and those were pressurized to 17psi pure oxygen - this remained the case even after the changes were made post-Apollo-1 to bring in a nitrogen-oxygen mix during ascent (the cabin atmosphere was dumped when in orbit, and repressurised with 5psi oxygen - this was always the plan, so you are correct in that it needed to be pressurised at launch).

          So the pure oxygen atmosphere never posed an issue before, mainly because the capsules were of higher quality than Apollo 1 turned out to be.

        • And in retrospect, it was insane. That's why the fire.
        • Just to add on what other have said if you run at 5 PSI you could build the capsule to hold less pressure which means it's lighter. You build it lighter that in turn means you can use less fuel to get the capsule into space which is a big thing given how much fuel you need to get those things up. (You know, given that you're basically using a lot of what are effectively explosives to get those things up there using some pure oxygen seems safe in comparison.) As for why pure oxygen at lift off it's for one b
      • I have only a hazy memory of all this. I was 18 at the time of the disaster, and 19 or 20 when the investigation reports became public.

        But what I do recall is that the weight of the nitrogen tanks and the equipment needed to monitor and maintain the nitrogen level was more than NASA was willing to do. On reflection, probably there were no off-the-shelf systems that would have met NASA's needs, and the cost and time needed to develop another custom subsystem would have been a major consideration. Cousteau h

    • by epine ( 68316 )

      Should we have banned chemistry and research on radioactive elements because it led to the deaths of many scientists?

      So much for the pretense of lowering the oxygen content in the debate. "Baaaaaned," said the scary wolf, pretending to be one of the sheep. Really, have you ever read about the stupidity of how carelessly radioactive materials were handled during the early years?

      The Making of the Atomic Bomb [stox] by Richard Rhodes (1986)

      At McGill [Hahn] found a third substance intermediate between the other two

  • I was a kid.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DeanOh ( 61485 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @04:47AM (#53753805)

    I first became aware of humans in space when I saw a Time magazine with a picture of John Glenn in Time magazine cover in hour house. While I was too young to appreciate the functional evolution of the US space program (suborbital to orbital flight, single-seat to multi-seat capsules, increasing task complexity --including EVAs--, docking with other craft), I did realize the goal of the Apollo program was to carry astronauts to the moon.

    I didn't understand the baby steps needed to get there. As a kid, I'd imagine mission control with a surprise announcement to the crew: "Good news; we're moving up the schedule and sending you guys TODAY instead of evolving and learning for two more years".

    The coverage of the Apollo 1 disaster that I remember focused on the explosion resulting from the choice of 100% oxygen for the capsule environment.

    Sometime during the frenzy of the Gemini/Apollo era, some the elementary schools where we lived then were named after astronauts. To my surprise, these schools (in Old Bridge, NJ) still carry these names 50 years later: Carpenter, Copper, Grissom, McDivitt. Schirra, Shephard.

    A few years ago, I took one of the tours of Kennedy that includes access to the historic Mercury and Apollo launch sites, including the pad where the Apollo 1 crew had died. Very sobering.

    • Growing up I always wanted to be an astronaut, watched it all on TV. This accident happened the day after I was born. Although I didn't learn about it until years later reading about the space program on my own, I always felt strangely connected to the accident after that. I took that same tour with my wife in 2007; it is an in depth tour you book by special request. You would think the people on the tour would be really interested and respectful. It was heartbreaking when only about 8 people got off t
  • by rickyslashdot ( 2870609 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @05:04AM (#53753815)

    I was in my teens, living with my foster family in California. We were returning from a grocery shopping trip when the news broke on the radio. My foster father, who personally knew Gus Grissom and Ed White, broke into tears and had to pull over and stop the car.
    Despite his earlier warnings to his supervisors about the hazards of testing with atmospheric pressure pure oxygen environments, the tests continued - as he was 'only' a field engineer for NASA.
    Was really a sad day, with many tears and spiteful comments about the lack of real leadership qualities in the top bureaucracy of NASA at that time.
    Sadly, even though there were SOME changes, and even some GOOD changes, they didn't last long, and we were soon back in the same 'good old boy' network of leadership that does nothing for the program unless it pins a feather on the cap of a supervisor somewhere in the bureaucratic hierarchy.
    Continuing this sad tale, we saw the loss of a launch because of faulty O-ring design caused by small, but significant, warpage from the weight of the vehicle resting on its side during the O-ring installation. This issue had already been seen to be marginal - with one after-launch diagnostic showing that the booster was within seconds of burning through - with the tragic results that happened when a later booster DID burn through.
    And then, there was the loss during re-entry from another vehicle because of icing issues - even though NASA had a waiver to continue using freon for de-icing which would have eliminated this problem, but changed to a different, less effective, but MORE Politically Correct compound. Granted, the actual icing issue didn't cause the loss, but the ice build-up and the impact of the ice-chunk DID result in another senseless, tragic loss.
    Really gotta' love the bureaucrats, since they prove that normal humans can overcome even the worst of humanities faults and self-centered stupidity, and STILL succeed in the efforts to expand our frontiers.

    Kinda' reminds me of the 'PC correct' idiot in purchasing that order bio-friendly cat litter for the packing of nuclear material - that caused the loss of the only long-term storage facility in the US because it ruptured - which WOULDN'T have happened if the idiot had just continued to use plain clay litter.

    • by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @07:21AM (#53754021)
      Continuing this sad tale, we saw the loss of a launch because of faulty O-ring design caused by small, but significant, warpage from the weight of the vehicle resting on its side during the O-ring installation.

      That's not what caused the O-ring failure, and the vehicle was attached vertically in the VAB, well after the SRBs were fully assembled and mated to the tank. The temperature at launch was below freezing, and about 25 degrees lower than any previous launch. The O-rings lost most of their flexibility due to the cold and failed to seal the joint as a result.

      And then, there was the loss during re-entry from another vehicle because of icing issues - even though NASA had a waiver to continue using freon for de-icing which would have eliminated this problem, but changed to a different, less effective, but MORE Politically Correct compound. Granted, the actual icing issue didn't cause the loss, but the ice build-up and the impact of the ice-chunk DID result in another senseless, tragic loss.

      The Columbia accident wasn't caused by ice either - it was a block of insulating foam that broke off from the tank and struck the orbiter. Very little ice ever formed on the external tank due to the insulation.
      • Yes and no - the insulating foam was iced over. A coating of ice at low enough temperatures is as hard as steel.
      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        SRB warpage was a dangerous issue though. The SRBs were made in sections and set sideways on train cars for shipping long distances, just so they could be made in the right senator's state. That's a problem with leadership above the NASA level, though.

      • by clovis ( 4684 )

        Continuing this sad tale, we saw the loss of a launch because of faulty O-ring design caused by small, but significant, warpage from the weight of the vehicle resting on its side during the O-ring installation.

        That's not what caused the O-ring failure, and the vehicle was attached vertically in the VAB, well after the SRBs were fully assembled and mated to the tank. The temperature at launch was below freezing, and about 25 degrees lower than any previous launch. The O-rings lost most of their flexibility due to the cold and failed to seal the joint as a result.

        Sort of both and then some more.
        The O-rings did fail due to loss of flexibility, but root problem was that the design of the joint was defective.
        The joint design parameter was that the O-rings should not come into use - the joint should close and keep the gases from the O-rings. After all, they are "rubber" and rubber does not live long when exposed to hot high pressure gas.
        The O-rings were to be backup, and in a perfect design backup doesn't come into play. There was also putty in the gap that should preve

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You are also wrong about the kitty litter too. While reported in the press the way you describe, the actual investigation report shows this is Not what happened.

    • by tomhath ( 637240 )

      I once had a conversation with someone who worked there when this happened.

      NASA still gloss' over the circumstances of the men's death. Usually in a fire, the smoke or super-heated air causes you to lose conscientiousness pretty quickly. But these guys had their helmets on, which supplied fresh air. Grissom's open microphone picked up their screams as they were burned. Death didn't come quickly for them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And then, there was the loss during re-entry from another vehicle because of icing issues - even though NASA had a waiver to continue using freon for de-icing which would have eliminated this problem, but changed to a different, less effective, but MORE Politically Correct compound. Granted, the actual icing issue didn't cause the loss, but the ice build-up and the impact of the ice-chunk DID result in another senseless, tragic loss.

      Yeah, this is where you go off on your on ranting, you start chasing the "Politically Correct" issue, when even if it was the cause, the more likely explanation would be that some other compound was cheaper to drop in, and the whole problem was one they'd been ignoring for years anyway. But you, you have to believe somebody was being "Politically Correct" which translates into "Somebody who cares about something that makes me feel bad about myself for not caring" instead of any real meaning.

      Really gotta' love the bureaucrats, since they prove that normal humans can overcome even the worst of humanities faults and self-centered stupidity, and STILL succeed in the efforts to expand our frontiers.

      Kinda' reminds me of the 'PC correct' idiot in purchasing that order bio-friendly cat litter for the packing of nuclear material - that caused the loss of the only long-term storage facility in the US because it ruptured - which WOULDN'T have happened if the idiot had just continued to use plain clay litter.

      Wrong again, it

  • A day late (Score:5, Informative)

    by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @05:32AM (#53753873)
    Actually, yesterday (1/27) was the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire. Today (1/28) is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger disaster. I know the story was probably posted yesterday and took a few hours to get through the queue, but BeauHD should have edited the headline to reflect that.

    RIP to the men and women of both tragic missions.
  • by argee ( 1327877 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @05:58AM (#53753917)

    I was 20 and in college, and I did not think too much on it. I regretted Gus Grissom, he was kind of a hero, before he got immolated. At the time -- and I still do -- that going to space was very dangerous, risky and absolutely romantic. Look what it did to NASA: they have become a do-nothing bureacracy that have put so many safety rules and protocols that nothing gets done. They were absolutely astounded when so many people applied for the one-way trip to Mars.

  • A story related (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @07:06AM (#53754007) Homepage

    I've meet many people involved in getting men to the moon.

    One was in charge of life support for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Shortly before he died we had a long talk about Apollo 1. He was convinced that it was his fault that he didn't know that high O2 environment would have been highly flammable. There are likely a thousand guys who thought the same thing.

    He also pointed out that USAF has a museum inside the Cape grounds and I should go see it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I was teaching and doing research at the University of Tennessee Space Institute. My first contract work back in 1970 was concerned with the shuttle. All of us as well as our neighbors at AEDC were alarmed by the event. I remember receiving a telephone call from one of the authorities asking how I might help in determining the causes. I knew little that could help; I suspect that virtually the whole scientific community was called. The event scared the whole space community badly. It's distressing that the

  • Apollo I Disaster (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jackthripper ( 2857533 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @08:16AM (#53754105)
    Yes, I remember. I was working for RCA downrange on a missile tracking ship. We were in Dakar, Senegal. Although I don't remember how I found out (since it was difficult to get news back in those days), I recall reading a book about the entire Apollo program (from and engineer's point of view) many years later and when I came to that part of the book - it brought tears to my eyes. The ship I was on spent a lot of time in port at Cape Canaveral and although I never actually saw any of the astronauts I heard about their exploits by locals. I hung out in a bar where Gus Grissom was reported to have hung out although I never saw him there. It was just off A1A on the turnoff that took one to Cape Canaveral.
  • by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @09:10AM (#53754213)

    The 1st Monday after 28th January should be designated as "astronauts day" to remember the crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia
    (and any future fatalities we may have in our exploration of space.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yes, I remember it, and time has not mellowed my wishes for rolling heads. I did not understand the why until Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog magazine explained why it was so dangerous on the ground, but would have been a non-event in flight. A tripped circuit breaker at worst

    The difference was gravity, without out it the fire had no convection driven air movements to carry in fresh oxygen. With gravity, and a positive pressure in the capsule, instant conflagration. And both no way out due to the positiv

  • I worked with a technician who said he worked at the site and the capsule door had been red-tagged as not safe, and that Grissom ripped the tag off and had the test proceed. -- My father was a chemical engineer who worked on the capsule heat shield. For the post-mortem he and coworkers were supposed to turn over project notes. In those notes were comments on bad placement of the oxygen lines. They tried to snow under the investigators with piles of irrelevant notes but were questioned within days about the
  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @12:32PM (#53754789) Journal

    Yes, I'm old enough to actually remember this. :(

    I think it's safe to say that at the time we all felt a collective sense of horror at how they died, and at the loss of three brave men who lost their lives for no good reason. They were willing to take extraordinary risks as astronauts, but to burn to death due to a series of egregiously bad engineering decisions made it even sadder.

  • by fnj ( 64210 ) on Saturday January 28, 2017 @12:36PM (#53754811)

    I remember it well. I was 18, an EE freshman at Northeastern at the time. I also remember Shepard's Freedom 7, the first suborbital manned rocket flight in 1961, I was in junior high school. And I remember seeing reports on the Korean war in the newspapers (I remember lots of things from kindergarten and first grade). And I vividly remember at age 10 breaking my piggy bank and having my dad take me to Radio Shack on Commonwealth Avenue so I could buy a CK-722 germanium transistor and some other components at the will-call counter. It was a pretty big (by later standards) silver-colored prismatically-shaped plastic package. I made a single-transistor radio from it using a schematic from Popular Electronics. I twisted the wires together because I didn't have a soldering iron.

  • I was in college at the time and frankly, don't remember it in much detail. (If you remember the 60s, you weren't living in the 60s). I didn't watch television, so I must have learned of it by word of mouth or the press. I thought it was sad, but also probably an inevitable consequence of pushing the limits. The shuttle losses had a greater impact on me personally. I suspect that's because the videos of the events made them seem more immediate. Maybe also because by the time they happened success had
  • My wife and I were in middle school / junior high. I was in Germany. People from all over the village came up and offered condolences, then expressed hope that this would not end the program. Later, they invited us to watch the launches from their televisions in their living rooms, as a triumph for the world. I did not learn what contributed to the fire for decades. Once I did learn (pure oxygen atmosphere), I was horrified. But, we always learn from previous mistakes. Our hearts now go out to their

  • I was 15 years old, watching TV (I think it happened on a weekend day) when they "interrupted this program." I remember it was just a typed graphic saying that an an astronaut had been injured in a fire. I am pretty sure they first announcement didn't say they had died. Shortly after that there was actual new reporting and we found out the 3 had died. It was very sad, because the astronauts were well known (Grissom was the bad luck astronaut who had lost his Mercury capsule when it sank into the ocean,

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Working...