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...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you want censorship, go somewhere else! Asshole!
Re: (Score:2)
I was 8 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Not exactly. They were testing if the command module could operate under simulated internal power. None of the *really* exciting chemicals had been loaded onto the rocket or capsule, so they thought there couldn't be any catastrophic danger.
Re: (Score:3)
They were under the assumption that the wiring was fire proof, but it was later revealed that it was fire proof in a normal atmosphere, not in a low pressure high oxygen atmosphere.
And I wasn't old enough to be aware of that, I was only 1 at the time. Earliest memory I have is when Sweden changed from left hand traffic to right hand traffic.
Re: I was 8 (Score:1)
Apollo 1 ground atmosphere was 16 psi pure oxygen. Blocks of solid aluminum are flammable in that atmosphere.
Re:I was eighteen (Score:2)
I had just turned 18. I was self-absorbed with all the issues of the last year of high school, I was not much for reading newspapers, and for reasons I don't now recall I had very limited access to TV news.
My initial reaction was that this had been just another worksite accident, not that much different than when a construction trench collapsed and killed three guys laying pipe. Except that this fire happened to celebrity astronauts and a high profile NASA program and a microphone recorded their final mome
A lesson to be learned here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why pure oxygen? (Score:2)
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.
Reasons for pure oxygen (Score:3)
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
Re:Reasons for pure oxygen (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
I was a kid.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Today Marks 50th Anniversary of Fatal Apollo 1 Dis (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Today Marks 50th Anniversary of Fatal Apollo 1 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
RIP to the men and women of both tragic missions.
It stalled NASA (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A story related (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone was called (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
There should be a Holiday to remember them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And nobody was fired (Score:1)
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
2nd hand hearsay (Score:1)
I remember (Score:3)
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.
A memorable period in which to have lived (Score:3)
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.
Not as sad as the shuttle losses (Score:2)
Yes, I remember (Score:2)
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 remember the new flash (Score:1)