Apollo 1

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.

Comments

quick modifications

[Tablizer]

They made the post-accident modifications rather quickly. It is hard to do that without creating chain-reaction design changes. I guess the gov *can* move fast if they have a press-viewable deadline and a blank check.

Humor:

What did "NASA" stand for after the Challenger accident:

"Need Another Seven Astronauts"

The hatches

[MoonFacedAssassin]

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

[s20451]

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.

Too Early

[Rayonic]

I'd say it's too early to post any +5 Funny comments about this.

However, the Earl of Sandwich in now fair game;
When he died, they put a giant toothpick through his coffin.

Re:Too Early

[Anonymous Coward]

way to rip off an old SNL / Kevon Nealon joke. Jackass.

Re:Too Early

[Rayonic]

If I can't rip off SNL, who can I rip off?

Incompetence

[archnerd]

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

[forkspoon]

Well said sir

Re:Incompetence

[theRhinoceros]

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

[Jeffrey Baker]

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 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.

Re:Incompetence

[slashdot.org]

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

[s20451]

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.

Re:Incompetence

[lposeidon]

at least they didnt forget to convert from us to metric this early in the program.

Re:Incompetence

[funkhauser]

... 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

[jnik]

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.

Re:Incompetence

[andrewski]

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.

Re:Incompetence

[kaybi]

Tog has an excerpt of the Challenger chapter of that book:

http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html

Re:Incompetence

[Leven Valera]

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

Re:Incompetence

[shogun]

> > 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.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with complaining about the beauracracy is how do have a moon shot without one?

Re:Incompetence

[persist1]

...Almost. At least two Soyuz capsules have experienced catastrophic failure. The first one was due to a rushed timeline, the second to (I can only assume) a manufacturing error - though the description given in the following link suggests design problems as well.

Soyuz 1: Komarov
Soyuz 11: Dobrovolsky, Patsayev, Volkov

Re:Incompetence

[ObitMan]

When are organizations going to learn that people who don't understand technology shouldn't be making decisions about that technology.
It will never happen these "technology" decisions are "feathers in the caps" for AVP's VP's and the like. If it's a good one thier bonus increases. If its a bad one, they get put in "time out" for a couple of months.

Re:Incompetence

[spacecomputer]

No, he did not. He intended to hang a lemon from the training simulator at the Cape as a display of his dis-satisfaction that North American Aviation was unable to keep it's behaviour syncronized with the JSC simulator. This is a common error. Check your facts!

Re:Incompetence

[Zenjive]

Of course, if you look purely at the numbers of astronauts killed versus the number that have lived, it's a far better ratio than flying in an airliner, driving a car, and possibly even better than walking down the street in a moderately crime ridden neighbourhood.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact that Thiokole management would not come out and say "Those rings will fail" that there scientist pleaded with them to do.
My biggest regret is that I,like many others, did not go over managments head. A fact that haunts many of us to this day.

from the earth to the moon

[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?

Re:from the earth to the moon

[Ariane 6]

Yup...some of the majors and I will be watching that episode tonight on the projector in the Astro Lab.

Incredibly well done, IMHO. Espically the scene where the wives find out...extremely moving.

Re:from the earth to the moon

[nolesrule]

Excellent mini-series. And it was released on DVD in 1998.

Re:from the earth to the moon

[sohp]

Yes you can get it on DVD, and I highly recommend the deluxe boxed set. For your convenience, I've linked directly to a web retailer where you can buy it.

DEATH!

[forkspoon]

That's why you don't fill the cabin with PURE OXYGEN.

a sad day to remember

[marktwain]

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.

Re:a sad day to remember

[Silver222]

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.

Re:a sad day to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

A thoughtful contribution, but I think the term "trail blazer" is a not very well chosen.

Re:a sad day to remember

[ddtstudio]

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.

Re:a sad day to remember

[gilroy]

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.

Re:a sad day to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this sounds harsh but those heros died for nothing, absolutely nothing, because those who made it to the moon accomplished nothing. Perhaps it was a bit different from today, but my dream is not people going to the moon, I dream about people living on moon, researching moon, going there to explore, not just to fulfill a cold war promise. Apollo was a very good start and it could be that people followed it, we ("mankind" that is, or "you" for those who identify themselves as Americans rather than humans) could have builded stations, bases, we could have returned to moon and thanking all those people for leading us the way. But no program followed the Apollo to the moon, whole expertise, whole training just went down the drain. Those man did indeed die for a reason but the public forgot them and their reasons. The public forgot that space was the final frontier, the public didn't care about the dream. They cared about beating the ruskies.

What a great nation can go to the moon! What a fool nation doesn't go when it can!

Re:a sad day to remember

[nusuth]

Risking your life in the shuttle program? And your life not being wasted? You must be kidding, those shuttles go as far as the nearest town, only upwards. The whole space shuttle business stinks, I can't stand people calling it "going into space." The goals were good, but the final shuttle thing is nothing but a human crewed sattelite launcher.

That said, I can easily risk my life for something like Apollo (e.g. a manned mars exploration project.) I would do that even if I had no possibility of following the program into space.

Re:a sad day to remember

[thogard]

At the higest point that the shuttle can go, there is still atmospheric drag so I think your right about that not being "outer space".

Americans couldn't get to "outer space" now if they had to.

Apollo was our pyramid of Cheops. The highlight in our history unless we collecectly decide to do better.

I'll get troll moded for these statments but I knew quite a few people involved with Apollo I and the latter systems and many of them still balme themselves for the fire.

Re:a sad day to remember

[cybrpnk]

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...

Re:a sad day to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody's going to wish they were on Apollo 1 when metamoderation time rolls around.

Re:a sad day to remember

[nusuth]

I never heard about athmospheric drag but even if that doesn't exist, specification (I just checked) calls for ability to go up 204km (must be about 120miles, too lazy to calculate) that definetly is not outer space. Infact it is LEO (low earth orbit) for some thousands of kilometers more. IIRC most missions are carried out at orbits around 100kms not even reaching half the specification (but don't quote me on this, last time I paid any attention to lame shuttle was when they were repairing the HST. I may as well have forgotten the typical heights.)

I agree that states never did anything to top Apollo and now lacks the will to do. That is hardly a troll, it is a clear statement of facts that any sane person can verify with a little research. Perhaps you shouldn't guide pot smokers on how to moderate your post :)

Re:a sad day to remember

[(outer-limits)]

Partly it is the corruption of Government and the loss of respect for Government. JFK might have been flawed, but the truest words he ever said were 'what can I do for my country'. Most Americans can't even be bothered voting for their country now. If you can't even do that, then you don't have an effective Democracy.

The power vacuum left by an absence of voters and active democracy has been taken over by the lobbyists, and special interest groups.

NASA has been suffering massive budget cuts, but the Government actually subsidises massive corporations and individuals that grow sugar etc. that can't be sold anywhere because it is still to expensive. Forget about aid for mom and pop farms, they just get peanuts.

One of the biggest funders of politicians of both sides is the sugar industry.
Sugar Subsidies

Now how about people stop complaining about the Govt, which is their govt, and ask what they can do to start making it work?

Re:a sad day to remember

[(outer-limits)]

Sugar Industry subsidies

Re:a sad day to remember

[DerekLyons]

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.)

Re:a sad day to remember

[huegort]

Make no mistake, the great 'explorers' of the past were, to a man, in the game for the profit, *period*.

Most of the great things that humans do are NOT for profit, but for prestige (yes marco polo/ drake/ cooke where also looking for profit.. but what profit where the south/norht pole expeditionists ever hoping to get.)
I would have said that the idea of, equating everything down to bottom line in an accountants spreedsheet, is more the modern idea (that has yet to stand the test of time.)
What makes us any better/ different from cavemen. monkeys? its the fact that we can do the "unnecessary" things like art and exploration (of knowledge, space and spirituality)
If they HAPPEN to bring a bonus to humanity well then so much the better.

The greatest secret to life is death. without which man would not try making his mark apon the world.

Re:a sad day to remember

[buckeyeguy]

No need to be so pessimistic... the course of human events is not so linear that we can look at a downward trend in the space program and say that it will eventually die off. Sure, it'll take a great sales job to convince the bottom 90% that'd rather watch WWF and the Springer show than read a book or at least contemplate what the heck is up there in the sky... but when the political and economic scene stabilize, and new money and (hopefully) new blood enter the space program, it'll be back on track in no time.

It's also important to keep in mind that many nations, not just the US, are pushing forward with their space exploration, and that more cooperative efforts among nations may be the bridge that gets us over the wall of affordability.

Re:a sad day to remember

[DerekLyons]

Most of the great things that humans do are NOT for profit, but for prestige (yes marco polo/ drake/ cooke where also looking for profit.. but what profit where the south/norht pole expeditionists ever hoping to get.)

It's interesting that you claim that most are 'not done for profit', but then can't really cite any from the age of exploration. Much of the exploration of the Arctic was driven by the search for the mythical Northwest Passage, that is to say, profit. Almost all of the Antarctic exploration was done to explore and claim territory, again, profit. (And its close relative, National Prestige.)The main pole seeking expeditions (1900 onward) are at the beginning of the period where 'exploration for it's own sake' begins to take hold.

I would have said that the idea of, equating everything down to bottom line in an accountants spreedsheet, is more the modern idea (that has yet to stand the test of time.

You may say it, but it's unsupported by history.

What makes us any better/ different from cavemen. monkeys? its the fact that we can do the "unnecessary" things like art and exploration (of knowledge, space and spirituality)

Not really.. The cavemen had art of a wide variety roles, ranging from what appears to be simple decorations to complex religious and magical works.

Why don't we have an "Ask Slashdot" on the topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the folks here I'm sure the collective brainpower could come up with solutions for cheap & safe space travel more effectively than NASA's top scientists.

Seriously, though, I've seen shit like this on the site where the armchair engineers start to spout off with their 20/20 hindsight and it's quite annoying. I'm bracing myself to seeing the posts appear as I type this.

Oh, well...off to kuro5hin

AC

Well..

[mindstrm]

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..

[zer0vector]

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.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

The inhalation of hot fumes usually results in burns down into the lungs. Not a pleasant way to go.

Re:Well..

[Mhrmnhrm]

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.

Re:Well..

[MouseR]

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.

Re:Well..

[Pedrito]

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.

Re:Well..

[Pedrito]

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.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed the point that the previous poster made.

The capsule was designed to be overpressured from the outside atmosphere by about 2psi. This meant that on the ground, it would have a pressure of 16.7psi, whereas in space, it would have a pressure of 2psi.

A given volume of oxygen at 16.7psi contains a lot more molecules than at 2psi. It was this high concentration of oxygen that resulted in the rapid, unextinguishable burning.

I'm not sure if the capsule would have had such a low pressure as 2psi, but they did wear suits, so it would not be an issue.

Re:Well..

[jeboyer]

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), 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.

Re:Well..

[JoeRobe]

What are you talking about?! I'll say this at the risk of being shot down, because I don't know this for fact. The pressure in the cabin was supposed to be roughly 1ATM in the test (16.7psi is close enough - 2psi won't affect much of anything) AND in space. We have all seen pictures of the Apollo astronauts in the capsule with their helmets off, talking into microphones and waving to the camera in t-shirts. While this would be possible at 2psi, it would be quite painful. So my guess is that the cabin pressure is always supposed to stay near 1ATM (~14.7psi), whether on the ground or in space. It's also that way on today's shuttle. The problem (admitted by NASA in hindsight) was that all of that pressure was pure oxygen! On the ground, the air is only 21% oxygen. Thus, there was 5X as much oxygen in there as there naturally would have been. The increase in pressure due to the fire (pressure is proportional to temperature, remember) was enough to rupture the capsule (read: cause the capsule to split open), which means that it was definitely too much for a human being to try to open up a door against. (if say a 500 sq. in. door has even 10 psi more on one side than on the other, then it has 5000 pounds pushing against it.)

In any case, many scientists have studied the case, and found a primary cause of the fire was the large concentration of oxygen in the cabin. It has nothing to do with how much pressure was in the cabin - what's more important is the concentration of the oxygen. This is obvious when you look at the revisions NASA made to the training sessions - they didn't decrease the pressure in the cabin (except to maybe 14.7 psi), but instead just made the atmosphere have less oxygen in it. (and, of course, they made the door open out)

Re:Well..

[NeuroManson]

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...

Re:Well..

[Will Dyson]

Why do you think breathing a 2psi atmosphere would be painful? It wouldn't be a problem in a 100% O2 environment. As a previous poster pointed out, the partial pressure of O2 in the stuff you are breathing right now is 3PSI (0.21 * 14.7 = 3). That poster also pointed out that the pressure in flight was to be 5PSI, so it would have been richer in O2 than the air at sealevel.

Re:Well..

[JoeRobe]

2psi in general would be painful. I acknowledge that there are only 3psi of oxygen in normal atmosphere. But there is another 11.7psi that makes our atmosphere at a comfortable 14.7psi. 2psi of pressure as a whole, however, would not be a very comfortable environment to pull your helmet off in. Just a thought...

Regardless, that wasn't the point of my post. I'm just trying to say that the concentration seemed to be the real problem, not necessarily the pressure.

Re:Well..

[Mr. N. Igma]

I'm going to have to shoot you down on this since I recently did a research project on the Apollo 1 disaster. The craft was supposed to be at 16.7 psi ON EARTH, and at 5 psi IN SPACE. The reason for this was that the engineers at NASA couldn't design an environmental system (either lack of experience or the materials weren't advanced enough, not sure) that could prevent air from outside the craft, while on Earth of course, from seaping INTO the craft. The danger in this was that the astronauts were already preconditioned to breath 100% oxygen before this. Outside air (of 80% Nitrogen and only 20% oxygen) would have diluted the pure oxygen atmosphere in the craft, and the astronauts would loose consciousness (I think this was what a previous thread talked about that a test with 2 gas system almost killed someone). I'm not sure if 2 psi would be "painful" as someone said. If 5 psi (which was tested on human subjects) were approved for Apollo 1, I think 5 psi wouldn't have been that bad. Keep, in mind that this is PURE oxygen we're talking about. There is a large difference in amount of oxygen in a 2 psi environment than just air in a 2 psi environment.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

To suffocate, it takes minutes (usually around 4 minutes or so). You can get by with no air at all for a bit, so it makes no sense to say they
died of suffocation.

Plus, if you've ever heard the tape, you know it was over much quicker than a couple of minutes, and the astronaughts were screaming the whole time.

Re:Well..

[ipfwadm]

Pressure at the summit of Mt. Everest is ~.25atm = 4.12psi (here). I have NEVER heard of anyone complaining that this is uncomfortable from the standpoint of wanting a pressurized suit to keep their body from exploding (it is, of course, uncomfortable since the partial pressure of oxygen at that elevation is less than 1psi [the percentage of oxygen in the air is the same at 29,028ft as at 0ft]. An unacclimatized individual would die in minutes).

And before anyone says something stupid like "acclimatize? don't you mean acclimate?", go here.

Re:Well..

[ipfwadm]

It may take 4 minutes to suffocate if you're not doing anything (such as struggling) but if these guys were screaming I would imagine they would use up their available oxygen much more quickly than that.

This part is just speculation, since I'm not a doctor: Asphyxiation is different than suffocation. To suffocate is to be deprived of oxygen, asphyxiation generally implies the presence of some other gas or substance that impairs respiration (carbon monoxide for instance). Once these guys got a few good whiffs of CO, any remaining oxygen in their lungs would not be able to be absorbed into their bloodstream, thus causing them to die much faster than if they were still able to use any oxygen in their lungs (and, again going back to the screaming bit, they clearly weren't calmly holding their breath trying to escape (not that I would have been either in that situation of course)).

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't sure what the pressure was when I replied, I knew it was less the 1 atmosphere however. It was meant to be about 5psi.

5psi cabin pressure is fine if natural atmosphere. It's within the levels that pilots can just about cope with in sudden decompression, although requires an oxygen mask within a short period of time. It does not cause their eyeballs to explode or anything, and has no effect on the body bar the suffocation (even in space, people would not explode). High mountains have less pressure than this.

If there is 2psi of pure oxygen, then it is perfectly possible to breath, especially if the pressure is brought down from slightly higher (IIRC it was lowered after launch, and also the suits had oxygen feeds directly, increasing concentration in the locality of the astronaut).

There is approximately the same amount of oxygen (in moles, amount of molecules) in a 1 ATM natural atmosphere as there is in a 5psi pure oxygen atmosphere. The concentrations were similar. However, on the ground, the concentration was very, very much higher.

This resulted in a very bad, quick fire. The overpressure meant that they had no chance of survival.

Simply, if this had happened in space, they would have had time to react and extinguish the fire before it reached such an extent. Granted, they would be slightly worse off if they had evacuated.

Re:Well..

[ckedge]

> 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..

[hughk]

NASA put out that they died from asphyxiation caused by inhaling combustion products. The astronauts' bodies had sustained thermal burns and it was not possible to say weather those burns happened before or after death.

I trained as a SCUBA diver - PADI advanced only but it means I had to learn something about breathing. You definitely use more air when making an effort than at rest. However, loss of air does not mean loss of consciousness even when you are swimming (been there, done that).

I don't know the plastics involved, but unless something was extremely toxic (i.e. giving off cyanide products) when burnt, at least two of the astronauts (judging from suit damage reports) probably received significant burns before they died.

You are partly right though in that if the oxygen level falls below a certain level, the partial pressure of the O2 in the haemoglobin is greater than that in the lungs and O2 is removed from the body. CO also preferentially binds to the haemoglobin in the presence of O2 thus reducing efficiency. However deaths from CO poisoning take over a minute.

Re:Well..

[gorilla]

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..

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that space suits also had some form of delivering air to people. How did they suffocate if they had their space suits on? Also, you are correct that the suits are designed with the ability to withstand great ammounts of heat and cold, but are they resistant to an open fire? I was also under the impression that space was a vaccum, and that open fires in vaccums are fairly rare (Enter the space suits delivering air). Thanks for educating me though!

Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[Guppy06]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention closely enough, but I don't recall seeing articles commemorating the deaths of cosmonauts on /.

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[El_Nofx]

That's because there have been over 200 some Russians killed in their space program. Having only had a handful of Americans killed is quite an accomplishement if you ask me. There are so many variables in those launches that it's amazing more people didn't die. It is still sad that they did though.

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because there have been over 200 some Russians killed in their space program. Having only had a handful of Americans killed is quite an accomplishement if you ask me. There are so many variables in those launches that it's amazing more people didn't die. It is still sad that they did though.


Yeah, more Russians died than Americans, nd their lives are worthless, so there's no reason to commemorate their death.

It's interesting to see that the original post was modded down as flamebait. Shows what a racist, asocial bunch of geeks the Slashdot readership is.

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[Guppy06]

"That's because there have been over 200 some Russians killed in their space program."

1.) Not all of those 200 Russians killed were cosmonauts. The vast majority of those deaths were ground crew killed in fuel-related explosions.

2.) Not all of those 200 were even working on the manned space program. The two accidents I can think of (1973 and 1980) weren't anywhere near Baikonur. Counting deaths at Plesetsk Cosmodrome would be like including deaths at Vandenberg AFB. (In fact, how did you arrive at 200, anyway?)

3.) Not all killed cosmonauts were Russian.

4.) Ten deaths are a tragedy, 200 are a statistic? Where have I heard that before?

"Having only had a handful of Americans killed is quite an accomplishement if you ask me."

Apollo 1 + STS-51L = 10
Soyuz 1 + Soyuz 11 = 4

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be consistent, you would half to elimate the Apollo 1 astronauts, as they designed on the ground. All the other astronauts died during their mission.

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[shogun]

Well 200 isn't a very far out figure to come to when for example the Nedelin Disastor alone killed 74 personnel. Though it wasn't really part of the space program, though it was definantly involving Russian rocktetry development.

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[metachimp]

Yeah, more Russians died than Americans, and their lives are worthless, so there's no reason to commemorate their death.

Well, yeah, they were Commies. Don't you know that absolutely *everything* to ever come out of the Soviet Union was immoral and wrong? Aren't you aware that recognizing any achievement that that the Soviets ever accomplished is anti-American and un-patriotic?

Re:Rosaviakosmos, anyone?

[gorilla]

It would be interesting to count the number of people killed in NASA facilities over the years. Any large facility dealing with dangerous substances and manufacturing will encounter accidents, it's unavoidable, though obviously everyone wants to minimize it.

Inanimate carbon rod!

[InterruptDescriptorT]

...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

[JabberWokky]

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

Re:A Tribute to the Pioneers

[McVeigh]

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."

Re:A Tribute to the Pioneers

[S-prime]

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

Al + O2 = fire

[sopwath]

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

[Farang]

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.

Re:Cause of the fire

[gilroy]

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. :(

Re:Cause of the fire

[DataSquid]

I'd always wondered if this was the case. My grandfather was a safety inspector for oil refineries, and visited NASA as part of his ongoing training. He said the biggest shame NASA had was that what caused the Apollo 1 fire was wire run through a doorway. It's one of those things you learn in school; never pull a plug by the cord, don't run wires under carpets, and don't run wires through doors.

Of course this was many years ago when he told me this and I've never heard anything similar to back it up until today. I'd have to go along with the previous poster on this thread and think it was the worn insulation in the wiring that caused ignition, not sparks from a breaker or switch (or whatever else they said was the cause). Of course it also makes more sense that the wear occurred at the hinge of the door, and not through it, as who would run wire through an airtight hatch, even if it is only temporary?

I was raised by my Grandfather, and have heard story after story of applied stupidity and unsafe cheapness. Usually it's at the expense of the safety of the refinery worker or environmental health, or even the corporation. But no matter how big or responsible the organization, unless you have a few straight arrows around with a thick skin and clear head problems will happen. I'm still undecided as to weather this disaster was an accident or the fault of someone who should have known better.

Re:Cause of the fire

[DerekLyons]

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.

doesn't this strike you as strange

[Ferro_Man]

Nasa's two disasters came on the 27th and 28th of January...

A moment of thanks and awe

[angry_clown_penis]

It's so nice to see /. giving space to this.
We get graced with so many great stories here (none of mine have NEVER been accepted! hee hee) regarding technology and not only about computers.

Technological growth is all exponential though. Now we realize all the great things that space exploration has contributed to, like Kevlar.

We probably don't think enough about how much our astronauts have contributed to the advancement of technology.

Then there's just the bravery of it all. Just think about what is actually happening: flying into space with a huge and very deadly rocket under your butt!

It's really amazing and back in the days of Apollo 1 it was all about doing what was so bleeding edge and untested.

It is such unexcelled bravery. It's mind boggling really. Into space and doing it with less computer power than a Commodore 64.

All the space pioneers were amazing and some of them gave all. God bless all of 'em, especially Apollo 1.

Leave it to the Americans ...

[SuperDuG]

... 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.

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[SuperDuG]

You just stay an anonymous coward ... coz that's what anit-americans are ... cowards!

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[SuperDuG]

Not american censorship, but more of an asshole block ... I can still read your stupid posts because I view at -1 ... so ... what else you got for me ... coz I got a one way plane ticket outta my country for ya ...

You should know better than to screw with a patriot ... I'm posting +2 because slashdot moderators feel I can be trusted with that (proof by their moderations ...)

What's next ... you pro communism?

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[jameslore]

Off topic I know, but I really feel the need to ask...what is it that winds up Americans so much re communism? Is it the devaluing of the individual?

And no, I'm not a socialist, before the flames start. Just interested.

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[SuperDuG]

The fact that everyone isn't equal and hard work = bigger rewards ... you can't get that in communism ...

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[Anonymous Coward]

never have a facist dictator ever lead us

what other country is set up so that their leader is guaranteed to sit in the pockets of big corps or industry groups?

dictators can be overthrown, but can industry greed?

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[metachimp]

I'll tell you. For years and years, most of the people in the US were instructed in the Godless evil that is Communism. They were told all kinds of things about how they don't have any freedom, and they hate us, and that given the chance, they would gladly invade us and make us all into Communists.

This shit stuck. Now we have a ton of people in this country who don't know the first thing about Communism talking about how it's so dehumanizing, etc.

Socialism and Communism are openly hostile to the Capitalist class ( Kenneth Lay would be one of those in that class, we'll use the worst examples), and since those are the folks calling the shots in this country, naturally, they didn't want any of those factory workers at Ford or coal miners or Boeing employees thinking that they should get a bigger slice of the pie.

The short answer to your question is that Americans (United States), have been conditioned to reject anything that has the "Red Label" on it, so to speak. Their rejection is a gut-level emotional response, and is rarely grounded in any level of understanding of Communism, Marxism or Marxist Socialism.

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yankees out of America

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Interesting deconstruction of imagined propaganda. Here's some reality.

Communism, regardless of its various labels and lofty discussions, is the deadliest thing that has ever happened in the history of humans. No idea, religion, social structure, warlord, or disease has ever come close to the colossal death and suffering caused by Communism.

Every implementation of Communism invariably degenerates into a small group of people (read - ruling class) utterly dominating a large group of people. The force required to maintain this pyramid is immense. So much so that even massive censorship and draconian laws are not enough to maintain it. Communism cannot exist without murder, and its adherents (for no lack of trying) seem incapable of killing enough people to make it work.

Your parallels of the kind of ruthless domination of which Communists are guilty to Ken Lay are entertaining, but I think the investigation will reveal that very little Enron stock was traded at the point of an AK-47. Your ability to overlook events such as Tiananmen square in your crusade to impune people like Ken Lay demonstrates the extent to which reason must be contorted for Communism to seem like a good idea.

As for the inevitable discussion of the theory behind Communism, the only way you'll be able to convince me of the value of its intentions is to separate me from my very capitalist ideas about looking at things in terms of their results.

Re:Leave it to the Americans ...

[Jebus_the_spork]

because americans are taught that we can work for what we want, its the "american way"..

and the idea of bustin your ass for the same thing that someone else does for easy work kidna gets to most americans. like your hard work doesnt benefit YOU, it benefits the lazy guy.

again, get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

close your pc, and go outside for a change, if you are so miserable that all you can type is nonsense, then its time to do somthing else for a while, really..

My Heros !

[beanerspace]

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 !

Re:My Heros !

[Milalwi]

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

Re:You're all wrong...

[lposeidon]

so where is this palce on earth that armstrong stepped foot on?!?!

Combustibles plus pure oxygen = disaster

[MtViewGuy]

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:Combustibles plus pure oxygen = disaster

[persist1]

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.

You mean, this cosmonaut?

Re:Combustibles plus pure oxygen = disaster

[vortexau]

BTW, can anyone who knows the equivalent situation with commercial airliners comment?

I seem to recall that their interiors Used (or still use) a lot of combustable materials.

From somewhere else, I got the impression that Aircrew have vastly more efficient emergency breathing apparatus, than that provided for the passengers.

Anyone able to comment on this?

.

Re:You're all wrong...

[J'raxis]

Well, of course the Americans didnt go to the moon! I mean, would you really go to the moon if you knew there were already Nazi moonbases up there!? I read it on the Intarweb too, so it must be true.

beauracracy, accident, choices

[starjax]

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.

Re:beauracracy, accident, choices

[Mr. N. Igma]

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.

Dark Forces Are At Work.

[fm6]

Yup, and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, yada yada. 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.

I feel a song coming on

[Anonymous Coward]

Standing there alone
The ship is waiting
All systems are go
"Are you sure?"
Control is not convinced
But the computer
Has the evidence
No need to abort
The countdown starts

Watching in a trance
The crew is certain
Nothing left to chance
All is working
Trying to relax
Up in the capsule
"Send me up a drink"
Jokes Major Tom
The count goes on

4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home

Second stage is cut
We're now in orbit
Stabilizers up
Running perfect
Starting to collect
Requested data
"What will it affect
When all is done?"
Thinks Major Tom

Back at ground control
There is a problem
"Go to rockets full"
Not resonding
"Hello Major Tom
Are you receiving?
Turn the thrusters on
We are standing by"
There's no reply

4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home

Across the stratosphere
A final message
"Give my wife my love"
Then nothing more

Far beneath the ship
The world is mourning
They don't realize
He's alive
No one understands
But Major Tom sees
"Now the light commands
This is my home,
I'm coming home."

4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home

There was no Apollo 1

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no officially designated Apollo 1. The first was Apollo 2 I believe.

Mod parent down, poster is obviously insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you delusional or what? Nazi moonbases? Are you mentally ill or what? Please seek professional help. Conspiracy theorists like you should be put up against a wall and shot.

Re:Mod parent down, poster is obviously insane

[J'raxis]

. . . Someone didnt get the joke.
*points and laughs*

My mistake, no Apollo 2 or 3, not 1

[Anonymous Coward]

from the NASA site:

"The missions of AS-201 and AS-202 with Apollo spacecraft aboard had been unofficially known as Apollo 1 and Apollo 2 missions (AS-203 carried only the aerodynamic nose cone). In the spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom, White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1, and said that the first Saturn V launch, scheduled for November 1967, would be known as Apollo 4. The eventual launch of AS-204 became known as the Apollo 5 mission (no missions or flights were ever designated Apollo 2 and 3). "

Rocket Men

[xxSOUL_EATERxx]

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 are now criss-crossed by highways, so the ethereal realm of the early astronauts is now a playground for billionaires.

Oh well, on to Mars, I suppose.

Re:Rocket Men

[Anonymous Coward]

whatthe hell is a humyn? is it like hummus? and if so why did they send a snack food into space?

It's huMAN get the MAN in there, I dont give a rats ass what the feminatzi's like it's the english language and it's human. MAN, get it MAN as in MANual, MANipulation, and woMAN.

someone please kill all the damned poloitically correct people!!!

sheesh.

Re:Rocket Men

[/dev/trash]

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

What the hell is a humyn?????

Re:Rocket Men

[Peyna]

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.

Re:Why don't we have an "Ask Slashdot" on the topi

[Lumpy]

This is in fact true. but nasa and the govt have a history in not choosing the best design, the safest or even something that has a working prototype. The replacement shuttle project was a prime example.. we have a VTOL self contained re-useable space vehicle designed, and was working (2 prototype flying around happily.) yet they chose a vaporware lift body design that relied on vaporware engines and vaproware designs. result? that project died (as expected) and we now dont have a replacement for a space vehicle that was designed in 1969.

commercilization of space is mankinds only hope... expecting a politician to do the right thing is the same as believing that they plan to keep those promises they made during an election year.

Humorless fool.

[dotderf]

Sarcasm.

Re:Humorless fool.

[Mr. N. Igma]

HAHAHA I you're right, they are humourless fools. And you call yourselves NERDS?!!! Being a nerd demands flawless use and understanding of sarcasm. *point and laugh*

Re:You're all wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something being on the internet doesn't make it true. However, being on the internet AND being in a Fox network special does.

Can someone answer this for me?

[Griim]

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?

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[margulies]

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...

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[Mhrmnhrm]

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.

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[Edgy Loner]

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.

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[waimate]

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.

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[Mr. N. Igma]

You are partly right. Breathing pure oxygen can cause death (in rats as far as I know). However, test rats only died from breathing pure oxygen after about 30 days. This is from the research done during the time of Apollo. As of current research, I'm not too sure.

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[metachimp]

A lot of sport divers (and commercial divers, too) now use a mixture called 'Nitrox', which allows divers to have longer bottom times (the time you spend under water). I believe it contains less nitrogen than normal compressed air.

When diving, the time you can spend underwater without having to stop at 10 feet to decompress is inversely proportional to the depth you go to.
Multiple dives add a degree of complexity to the equation. In the old days, we used to have to figure out our nitrogen using charts, but now there are computers that you take with you under water that track your bottom time, and depending on your surface interval (the time you spend on the surface after your dive), the maximum depth and time you can spend on your next dive, and how long you'll have to wait before you can fly. The idea is that you should never have to make a decompression stop.

Nitrogen Narcosis ( the rapture of the deep) can occur really at any depth, but going below 90 feet puts you at risk. It's a very dangerous condition, because you have a tendency to forget what you're doing and go deeper, or ditch your buddy to go play with the whales. It's only happened to me once, and it was at about 75 feet. Strangely, I've been deeper than that many times since, but have not experienced it other than that one time.

The bends is the other potentially life threatening condition, and it's been discussed already.

Despite these risks, diving is a great experience, and everyone should do it at least once in their lives. A lot of big resorts will take you diving without a cert, but it's very limited, and you might not get to see as much cool stuff, but breathing underwater is awesome.

Re:Can someone answer this for me?

[uspsguy]

In SCUBA class, I was taught that it is the partial pressure of oxygen that is the problem, not just pure oxygen. The safe limit for any exposure is 2 atmospheres. Normal air is about 1/5 O2 so you need 10 atm. of air to produce a partial pressure of O2 equal to 2 atm. This happens at about 400 feet under water. This is considered the safe limit for diving on air. Any deeper and a special mix is used with a reduced oxygen content. Hyperbaric chambers used to treat altitude sickness and a variety of other things face the same limit - less that 2 atm of O2. Pure O2 at .2 atm. gives you the smae effect as air at 1 atm. so this is why space capsules can use oxyben at low pressures.

OK, now I'm disturbed...

[Guppy06]

I make a one-line post about the apparent lack of attention to non-American deaths and I get smacked down as flamebait? I wasn't even intending to be flamebait!

THIS is flamebait:

If Apollo 11 can commemorate the deaths of Gagarin and Komarov alongside the friends they lost on Apollo 1, why can't I even reference Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 missions in passing on Slashdot?

Re:OK, now I'm disturbed...

[JoeRobe]

I'm really confused here. Guppy06 gets flamed for a serious, insightful post, then gets modded up to 2 for another post in which he says "THIS if flamebait" What the hell? Who is modding this?

I hope this post gets smacked as flamebait, because I sure as hell know it is.

I cannot belive the moderators

[isolation]

You guys are a fucking joke, this guy hit the nail on the head as far as the country goes and the methods we use to reach our goals.

More lessons from Apollo 1

[BTWR]

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.

Re:More lessons from Apollo 1

[ckedge]

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.

Re:More lessons from Apollo 1

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:More lessons from Apollo 1

[BTWR]

What a tactful response...
Anyway, I was an astronomy minor at an Ivy League university. I never brag about stuff like that, but it was you who called me a "schmuck like you." I wonder what community college you got your MS from, because 100% oxygen at 1/5 the pressure is still an entire oxygen environment. Regular pressure with 20% oxygen and 80% non-flammable gas IS still the same number of O2 molecules, but is NOT the same thing.
So you're basically saying that you'd rather be trapped in a bank vault with a PURE oxygen environment like Apollo 1's that I described than in a regular Earth-like air makeup of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen. Try lighting a match in a regular enclosed bank vault. It would light and be contained like any other Earth-match. Now, try lighting one in "your" bank vault choice...

Re:More lessons from Apollo 1

[bzbb]

The same thing would happen, due to Dalton's law of partial pressures. According to this law, one of the first, and most basic gas laws, the amount of pressure exerted by each gas in mixture is equal to the total pressure*% concentration of each gas.

Ptotal=Pgas1+Pgas2+Pgas3+...

The amount of oxygen in 101.3 Kpascals of Air (1 ATM) = (.21*101.3) which is 21.273 Kpascals. (.21 ATM)
Thus, the Apollo 1 at 16.7 PSI (115.08 Kpascals) had partial pressure of O2 the same as (115.08*1) =(Pair*.21), Pair being Pressure of air = 548.01 Kpascals(5.4 ATM), thus the capsule had the same amount of O2 as a capsule under 5.41 times atmospheric.

The partial pressure of N2 is of no matter, as it does not burn and the two bank vaults above are equivalent to each other.

Re:More lessons from Apollo 1

[ckedge]

Fair call Derek. I was being snippy about the door. I appologize (to whomever took offence).

As I was proofreading it at 12:30am I heard a little voice in my head saying "you're being a bit combative about that part, the new door *must* have weight more, etc etc", but I was too tired to listen to myself.

Thanks for the solid info!

Re:They died as Hero's

[JonWan]

The USA is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. It sponsored terrorist groups and dictators. The space program was worthless and used up resources that could have spent on better causes, like feeding the hungry. America sucks.

I have to agree with you that the USA has made a lot of bad choices in the last 200+ years, but compare the USA to any other country that has obtained world leader status and you will see that we're a lot better than "the lesser of two evils". That's why people will risk their lives in leaky boats and sealed cargo containers to get here. Yes I am an American and damn proud to be one. We make mistakes and do stupid things but that doesn't stop most of the rest of the world from wanting that visa.

And the space program is one of our finest acheivements.

Re:Why don't we have an "Ask Slashdot" on the topi

[Anonymous Coward]

commercilization of space is mankinds only hope...

Huh? So when Pepsi gets a logo lasered into the Moon we'll be saved? Who woulda' thunk...

AC

Re:They died as Hero's

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been trolled! You have lost! Have a nice day!

Seriously, does nobody here on Slashdot have a sense of humor?

The problem isn't always getting up there

[kaladorn]

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).

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[sconeu]

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.

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[Peyna]

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

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[GypC]

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.

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[kaladorn]

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.

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[GypC]

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(?)

Re:The problem isn't always getting up there

[kaladorn]

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! :)

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've listened to the recording of the astronauts as the accident happened. From the calm, usual NASA ho-hum tone of voices, they went to excited, then to panicked, then they started burning.

On the tape, you can hear them screaming as they burn alive. It's one of the most horrible sounds I've ever heard, bar none.

So, even if the official cause of death is asphixiation, don't get the idea that they quietly went to sleep as all the air got used up. The suits didn't withstand it, or weren't closed. It was an oxygen blast furnace.

Erik

Their deaths saved thousands more - and still do

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re: wrong

[Mr. N. Igma]

You are wrong. The mission was ORIGINALLY designated Apollo 204, but then NASA director Webb changed it to Apollo 1 due to a request from Grissom's wife. There's a bit of trivia for you.

FYI

[Guppy06]

When your karma gets above a certain point, you get a free +1 bonus to your posts. My karma hasn't been below 47 for about a year or so, so I have the bonus. The only reason this post is at 1 is becuase I turned off the +1 bonus for this post.

If you notice, my first post started at two and had to be modded down twice to get down to 0.

Gee.. thanks for the lesson.

[mindstrm]

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.

NO

[Mr. N. Igma]

No, cabin pressure was supposed to be at 5 psi in space. From the perspective of the dangers of a fire, it hardly makes a difference if it's 5 psi or 16.7 psi if the environment is PURE OXYGEN. Even 1960's most state-of-the-art fire-proof materials would burn at 5 psi in PURE OXYGEN.

US vs USSR Engineering Parable?

[Cheshire Cat]

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. :)

Re:US vs USSR Engineering Parable?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.snopes2.com/business/genius/spacepen.ht m

Re:US vs USSR Engineering Parable?

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be wrong, because they're the Commies and we're the land of the free. Check your sources.

Re:US vs USSR Engineering Parable?

[bzbb]

Right, and then the pencil shavings caused silicosis, and gave the cosmonauts lung disease.

Re:US vs USSR Engineering Parable?

[goon]

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 - 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

[jmichaelg]

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

It may be that the Apollo program has yielded a significant clue as to why we aren't all just a bunch of jellyfish.

Re:A little bit of knowledge gleaned from Apollo

[GigsVT]

I read your link, but I don't understand how another star could orbit our sun and us not notice it. The article mentions nothing of this proposed "microstar" either.

Did you just make that up or what?

Thank you, AC

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks! :)

Americans recovered faster

[MtViewGuy]

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.

Re:Americans recovered faster

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Americans recovered faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for the record, the soviets actually flew (unmanned) their "LK" lunar lander in earth orbit two or three times. Not that it really mattered, because of the other problems mentioned above.

If soyuz 1 had succeeded and fufilled it's planned mission (another soyuz launch and docking/crew transfer) the Soviets may have continued thier lunar program with some pretty risky and downright scary plans. The cosmonauts were probably lucky they only lost one guy.

So, like apollo 1, Soyuz 1 was a wakeup call for safety that was answered by the Soviets as well.

Re:Americans recovered faster

[DerekLyons]

Just for the record, the soviets actually flew (unmanned) their "LK" lunar lander in earth orbit two or three times. Not that it really mattered, because of the other problems mentioned above.

In 1970-71, far too late to effect events, and umanned to boot.

If soyuz 1 had succeeded and fufilled it's planned mission (another soyuz launch and docking/crew transfer) the Soviets may have continued thier lunar program with some pretty risky and downright scary plans.

Maybe, maybe not. The Soyuz was not their lunar spacecraft, Zond/LOK was, and it suffered extreme problems of it's own unrelated to those of Soyuz 1.

So, like apollo 1, Soyuz 1 was a wakeup call for safety that was answered by the Soviets as well.

True, but keep in mind that Soyuz was really unrelated to the Lunar program. Their manned lunar orbiter was a different program.

YES

[ipfwadm]

You're right, cabin pressure was supposed to be 5psi in space. But 5psi of oxygen in a 5psi environment behaves little or no differently than 5psi of oxygen in a 14.7psi environment. Of course the partial pressure of oxygen in air at 1atm is slightly less than 5psi, so the fire danger in the cabin at 5psi would be greater than in normal air. But it would still be FAR LESS than a pure oxygen environment at 16.7psi.

The Link

[kaladorn]

The article from Spider 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!)

Re:The Link

[Phurd Phlegm]

BTW, you'll notice I never mentioned who'd developed it.

Spooder Rubinstone (his gag about Proxmire's name was so funny I'll use it too) claims the pen was developed with NASA dollars and that it was used to fix "the ignition switch."

The ascent engine for the LM used hypergolic propellants. No ignition switch.

Spitter even signals that the whole story is bullshit in the first sentence where he claims it is "honest to God, a true story." As a semi-professional author, Spudster knows that the only time you say that is when you're signalling a fish story.

Re:Too Early - a goatse link

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I haven't seen that before, goatse.cx masquerading as slashdot.

Re: wrong

[ComputerSlicer23]

Hmmm, in the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon", they claimed that there mission was to be known as Apollo I, but was renamed to avoid having a failure associated with the first Apollo missions. The series was pretty serious about getting details right, and showing all the little aspects of the Space program that are less public. Not stating your incorrect, just that this was a different perspective.

Genuine Surprise that no-one's mentioned this book

[wpanderson]

Hmmm, no-one seems to have mentioned Andrew Chaikin's excellent Apollo resource A Man on the Moon - you can read the first few pages of the section on Apollo 1/AS201 using amazon's "Look Inside" feature. 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.

O2 burns?

[Easy2RememberNick]

OK it's late here, I have a cold and I want to sound profound but...
Oxygen combines with other elements and that's called oxidizing or really fast oxidizing is called burning. If you're in a room made of just metal while wearing a space suit that doesn't oxidize and you light a match the match will burn like crazy because of all the oxygen saturating it, and then it stops. You won't burn and the room won't explode because there's nothing else for the oxygen to combine with. Doesn't that sound right?
Was there enough wiring and other junk in the space capsule to sustain a fire that intense? I guess so from the result but it seems weird.

Re:O2 burns?

[ckedge]

With enough heat and oxygen, most stuff will burn. And yes, they had a lot of questionable junk, stuff that wouldn't burn if they had 4-5 psi oxygen, but that would burn with 17 psi oxygen. Things like that.

Here's a neat example: An oxy-acetalene torch burns through steel slabs.

You use the regular torch to heat up a spot on the metal to just about melting, then you blast it with oxygen. Because the metal is so hot and you're giving it so much pure oxygen, it burns, which creats a *ton* more heat, which heats up the nearby metal, which then burns with the oxygen you're feeding it, etc etc.

You have to keep the oxygen jet moving at just the right speed in order to continue the reaction.

Here is a cool reference.

And this "thermic lance" used to burn through 6 feet of concrete, wow, I'd never seen that before!

.

Microsoft to the rescue

[Tablizer]

(* ...were unable to convince the people at NASA through a series of confusing charts and misinformation.*)

I sense a great angle here for a PowerPoint ad.

"....if they had just used PowerPoint..."

if nerds in charge....

[Tablizer]

(* The only problem with complaining about the beauracracy is how do have a moon shot without one? *)

I don't know why they gave you a zero. That is a good point.

I don't know of any large successful project where the nerds had most of the control. There are successful experiments by nerds, but the jillions of failures before it never make the history books.

I don't like PHB's and Buroheads either, but what the fudge are the proven alternatives?

A sick feeling I had in 1967

[CactusCritter]

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.

asphixiated?

[Carbon Unit 549]

Asphixiated? More like incinerated. Pure oxyigen will cause most anything to burn completely and pictures of the capsule showed only ashes left of the interior.

Saturn V review

[Performer Guy]

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.

Re:Their deaths saved thousands more - and still d

[alcmena]

Here is a quick link to one of NASA's sites that talks about some of their product spinoffs. Not a lot of details, but interesting.

Enclosed Suit enviroment?

[vortexau]

I don't know for certain, but didn't Mercury, Gemani, and Apollo astronauts stay sealed in their suits?

Thus, what they were breathing may not have been the same as the capsule atmosphere.

The Space Shuttle is a differant shirt-sleeves enviroment.

.

"asphyxiated," not "asphixiated"

[pturley]

EOM

Lack of Imagination

[PondScum]

I'm reminded of the "From the Earth to the Moon" documentary put out by HBO. In testimony to the Senate regarding the accident, an astronaut (I can't remember the name off the top of my head) was asked to explain what killed the astronauts in Apollo 1.

His response was basically "Lack of Imagination". His claim was that no one imagined that the type of test that was occuring was actually dangerous.

It is always easy to sit here with the perspective of history and blame all sorts of people. The fact is that in the case of Apollo 1, with no intention of firing off the main rockets, it simply did not occur to ANYONE that there was serious danger.

Also read Feynman's account

[devphil]

The book What Do You Care What Other People Think? (at least I think that's the title) has an autobiographical account of Richard Feynman's experiences on the investigative team of the Challenger disaster. (This would be the guy who dipped pieces of O-ring plastic into his glass of ice water at a news conference to demonstrate the problem.)

I highly recommend reading it.

Re:Their deaths saved thousands more - and still d

[fishbowl]

>So they commissioned research to do so.
>And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector.

Today the research would have to be kept secret,
until it was patented. The patent royalties would
have to be high enough that nobody could make a
household smoke detector to be sold at a consumer
price level.

It was really Apollo 204

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this at a nasa site.

The mission, originally designated Apollo 204 but commonly referred to as Apollo 1, was officially assigned the name "Apollo 1" in
honor of Grissom, White, and Chaffee.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apoll o1 info.html

Metamoderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, for what its worth, i metamoded as "unfair" the guy who modded you down as a troll. Just so you know. :)