Slashdot Mirror


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.

30 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. The hatches by MoonFacedAssassin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am a meat popsicle.
    1. Re:The hatches by s20451 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  2. Incompetence by archnerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Incompetence by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Incompetence by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:Incompetence by jnik · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Incompetence by kaybi · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

  3. a sad day to remember by marktwain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:a sad day to remember by Silver222 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
    2. Re:a sad day to remember by gilroy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

  4. Re:Well.. by zer0vector · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    ----
    Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
  5. A Tribute to the Pioneers by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    1. Re:A Tribute to the Pioneers by McVeigh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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."

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
  6. Cause of the fire by Farang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Leave it to the Americans ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 3, Redundant
    ... 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.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  8. My Heros ! by beanerspace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 !

  9. Re:Well.. by Pedrito · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Combustibles plus pure oxygen = disaster by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. beauracracy, accident, choices by starjax · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Well.. by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  13. The problem isn't always getting up there by kaladorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    1. Re:The problem isn't always getting up there by GypC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The problem isn't always getting up there by kaladorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  14. Their deaths saved thousands more - and still do by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  15. Re:Can someone answer this for me? by Edgy+Loner · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. US vs USSR Engineering Parable? by Cheshire+Cat · · Score: 3, Funny

    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. :)

    --

    Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
  17. A little bit of knowledge gleaned from Apollo by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Americans recovered faster by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  19. The Link by kaladorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!)

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  20. Re:Their deaths saved thousands more - and still d by alcmena · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.