No Apollo-1 disaster

[Thande]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo-1

What if there had been no fire, and the Apollo-1 mission had proceeded as planned? How much sooner would an American moon landing have been - or conversely, without the safety redesigns after the fire, would there have been an in-flight disaster on an actual Moon mission (of course, the latter happened OTL with Apollo-13, but you know what I mean)?

[BurningWickerman]

There is another disaster at some junction much more crucial in the project. The later on; the more public and catastrophic.

[talonbear01]

IF the Apollo 1 disaster hadn't happened??
To start, The Apollo block1 spacecraft was almost set up to fail. Prior to the incident, many expects had warned Nasa of the dangers of having a 100% oxygen atmosphere in the spacecraft.
taken from the Apollo 1 website...


Dr. Emmanuel Roth of the Loveface Foundation for Medical Education and Research, for instance, prepared for NASA in 1964 a four-part series on "The Selection of Space-Cabin Atmospheres." He surveyed and summarized all the literature available at the time. He warned that combustible items, including natural fabrics and most synthetics, would burn violently in the pure oxygen atmosphere of the command module. Even allegedly flame-proof materials would burn. He warned against the use of combustibles in the vehicle.2
In 1964 Dr. Frank J. Hendel, a staff scientist with Apollo Space Sciences and Systems at North American and the author of numerous articles and a textbook, contributed an article on "Gaseous Environment during Space Missions" to the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, a publication of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. "Pure oxygen at five pounds per square inch of pressure," he wrote, "presents a fire hazard which is especially great on the launching pad. . . . Even a small fire creates toxic products of combustion; no fire-fighting methods have yet been developed that can cope with a fire in pure oxygen."3

After the fire, the investigation found a number of troubling things, including flamable materials used in the craft and over 1400 wiring problems that were eventually corrected. Given the number of issues that the investigation found, the simple fact is that something would have happened to one of the future Apollo spacecraft.
One of the improvement made to the Apollo's wiring was the addtion of piping and extra insulation. During the Apollo 13 flight, after the command module had lost power, there was a heavy build up of condensation. This condensation did not short out any of the ship's wiring or electronics. Experts have said that this was due to the heavy amount of insulation around the wiring..... which was added as a direct result of the Apollo 1 fire. That being said, Apollo13 could easily have been lost due to a short in the electrical system caused by the heavy condensation build-up.
Another serious problem for Nasa could have been if a fire had happened during flight. If an Apollo were lost in flight, there would be no way to have conducted a serious investigation in to the cause. With Apollo1, the ship was on the ground and could be combed over until the cause was found or at least narrowed down. If no real investigation could be contucted, then Nasa may have continued to fly the unsafe Apollo capsules.... which may have resulted in a second or third disaster.
The the OTL, the nation and Nasa were to determined to reach the moon to let the disaster stop the program. But the loss of 2 or more spacecraft could have ended the program with only one or 2 landing, that is if we made it there at all.
As far as timing goes..... Nasa was determined to land on the moon before the Kennedy timeline of 1970. The Apollo1 fire did delay things, however Nasa made up for lost time by replanning the schedule. Chances are that if the Apollo1 fire had not have happened, Nasa would still have gone for the moon roughly around the same time as it did.... mid 1969. Even if the first moon landing had occured a few months earlier, then there really wouldn't be any lasting effect on history. Although it was a major step in human history, july 1969 or january 1969.... it wouldn't have made that big a difference.

Just my opinion... I'd love to hear more on this one.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by BurningWickerman

There is another disaster at some junction much more crucial in the project. The later on; the more public and catastrophic.

I agree. If the later Apollo missions had not been scrapped, it is very lightly that astronauts would have been killed on the Moon. There was a programme recently that showed just how "cowboyish" the first Moon landing was. If it were planned the same way today it would be stopped on safety grounds.

No disrespect intended to NASA. It was a great achievement but the risks involved were tremendous.

[Beowulf2005]

Okay, then let's assume that they figure out the risks of an all-oxygen atmosphere before Apollo I.

[talonbear01]

Originally Posted by Beowulf2005

Okay, then let's assume that they figure out the risks of an all-oxygen atmosphere before Apollo I.

Dispite the risk of an all oxygen atmosphere in the spacecraft, Nasa did continue to do it, although during liftoff and the early part of the flight, it was an oxygen-nitrogen mix, later in teh flights, the oxygen level was increased until it did become 100%.

Luckily, the wiring troubles were well taken care of.... still, one has to wonder.

[alt_historian]

Instead, I shall bump it.
Bump.

Specifically, I have to wonder if the lack of a fire would have made a later disaster more - well - disastrous, in terms of the effect on the public perception of NASA and the Moon programme.

Also, can anyone see any reason, without such an emphatic wake-up call to the people in charge that their new space capsule was unsafe, why the design might have been changed anyway? Would the kind of concerns explained in talonbear01s post simply have been brushed under the table? Maybe an attitude of "Well, we have our new capsule, it seems to work OK. Lets go to the Moon!"

[Fearless Leader]

If I remember correctly, the Apollo 1 disaster didn't really affect things all to much. NASA was forced to accellerate it's schedule to get a man on the moon by 1969. So we probably see a few more Apollo missions prior to them actually landing on the moon, but nothing much changes.

[Michel Van]

What if there had been no fire, and the Apollo-1 mission had proceeded as planned?

first
Mission AS-204 hat Flown as Apollo 4
but no successfull one !

the CSM-012 hab many constructional defect
forgotten tools inside the CM
Defect in Cooling system and Lifesurport

I demand of Apollo 4 was able (if Flown) to Return Save to Earth

that delay the Apollo program "to get bugs out"

Two
a other major Delay in Apollo Program was the Lunar Modul
only beginn 1969 was first manned Test for LM-3 !!!

Three
the Mayor Difference is
Virgil Grissom on the Moon !

NASA had give the Mercury Astronaut a Chance to Land as First men on the Moon !
that was 1961 in 1969 thing look differned

Alan B. Shepard, Inner ear problem no fly status
Virgil I. Grissom, Death in AS-204
John H. Glenn, No fly Status by order of President (to Important Hero of US)
Malcolm Scott Carpenter, Quit NASA 1964 for Ocean research
Walter M. Schirra, Quit 1968 at NASA after Apollo 7 Mission
Donald K. Slayton, No fly Status do heart problems (idiopathic atrial fibrillation).
Leroy Gordon Cooper, do a falling-out with NASA management put to Apollo Backup Crew (he retired from NASA 1970)

only Mercury Astronaut Alan B. Shepard land on Moon 1971
but with Virgil I. Grissom alive is Possible, he say july 1969 "This is small step for a Men...."

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I agree. If the later Apollo missions had not been scrapped, it is very lightly that astronauts would have been killed on the Moon. There was a programme recently that showed just how "cowboyish" the first Moon landing was. If it were planned the same way today it would be stopped on safety grounds.

Very possible. In fact an aborted landing on the first attempt was expected. The reason that it didn't happen was beacuse Neil Armstrong was just that good. The reason way they overshot their landing area, however, was not because of a cowboy mentality but because there were still very tiny trace amounts atmosphere in the tunnel that connected Columbia and Eagle. When Eagle undocked from Columbia the escaping gases provided an extra push and as a result Eagle landed farther down range than had been expected.

EDIT: If you want to have a Mercury astronaut make the first moon landing, the best bets are Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter, however, for either on to still be on the flight list you have butterfly away Deke's heart condition or you have to have Carpenter actually fly his Mercury mission correctly.According his own book Chris Kraft was so furious with Carpenter for screwing up his mission that he actively blocked any attempts to put Carpenter back into the flight rotation.

[Georgius]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

EDIT: If you want to have a Mercury astronaut make the first moon landing, the best bets are Deke Slayton and Scott Carpenter, however, for either on to still be on the flight list you have butterfly away Deke's heart condition or you have to have Carpenter actually fly his Mercury mission correctly.According his own book Chris Kraft was so furious with Carpenter for screwing up his mission that he actively blocked any attempts to put Carpenter back into the flight rotation.

According to the Wikipedia article on Gus Grissom:

NASA management wanted one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts to be the first man to eventually walk on the moon. Had Grissom lived, he would very likely have been that man. Deke Slayton makes it clear in his 1994 autobiography "Deke!" that he wanted one of the original Mercury astronauts to take the first step on to the moon and "Had Gus been alive, as a Mercury astronaut he would have taken the step". Slayton also wrote, "My first choice would have been Gus, which both Chris Kraft and Bob Gilruth seconded."

[NHBL]

One option to get interesting changes would be to have the fire take place just as the astronauts were boarding, so their suits protect them just long enough to get out.

So they have had the same major fire, with the same lessons, but without the deaths..what does this delta create?

[Max Sinister]

Seems it would be better in every way: No people died, but NASA will try to do better the next time.

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by NHBL

One option to get interesting changes would be to have the fire take place just as the astronauts were boarding, so their suits protect them just long enough to get out.

So they have had the same major fire, with the same lessons, but without the deaths..what does this delta create?

Given the above, I think it would get us Gus Grissom on the Moon!

[hammo1j]

Originally Posted by talonbear01

Dispite the risk of an all oxygen atmosphere in the spacecraft, Nasa did continue to do it, although during liftoff and the early part of the flight, it was an oxygen-nitrogen mix, later in teh flights, the oxygen level was increased until it did become 100%.

Luckily, the wiring troubles were well taken care of.... still, one has to wonder.

I can't see a reason why you would want a pure oxygen mix. What benefits does it impart? I can't see how the original reasoning would have worked.

There's all those experiments you do in basic chemistry with steel wool burning in pure oxygen.

Could anyone explain?

[Douglas]

Same principle as "the bends" that divers get.

Nitrogen forms bubbles in human blood at low pressure. Bubbles in the bloodstream = bad.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by NHBL

One option to get interesting changes would be to have the fire take place just as the astronauts were boarding, so their suits protect them just long enough to get out.

So they have had the same major fire, with the same lessons, but without the deaths..what does this delta create?

How about this then, a couple of days before the fire, Deke, the crew and some of the pad techs were tossing around the idea of having a fourth person in the spacecraft for the test. Grissom, White and Chaffe had been complaining of ratty comm between the spacecraft and launch control and the ground technicians were having a hard time pinpointing the problem. They decided against it, however, because it was impossible to patch an extrat headset into the spacecraft's comm system and would have meant running a seperate line through the open hatch. This would hve defeated the purpoe of the plugs-out test, however, and Deke decided not to proceed with the plan.

[Mysterion]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

first
Three
the Mayor Difference is
Virgil Grissom on the Moon !

Well, I had just turned seven when Grissom and Lovell landed the Apollo 8 LM on the monn's surface that bright Christmas Day of 1968. And, after such a rough year as '68 had been, it was the best gift we possibly could have gotten that day. And, the joy on JFK's face as his talked to Gus from the Oval Office...I mean seeing his dream finally realized with less than a month left in office! Especially after the loss of his wife in Dallas back in '63, and the assasination of RFK running to take over from his brother in June of '68... emotionally I think the only person who came anywhere close was Cronkite during the TV coverage. It was truly the best Christmas of my childhood, and a great day to be an American.