The hell of Apollo 1: Pure oxygen, a single spark, and death in 17 seconds

[SteveH]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/the-hell-of-apollo-1-pure-oxygen-a-single-spark-and-death-in-17-seconds/


As a backup crew member for the initial Apollo mission, Cunningham recalled clambering into the first Apollo capsule on Jan. 26, 1967 for some pre-flight work. All had gone well, and no one thought the next day’s test, when the capsule would rely on its own internal power for the first time, would prove fatal. “We always expected that we’d lose at least one mission before we landed on the Moon, because of how far we were reaching out,” he said. “But we didn’t expect it to be on the ground.”

Hard to not forget this one also.

[dando]

Before my time, but a sad day....not to mention Neil Armstrong having to bail from lunar lander testing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBlNfFcV6ns

:eek:

[Elmo T]

Later, physicians concluded the crew died from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases from the fire. They almost certainly had gone unconscious before dying.

They burned to death. :rolleyes::(

Being in the risk management and fire prevention world, I found the comments on risk aversion interesting.


Armstrong would reflect on what it took to reach the Moon. “The rate of progress is proportional to the risk encountered,” he said. “The public at large may well be more risk averse than the individuals in our business, but to limit the progress in the name of eliminating risk is no virtue.”

Follows a comment I heard from my uncle who retired from Boeing a few years back. He was an Executive VP and worked in space and missile areas. He would always say that NASA's current risk aversion means we will never make the progress that we did during Apollo. It wasn't about the space race or Russia. It was about being willing to take risk for great progress.

[Gnam]

The value of human life is not constant, but it is measured in dollars. Right now, it's not worth it to kill an astronaut.

If manned space flight is ever again seen as a necessity, then the definition of acceptable losses will change to include dead astronauts.

[SteveH]

I don't know if manned space flight will ever again be seen as a necessity. With the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence a human is no longer required to pilot a spacecraft. I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers but it would be difficult to justify the risk when a machine can do as well. There is the human factor of saying we sat foot on Mars but other than physically being there, there will be little difference if it is human or machine.

[Insomniac]

Follows a comment I heard from my uncle who retired from Boeing a few years back. He was an Executive VP and worked in space and missile areas. He would always say that NASA's current risk aversion means we will never make the progress that we did during Apollo. It wasn't about the space race or Russia. It was about being willing to take risk for great progress.

I don't think NASA is risk adverse. I think it's more driven by political decisions and funding. They'd love to have the ability to explore and advance science and understanding even further.

[dando]

Apollo 1 hatch on display at KSC.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/26/511660847/on-50th-anniversary-nasa-creates-tribute-to-apollo-1-astronauts

:cry: