21–30 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, Wikipedia says there was no Batman episode broadcast that night [0]. I don't believe it! [edit:] Well, maybe it was "Time Tunnel" -- my other favorite show of that era. It was on that night [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman_(TV_series)_epi... [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0723777/
It's fascinating that you can just look up what was on TV 50 years ago, without having to go into ancient archives of a TV station somewhere.
Frank Borman, in his testimony before congress, referred to the accident being due to a failure of imagination. In searching for his full testimony, I found this: "Apollo 1-Challenger-Columbia Lessons Learned" - https://nsc.nasa.gov/sfcs/systemfailurecasestudyfile/downloa... I also found transcripts of his testimony, but they aren't searchable - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/inv.html (I'll have…
Chaikin is terrific on the astronauts. Kranz is staring at me from my bookshelf, but I've not yet opted to read him. Let me add 'Apollo' by Murray and Cox to your list. It's focused on the Apollo engineers and managers, including great discussions of how they re-engineered things after Apollo 1, and of the behind-the-scenes work on Apollo 13, as well as many other elements.
> The risk, of course, is that pure oxygen under high pressure requires but a spark to ignite and rapidly burn. Frustrating to see even a technically-oriented publication report that oxygen burns.
Frank Borman, in his testimony before congress, referred to the accident being due to a failure of imagination. In searching for his full testimony, I found this: "Apollo 1-Challenger-Columbia Lessons Learned" - https://nsc.nasa.gov/sfcs/systemfailurecasestudyfile/downloa... I also found transcripts of his testimony, but they aren't searchable - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/inv.html (I'll have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or is the problem that each incoming administration wants to rejigger the programs? If each president (thinking about Bush and Obama) would just hand the scientists and engineers a few billion dollars and tell them "go do something that'll make America proud," we'd have something to be proud of by now.
We'd still need someone to provide a singular vision and focus. Human nature says you can't just throw money at a group of people and expect that to happen on its own.
On the evening of that day in 1967 I was a nine year old space junkie watching Batman -- a phenomenally popular TV show in my demographic -- when ABC interrupted the show with a bulletin that "one astronaut had died on the pad" at Cape Kennedy. No other explanation was provided. I was mystified. I knew there was no launch that day. Our astronauts just didn't die on the pad, and why only one? Before I could figure it…
Hmm, Wikipedia says there was no Batman episode broadcast that night [0]. I don't believe it! [edit:] Well, maybe it was "Time Tunnel" -- my other favorite show of that era. It was on that night [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman_(TV_series)_epi... [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0723777/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, Wikipedia says there was no Batman episode broadcast that night [0]. I don't believe it! [edit:] Well, maybe it was "Time Tunnel" -- my other favorite show of that era. It was on that night [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman_(TV_series)_epi... [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0723777/
Unless I'm missing something... it says "Penguin Is a Girl's Best Friend" aired on January 26th, 1967, which is the date of the accident according to the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or is the problem that each incoming administration wants to rejigger the programs? If each president (thinking about Bush and Obama) would just hand the scientists and engineers a few billion dollars and tell them "go do something that'll make America proud," we'd have something to be proud of by now.
We'd still need someone to provide a singular vision and focus. Human nature says you can't just throw money at a group of people and expect that to happen on its own.
"Why Did NASA Still Use Pure Oxygen After the Apollo 1 Fire?" http://www.popsci.com/why-did-nasa-still-use-pure-oxygen-aft...
(Warning: Horrible crap foisted on you via Javascript if you have that enabled.)
tl;dr:
1. Designed Apollo to used a mixed gas (nitrogen/oxygen) atmosphere.
2. Needed weight savings. Mixed gas requires complicated, heavier, support.
3. NASA changed to pure oxygen over the objection of the North American Aviation engineers.
Justification:
a. Pure oxygen was used in the past with no disasters.
b. The pressure in orbit was 5psi. At 5psi, fires are controllable.
4. Launch pad test with a closed hatch required atmospheric pressure + 5psi to get the differential pressure of space.
5. Spark + high pressure oxygen + fuel = disaster.
Added: There were a lot more contributing factors such as the schedule pressure (wiring issues probably caused the spark) and the lack of explosive bolts on the hatch which prevented the astronauts from escaping quickly.
Bonus tl;dr on the resolution:
They pressurized the capsule with nitrogen/oxygen on the pad, so it was safe (other than being on top of a massive bomb). As the capsule ascended, they bled off the nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere to maintain the 5psi differential pressure (the astronauts were breathing oxygen via their space suits so it did not matter to them). Once they were in space, the atmosphere was maintained with pure oxygen at +5psi.