Best Guess - Historical Question

[gofortli]

I think about this from time to time. Maybe somebody has some data:<br /><br />If "the accident" on Apollo 1 not happened, and assuming it flew a successful mission, when do you think we would have attempted the lunar landing?<br /><br />My best guess (based on much study and reading) is still sometime in 1969, maybe late '68. My reason for this is that we would have taken our "safe path" and had several Earth orbit test missions and more Lunar orbit missions that would have dragged out the project.<br /><br />p.s. Was anybody here around in NASA at that time (1967?). Was morale really totally low after the accident? <br /><br />Also, do you think that Apollos 18, 19, and 20 would have been still cut due to budget slashing?<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />-dk-

 

[drwayne]

I suspect that things would not have changed a lot. The LEM still had a lot of problems, and they took a lot of time to sort out.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

The spacecraft was a fire trap before the fire. If the fire had happened after the TLI burn to the moon the spacecraft may just have simply gone silent and we would could never figure out what happened. That would have been very bad. Of course a few seconds of telemetry might have helped point to the cause of the failure. Also a fire at the normal 5.5 psia cabin pressure with pure oxygen was not as dangerous as pure oxygen at 14.7 psi on the pad.<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but the partial pressure of O2 at 5.5 psi is about the same as it is in normal atmosphere at 14 psi. So a cabin fire in space--still a very, very bad thing!--would have burned at about the same intensity it would in a cabin with normal atmosphere. In other words not nearly as intensely or as quickly as it did in the (very ill concieved) Apollo 1 test.<br /><br />Also I thought that the block 1 Apollo CMs were never intended to go to the moon. If the Apollo 1 accident didn't happen wouldn't the block 1 capsules have been used just for manned orbital test? After the accident NASA decided to wait for the block 2s before doing any further manned tests--or at least that was my understanding. <br /><br />After thinking about it I now realize that most of the fire prevention modifications on the block 2s were a direct result of the Apollo 1 fire so if it never happened even the block 2s going to the moon would have had most of the same fire hazards.

 

[drwayne]

I think I answered a different question than you guys.<br /><br />I was using as my gedanken premise the fact that the fire did not happen because in that universe, the CM did not have the issues that led to our fire.<br /><br />What I was pointing out was that the long pole in the tent was LEM development. Remember, the LEM was not ready in time for Apollo 8. It had its own quality and weight issues that had to be worked through.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Actually,<br /><br />The partial pressure of Oxygen isn't the only factor in how fast a fire spreads.<br /><br />The presence of nitrogen tends to slightly inhibit combustion.

 

[trailrider]

Ironically, and forgotten by most people, was that the Columbia astronauts conducted flame propagation experiments on-orbit prior to their tragic return. About 90% of the experiments were successfully conducted, and the data, including video down-linked during the fiight. One of the things being tested was the optimum droplet size for extinguishing fires, both in zero-g and on Earth. The results are directly applicable to Earth-base sprinkler systems!<br /><br />I don't have a link to it, but I recall that the experiment was conducted by Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO. The reason for conducting the experiments in micro-gravity was to avoid convection effects on the flame front. Really provided some useful data.<br /><br />Godspeed, Columbia!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[sorehed]

Wasn't there a fire onboard Salyut back in the early seventies? What, if anything, did they learn about flames in that incident?

 

[sorehed]

I found a short reference to the Salyut fire. You're right, it was mostly smoke but no observed flames. Still scary I imagine. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As Kamanin is on the way to the airport, a serious situation develops aboard the station. At 13:00 the cosmonauts report a strong burning smell, and smoke in the station. The crew evacuates the station and retreat to the Soyuz lifeboat. Forty minutes later, just as Kamanin is boarding the Tu-104, Shatalov reports that the mission will continue, but the situation aboard the station is not comfortable. The crew has turned off the primary oxygen regenerator and exchanged the filters of the oxygen supply and reserve regenerator. At 14:05 Kamanin finally boards the aircraft, which takes off and sets course for the Crimea. At 14:30 they are ordered to turn around and land at Chkalovksy Airfield outside Moscow. The whole thing turns out to be a banal mistake by one of the officers at an air traffic control station! They lose two hours in the process. No information is available when the Tu-104 finally lands at Saki, since Nikolayev and the other cosmonauts who attended the emergency meetings had taken off to return to Moscow three hours earlier. Kamanin finally arrives at Yevpatoriya at 23:00, in time for a comms session with Dobrovolsky and Patsayev (Volkov is sleeping). The Soyuz 11 crew reports that the training suits are very tiring. Dobrovolsky reports all is now normal otherwise. He requests permission to continue the flight. Bykovsky reports that the situation on the station is now stable. There is no more smoke or burning smell, but the crew has been overloaded in the last six hours. They have done a lot of work with no food or rest. The situation was so bad at one point that preparations had been made for undocking the Soyuz for an emergency return to earth.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.astronautix.com/chrono</safety_wrapper

 

[nolirogari]

This is an easy one to answer and the answer is LEM. There was NO WAY that the LEM could have been made ready to fly sooner than it was. Read Tom Kelly's book "Moon Lander." He was The Man on the LEM project and all the fire really did was buy those folks time. The early LEMs were shipped un-finished to the Cape as it was (In fact so were the Block I CMs). After the fire- work on LEM development simply continued on at the same maximum pace.

 

[drwayne]

Wow! Somebody agreed with me! Its time for a nap!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nolirogari]

"If "the accident" on Apollo 1 not happened, and assuming it flew a successful mission, when do you think we would have attempted the lunar landing? "<br /><br />Don't know about anyone else, but I was answering this one.<br /><br />

 

[nolirogari]

You were just the last message in the thread- I use other forums and that's how ya' answer- My fault shuttle_guy. I know full well that YOU need none of that Apollo stuff explained to you. Heck, you were there working on Apollo 14 just 4 short years after the fire. I was then in the 7th grade busy counting the days between Apollo 14 and 15. You've probably forgotten more about Apollo than I'll ever know. Of course I've forgotten most of what I know... what was it we were talking about?... I think I forgot...