This is bull ****

[ascan1984]

Apollo 1 - mission to earth orbit<br />STS 51L - Depoy two satelites<br />STS 107 earth orbit science mission<br /><br />Why did they all die as they did. They should have never died but even idf they did ithey should have gone for the moon or mars, not earth orbit. NASA needs to take risks. not un dew risks but risks such as Apollo 8. Everyone says they died to help exploration but they did not. We have wasted our last twenty years. We are taking steps back. I believe spaceflight should be 100 times safer but still take risks. Why arent we?

 

[drwayne]

" Everyone says they died to help exploration but they did not. "<br /><br />How do you figure Apollo 1, supposed to be the first flight of a brand new craft was not a risky flight, desgined to support exploration. <br /><br />Apollo 7 and even more so Apollo 9 were as risky or riskier than 8.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[davp99]

Easy now, Apollo 1 Actually Saved other Astronaut Lifes, imagine a fire on the way to the moon instead... the 100% Oxygen atmosphere was a Bad Idea.<br />Gus and his crew Died to make Future Space Travel a lot Safer..RIP <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Not to mention the poor quality of that initial CM. They made them straighten up their act on doing things the right way.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br />p.s. I know I have been involved in disucssions in that last couple of months on how ambitious Apollo 9 was. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"We have wasted our last twenty years. We are taking steps back."<br /><br />I agree with the first part (make that 30 years) but strongly disagree with the latter: With Griffin at the helm and the VSE NASA is on the right path again.

 

[drwayne]

That would be an interesting interview question - would you approve a mission that ...<br /><br />I have to tell you, I would certainly not have the brass for it. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Was there an option? If NASA wanted the moon it had to be done.

 

[drwayne]

I can't help it, I am a risk averse old fart. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I have wondered whether I would have balanced the risk for 9 and 10 a little different.<br /><br />There was some discussion at the time of not doing 10 the way they did and doing a landing on 10, but were more conservative.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

I think you could have gotten Apollo 9 approved today. It had a <b>lot</b> of firsts, but most of them were recoverable if something went wrong. The only possible failure that would be real scary would be if the descent or ascent engine stuck on.<p>Apollo 8, on the other hand, that took guts.</p>

 

[najab]

><i>There was some discussion at the time of not doing 10 the way they did and doing a landing on 10...</i><p>In the end, Grumman had the last word though. The delays in getting LM-3 ready meant that the LM for Apollo 10 wasn't capable of making a landing - well, it could have landed, but it couldn't make orbit again. If Stafford and Cernan had "aborted to the surface" they would have been stuck there.</p>

 

[drwayne]

"Apollo 8, on the other hand, that took guts."<br /><br />Out of curiosity, what do you see as a failure mode of concern? (apriori). Once the TLI burn was performed, they were pretty much on a free return trajectory were they not?<br /><br />You know me, I am not meaning to argue with you, we just discussin'<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

why would the LM not have been able to regain orbit?

 

[drwayne]

Not enough fuel.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

ok, that just seems weird ... even if the plan was not for a landing ... considering that they *were* planning a partial descent .... why not fill the tank, so to speak?

 

[najab]

Yes, but once they were in orbit, they were entirely dependant on the SPS. True, that was the case with every lunar Orbital mission, but it took guts to do it first.

 

[georgeniebling]

sorry, SPS?<br /><br />and yes, going first *was* brave but still to go into it *knowing* you didn't have the fuel if something happened ... seems almost ... I don't even know the word for it ....<br /><br />there is a difference between the "well, sometimes stuff happens" alot of us around here to with our willingness to ride Shuttle and knowingly going in with a partly fueled (but theoretically capable) system.

 

[quasar2]

we had a thread/pre-crash about an "ambulance" rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

quasar ... care to summarize?

 

[najab]

Oh, it wasn't an option. The LM simply weighed too much to land.

 

[drwayne]

True, they were relying on the service module firing to get out of lunar orbit. I may have taken that as more of a given than I should have because it had fired before...<br /><br />I guess what worried my was the chance that the SIVB would do something weird, and put things in a bad/undercoverable situation. The SIVB had thrown a curve or two in testing, nothing catastrophic, but it was on my mind. (Or my late fathers as he talked to me )<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

if i`m not mistaken an atlas w/ minimal crew was mentioned on the thread. this was to be ready for space emergencies. i think it was decided the cost was too much for this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

wasn't there also at some point in Apollo a plan to equip a CM with three extra seats and launch it with a crew of two as an emergency crew return effort?

 

[drwayne]

A kit was developed that would allow extra seating for astronauts underneath the existing couches. In this arrangement, the springs that were on the existing couches were locked. (They hardly moved at spalashdown anyway)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

Yes, but that was for returning crew from Skylab.

 

[drwayne]

Good point...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>