|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo 1: Outward-opening crew access hatch
|
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 01-28-2015 09:13 AM
  
The consensus has always been that the inward opening hatch on the Apollo 1 (204) command module was a contributing factor that prevented the crew's escape during the fire. - What would have been the result of firing an explosive hatch within the confines of the tower?
- Would an explosive hatch have even been armed during a ground test in which issues were not expected?
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-28-2015 10:33 AM
It wouldn't have been bad at all, as long as you weren't near the hatch! By "explosive," the outward opening hatch would have been opened by compressed gas, not pyrotechnics. This system would be operational as soon as the hatch was closed, in case it was needed by the crew. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1332
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 01-28-2015 10:50 AM
I did not see a Mercury type hatch ever being considered for Apollo. But in Mercury there were spring restraints used to prevent the hatch from flying too far away. When the Mercury hatches were blown on board ship the springs were in place. I imagine the same thing would have happened inside the "white room". The hatch was completely mechanical. All that had to be done was pull the safety pin out to arm it. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-28-2015 11:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
I did not see a Mercury type hatch ever being considered for Apollo.
Reportedly, Gus Grissom played a role in his own fate in this regard. After his experience with Liberty Bell 7's hatch blowing prematurely, Grissom strongly advocated for the explosive bolts to be removed from future hatch designs, which, according to Chariots for Apollo, the Space Task Group agreed with and implemented for Gemini and Apollo. |
Gonzo
Member Posts: 596
From: Lansing, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 01-30-2015 05:43 AM
Robert is correct. I recall reading in other places that Grissom played a big part in the new hatch.Remember too that in the case of the Apollo 1 fire, it probably wouldn't have made much difference. We can play "what if" all we want, but it was a flash fire that then burned, being unable to open the hatch from either side due to the pressurized, and if I recall, oxygen fed cabin. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-30-2015 07:58 AM
An explosive hatch would be a non starter. There is too much danger to the ground crew. quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
By "explosive," the outward opening hatch would have been opened by compressed gas, not pyrotechnics. This system would be operational as soon as the hatch was closed, in case it was needed by the crew.
Not true on both accounts. Shuttle hatch pyrotechnics to blow it away for inflight jettison and it was disarmed on the ground. |
p51
Member Posts: 1658
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 01-30-2015 11:21 AM
I truly feel it's a moot point on if there'd been explosive bolts or not on the hatch, as nobody envisioned the chance of the fire at all. Given the pad rats hanging around either right next to the hatch or being in (or immediately next to) the white room, can anyone here seriously think that they'd have had the safety pins out and the hatch armed for what was supposed to be a simple plugs-out test? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-30-2015 11:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by p51:
Given the pad rats hanging around either right next to the hatch or being in (or immediately next to) the white room...
There was no one hanging out next to the hatch or in the white room. The closest people were across the catwalk when the crew called out there was a fire, as the late Stephen Clemmons described: All hell broke loose as Jim Gleaves, Jerry Hawkins and Donald Babbitt scrambled from the clean room out to the catwalk that led into the White Room. As Clemmons noted, most of the pad crew had gone down to a lower level to "catch the umbilicals" as they were jettisoned as part of the normal test.Still, it might be a moot point given how the crew died. The fire didn't kill them, the smoke did. And as Clemmons described: Those that had made it to the White Room, a small room that provided access to the spacecraft were driven out by flames and smoke, making it impossible to get to the hatch. If smoke was filling the white room, then blowing the hatch wouldn't have offered the fresh air the crew needed to survive. |
space1
Member Posts: 861
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 01-30-2015 01:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
...the outward opening hatch would have been opened by compressed gas, not pyrotechnics.
You may have been thinking of the compressed gas system used in opening the redesigned hatch. |
p51
Member Posts: 1658
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 01-30-2015 04:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There was no one hanging out next to the hatch or in the white room. The closest people were across the catwalk when the crew called out there was a fire...
As they say, then, "Close enough for government work." I can't imagine for a test like that, that they'd have had the hatch armed, as again, nobody expected any trouble on what was supposed to be a simple test that day.Whether right next to the hatch or across the arm (or even on the arm underneath), I doubt any government worker would yank out the pin to arm the hatch in such a case. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-30-2015 06:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by space1:
You may have been thinking of the compressed gas system used in opening the redesigned hatch.
That is what I was thinking. Since the test was supposed to conclude with an emergency egress, is it so wild to think that the hatch might have been armed? |
advertisement