posted 10-07-2021 08:10 PM               

My question is, replaced him/them with whom?

The backup crew would be the first choice. Wally Schirra was at least, and probably even more convinced than Grissom, that safety of the crew, and success of the mission was a serious problem. And, being "Wally Schirra" he was more likely than Grissom to refuse to fly, for various well-known reasons. Finally, if Grissom refused to fly, then for that reason alone, Schirra would not undermine Gus's decision.

Would McDivitt, Borman, Stafford, Armstrong, Conrad, or Lovell have accepted the mission? Given the long time close relationship of Grissom and Young, I can't image Young agreeing.

In my opinion, the other astronauts would have cited the fact that no astronaut was more qualified than Grissom to make this call, and also refused to fly.

Given all the unresolved problems, Apollo 1 had already come very close to flying unmanned. Had Grissom refused to fly, I suspect that CSM 012 would have flown unmanned, or not all. If flown unmanned, it's difficult to believe the flight would have been successful enough to press on to the first CSM-LM fight without a manned "C mission."

posted 10-07-2021 11:09 PM               

What happened with Apollo 1 has been described as a failure to recognise the problems. There was no single point failure that caused the fire. It was a series of problems, today described as the Swiss cheese model, whereby all of the faults and flaws aligned, and the result was the fire.

posted 10-08-2021 05:28 AM               

All throughout the 1960's with the space race in full gear with the Soviets, it was a different climate with our nation's top NASA, military, and aerospace company management leadership and political implications. Certain external forces and influences could be very powerful back in-the-day, not to mention tight budgets and schedule planning. Also, prior to AS-204, NASA never experienced a lost mission that resulted in a death(s).

That's not to say, though, that NASA wasn't concerned about astronaut safety in all areas when Apollo got underway. But to have someone like Grissom say, "No," I will not take another step inside 012 until..."

I just can't see that happening, or at least, while in training with a launch expected less than a month away. I don't think any of the early astronauts would have had such an attitude, rather right or wrong, and would most likely not be in their character for causing such a major disruption.

posted 10-08-2021 09:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Havekotte:
All throughout the 1960's with the space race in full gear with the Soviets, it was a different climate...

I don't think any astronaut, rather senior or not, would still be on flight status in the astronaut office for refusing to fly after he had been assigned a spaceflight mission.

---

To the public of that era, astronauts were *infallible* heroes — especially "flown" astronauts. Would the always PR conscious NASA admin *actually* ground a flown mission commander over justifiable safety concerns? What would the Press Release say? If Grissom continued to complain despite the threat, I suspect that they would have kept Grissom as CDR until 012 was ready to fly, and following this flight, he would never see another flight assignment.

quote:

---

I don't think any of the early astronauts would have had such an attitude, rather right or wrong, and would most likely not be in their character for causing such a major disruption.

---

In response to the media question "What are the chances of completing the mission?" Grissom replied "Damn slim." Prior to entering the spacecraft on the night of the fire, Schirra "suggested" that if Grissom didn't think everything "felt right" he should "get out." Hardly a vote of confidence... Things certainly didn't feel "right" to Grissom, but he continued the test.

By no means am I suggesting he was wrong to do so. Rather, I'm agreeing completely with Ken's assertion that astronauts were willing to risk it all for their country. However, they were also responsible for the success of *this* mission and its vital link in getting a Man on the Moon.

Schirra has stated that he faced considerable opposition when, back in his test pilot days, he "downed" a fighter that was held in high regard by the USN. It simply wasn't a good airplane and the Navy followed Schirra's recommendation and did not 'buy' the aircraft. Given the state of the Cold War at that time it was a risky career move, but he believed he was doing what was best for the Navy... wouldn't he do the same for NASA and the USA? Wouldn't Grissom do the same?

I have to wonder how far Slayton went, and how far he would have gone, to support Grissom if he continued to air his grievances? Anyone have any info on this? (Calling Michael Cassutt...)

We don't know *what* would have happened as far as making the launch date if the fire had not occurred. Considering the performance of the spacecraft on the night of the fire it seems likely that additional launch delays would have been imposed by management if they believed the mission would be less than successful. For example yet another failure of the ECS. Delaying Apollo 1 for say 6 months would not have delayed the landing due to the fact that a manned LM was more than a year from flying.