Topic: Designations: AS-204, Apollo 1 and Apollo 5
Ross Member
Posts: 479 From: Australia Registered: Jul 2003
posted 06-19-2008 08:52 AM
I've just come across the mess regarding the numbering system for the early Apollo missions. While a lot has been said regarding Apollo 1, I've not seen anything on the fact that two missions finished up with the same designation.
Both Apollo 1 and Apollo 5 were designated AS-204, which seems rather strange, to say the least.
Apollo 1 was AS-204 as it was the fourth (the 04 in 204) mission using a Saturn IB launcher (the 2 in 204). The next mission to use the 1B was Apollo 5 which means it should have been AS-205. This also means that Apollo 7 (AS-205) should have been AS-206.
Any comments on why Apollo 5 was given the designation AS-204?
divemaster Member
Posts: 1376 From: ridgefield, ct Registered: May 2002
posted 06-19-2008 09:54 AM
They used the same booster that was to be used on Apollo 1.
And looking further ahead, AS-210 was used for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, while AS-209 is laying in the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex Rocket Garden as the Skylab rescue vehicle.
Ross Member
Posts: 479 From: Australia Registered: Jul 2003
posted 06-19-2008 10:44 AM
Still, it would have been less confusing if they had made some differentiation between the two, maybe AS-204 and AS-204a.
robsouth Member
Posts: 769 From: West Midlands, UK Registered: Jun 2005
posted 06-19-2008 10:44 AM
Wasn't AS-204 the designation for the Saturn IB for Apollo 1 and when that mission didn't fly they used the booster for Apollo 5 instead?
dtemple Member
Posts: 730 From: Longview, Texas, USA Registered: Apr 2000
posted 06-19-2008 10:58 AM
Designations such as SA-204 (Saturn-Apollo 204) were actually painted on the first stage of the rocket. I always considered them serial numbers.
Eleven Saturn IBs were completed and each was designated SA-201 through SA-211. However, mission planners apparently decided to emphasize the Apollo component first thus the "AS" instead of "SA" reference.
Saturn IB SA-206 was originally intended to launch LM-1 and the rocket was actually being stacked on LC-37B when Apollo 1 (AS-204) was on LC-34.
moorouge Member
Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 04-04-2011 01:58 AM
Maybe this helps but maybe it just adds to the confusion.
Approval to call Grissom's flight "Apollo 1" was given in June 1966. However, as launch time approached officials were inclined to number it AS-204. Following the fire in January 1967 the crew's widows asked for "Apollo 1" to be reserved for the flight their husbands would never make. This was agreed and for a little while after planners were calling the next scheduled launch "Apollo 2."
In March 1967 there was a suggestion that, for historical purposes, the flights should be called:
Apollo 1 - AS-204
Apollo 1A - AS 201; Apollo 2 - AS-202
Apollo 3 - AS-203
However, in April 1967 notification went out from the Public Affairs Office that approval had been given for the first Apollo-Saturn V mission (AS-501) to be called "Apollo 4." Further, there was to be no retroactive renaming of AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203.
Despite much questioning, why and how the changes were made has never been either fully understood or explained.
dbaker Member
Posts: 22 From: UK Registered: Jun 2010
posted 05-30-2011 10:11 AM
There always seems to be a lot of confusion over this but the logic is, well, logical!
Just as Mercury and Gemini mission numbers reflected the launch vehicle sequence without prioritizing the importance of the flight (first manned flight of Mercury was MR-3; first manned orbital flight MA-6, first manned Gemini mission GT-3) so too was the first Apollo flight merely to be AS-204, taking its designation from the launch vehicle assembly number (serial numbers were always regarded as the stage numbers). All the mission documentation I have bears that and I recall Owen Maynard interceding to suggest the change. This was because the families wanted the mission to receive a number indicating that their lost loved ones had a "mission" badge indicating "the first."
Never enshrined within formal documentation, but accepted as logical conclusion post-fire, the following sequence was agreed, a "mission" number defined as one carrying an Apollo spacecraft. Thus, the missions between 1 (retrofitted) and 4 (yet to come) were those Saturns that carried Apollo spacecraft, hence:
AS-204 Apollo 1
AS-201 Apollo 2
AS-202 Apollo 3
Of course AS-203 (which flew before AS-202) was a test of the S-IVB and did not carry a spacecraft so it is excluded from the exalted distinction of having a mission number. I recall the way everyone felt it was the most appropriate way to remember the flight — not just as an LV-derived mission number but as a spacecraft mission. Remember too that flight numbers did not indicate sequence of flight but rather a specified LV for a particular mission.
It was accepted as an almost private thing for the families of Grissom, White and Chaffee but nobody explained the rationale at the time and everyone has gotten hung up on it ever since!
John Charles Member
Posts: 342 From: Houston, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2004
posted 05-30-2011 07:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by dbaker: Never enshrined within formal documentation, but accepted as logical conclusion post-fire, the following sequence was agreed, a 'mission' number defined as one carrying an Apollo spacecraft. Thus, the missions between 1 (retrofitted)...
Except, AS-204 was officially designated "Apollo 1" in June 1966. Even though that designation was rescinded later in 1966 (making one wonder if NASA's senior managers didn't have other, more important things to worry about), Grissom and his crew went to their deaths wearing patches on their space suits that said "Apollo 1." Nothing retrofitted about it.
dbaker Member
Posts: 22 From: UK Registered: Jun 2010
posted 05-31-2011 03:54 AM
Sloppy writing on my part and apologies for that sir. My "retrofit" reference was to the application of the Saturn IB flights AS-201 and AS-202 as Apollo 2 and 3 and not to Apollo 1. The two unmanned missions were not in any formal sense identified as such but at the time there was much debate about nomenclature of "Apollo 1" before the fire.
Nevertheless, that was how we discussed it when after the fire the decision came down to "retrospectively include" the flights of AS-201 and AS-202 and formally restore the Apollo 1 designation — but it had been promised to the families.
I looked back at my notes from the time and something else came to mind which I had forgotten. Meuller did not want the same AS-204 designation being used by the media for a subsequent flight, as it would have been for the first LM unmanned mission which became Apollo 5. Only internally was AS-204 retained for documentation purposes.
Another name change while we are debating such things was the deletion of the 'E' in LEM. Some astronauts — including Dave Scott, fought hard to have the "Excursion" switched to "Exploration" but that was binned when Meuller thought it sounded too grand for what it was to achieve. There was much reluctance at the time to overplay the basic LM for fear it would detract from the pro-AAP lobby pushing for expanded surface activities. In the end of course it didn't matter, but that's another thread!
Apologies for floating off topic but someone, somewhere should start a site listing all the name switches/changes/re-designations. It leads to such confusion and always catches the unwary from which I fear none of us are immune.
Mike_The_First Member
Posts: 436 From: USA Registered: Jun 2014
posted 10-19-2016 08:31 PM
If Apollo 1 launched, would it have done so as "Apollo 1"?
I've read in a few places that the Apollo 1 designation was a concession for the families after the fact — but, at the same time, I can't help but notice that the crew had and wore "Apollo 1" patches. I can't really find any information on that discrepancy.
So if it flew, would it have done so as "Apollo 1" or "AS-204"? How would subsequent missions have been designated?
Editor's note: Threads merged.
moorouge Member
Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 10-20-2016 05:38 AM
According to NASA SP-4029 and the section on designations, it lists three possibilities. The call signs for the CM and LM where applicable, the designation of the Space Vehicle — AS 205 for Apollo 7 then AS 503 to AS 512 for Apollos 8 to 17 — and a designation for the Launch Vehicle — SA 205 for Apollo 7 the SA 503 to SA 512 for Apollos 8 to 17.
My understanding is that though the Apollos are popularly known by their mission number/call signs, the stack prior to launch was officially as listed above.
Mike_The_First Member
Posts: 436 From: USA Registered: Jun 2014
posted 10-20-2016 08:01 AM
It's worth noting, especially in the context of the question, that the lists start with Apollo 7 and were published after the fact, so anything that changed after, and a result of, the fire — such as the numbering system in question — wouldn't be highlighted by the document.
In fact, these news releases (written and released at the time, but compiled and scanned later) go from talking about Apollo 201, Apollo 203 and Apollo 202 (they're published here out of order, with Gemini 10 in the middle) before the fire to Apollo 4 onward after the fact, which would seem to indicate something changing (especially considering that 4, 5 and 6 were unmanned). SP-4009 Volume IV, Part 1(H) also appears to indicate that such a change did, in fact, occur as a result of the fire.
Whether that change would've happened anyway, starting with 1, had the fire not happened is essentially what I'm asking about (and isn't even discussed by the documentation I've read).
Edited to add: Spacepatches.nl shows the text of a memo from George M. Low (which I can't locate elsewhere, as Googling the specific phrasing takes me only to the page in question), which, if authentic, would appear to indicate that, as of the time of the fire, Apollo 1 wasn't necessarily going to be Apollo 1.
The memo is also apparently contradicted by the quote from Deke Slayton that appears directly above it, though with memory the way it is and the PR nightmare that followed the fire, such a thing doesn't necessarily indicate falsehood with regard to the existence and content of the Low memo.
Ronpur Member
Posts: 1220 From: Brandon, Fl Registered: May 2012
posted 10-21-2016 06:45 PM
So, from reading that memo, if the fire had never happened, there would have been a new version of the patch released with a new number.
moorouge Member
Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 10-22-2016 01:09 AM
quote:Originally posted by Mike_The_First: If Apollo 1 launched, would it have done so as "Apollo 1"?
Yes. See my original post from 4/4/11. Approval to call the flight Apollo 1 was given in June 1966.
Mike_The_First Member
Posts: 436 From: USA Registered: Jun 2014
posted 10-22-2016 01:33 AM
Your post then goes on to say:
quote:Originally posted by moorouge: However, as launch time approached officials were inclined to number it AS-204. Following the fire in January 1967 the crew's widows asked for "Apollo 1" to be reserved for the flight their husbands would never make.
...which seems to contradict that "Yes."
moorouge Member
Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
posted 10-22-2016 01:48 AM
You beat me to it.
Was just about to add that "Yes" meant probably definitely though there was a possibility that the probability would have a meaningful impact on definitely that, in the circumstances, would mean that there was a distinct possibility that definitely would only mean probably.
Hope this clears it up.
Mike_The_First Member
Posts: 436 From: USA Registered: Jun 2014
posted 10-22-2016 02:08 AM
See, that's the rub.
The Low memo, referenced in my post above, if authentic and accurately represented, seems to concisely say that there was a decent chance that the Apollo 1 name, though approved in June 1966, was no longer approved. If that is the case, any prior approval it had is no longer relevant to the discussion.
The question then becomes how far along that management discussion got and what conclusion, if any, they reached prior to the fire.
If they reached the conclusion that the Apollo 1 name was to remain intact — a possibility left open by the memo, albeit a slim one — then the answer to my question would be "Yes."
If, however, they decided against that and went ahead with the change — which Low seems to find the most likely — then the answer to my question would appear to have to be "No."
Unfortunately, to complicate matters further, if the name were "reauthorized" after the fire, out of respect for the families, that same motivation would prevent NASA from openly discussing any decisions that were counter to that authorization, both out of respect and for PR purposes.
Of the various sites discussing the Low memo, I can't find any reference to a follow up that actually speaks to the final decision. One could reasonably assume, based on the timing, that such a decision was never reached. That assumption turns this whole discussion into a "Schrodinger's Cat" of sorts, since, based on the wording used by George Low, I wouldn't even go so far as to say the approval was officially taken back, but, rather, that it was hanging in limbo awaiting that final decision.
At the end of the day, without a record of an official decision, all we can do is speak hypothetically based on the motivations of people whose names we don't even necessarily know.
Again, all of the above assumes that the Low memo is authentic and accurately presented.
oly Member
Posts: 971 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 06-13-2018 07:58 AM
I have been looking into this over the last few days, trying to determine when the 204 mission was designated As Apollo 1. This breaking news story reports it as Apollo 1:
And the next day (Jan. 29, 1967), this news story describes how the mission designation came about and also the design of the Apollo 1 patch. It also goes on to describe problems with the command module, including the problems and replacement of the ECS system, which may have led to the glycol spill within the command module.
posted 06-13-2018 09:42 AM
It seems that no matter what official NASA wanted to call it, Apollo 1 was an easier and perhaps a more logical name for both the public and the media.
dtemple Member
Posts: 730 From: Longview, Texas, USA Registered: Apr 2000
posted 06-27-2018 05:28 PM
The original Apollo 2 flight was canceled which was to have used Saturn 1B SA-205, the one that ultimately carried the original Apollo 2 crew of Schirra, Cunningham, and Eisele on Apollo 7.
Apollo 3 was originally intended to use two Saturn 1B rockets to launch an LM (#3 I think) and CSM-101 to test the LM in earth orbit. If I recall correctly, Apollo 4 was to be a high earth orbit test of the LM using a Saturn V to launch it and a CSM. That was the original planning some time prior to the Apollo 1 fire.
Apollo 2 was canceled and the original Apollo 3 flight plan was to be Apollo 2.
Anyway, the fire happened and made all of that moot. Furthermore, as posted earlier, there was consideration given to retroactively renaming SA-201 as Apollo 1A, SA-202 as Apollo 2, and SA-203 as Apollo 3 or even SA-201 being renamed Apollo 2 and SA-202 as Apollo 3. Perhaps while this idea was under consideration was when SA-501 was named Apollo 4. Regardless, there were missions assigned as Apollo 2, 3, and 4 quite some time prior to the Apollo 1 fire.
Also, the May 1967 cover of LIFE has a photo of Schirra on the cover with the caption that read "Astronaut Schirra commander of Apollo II." That "II" is of course the Roman numeral "2" rather that "11."
posted 06-19-2008 08:52 AM
advertisement