|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo 1 fire analysis using modern techniques
|
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-14-2015 08:55 AM
  
It has now been over 48 years since the Apollo 1 fire. Advances have been made in all areas of scientific research and accident investigation. Are there any new techniques that could help pin point the cause of the fire?Maybe someone with more knowledge of Auger analysis can answer. |
DeepSea
Member Posts: 69
From:
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 07-14-2015 09:28 AM
I'm sure it probably would, but on the whole, it wouldn't exactly bring anything new to the table, at least in terms of applying it to future spacecraft design.The crucial lessons to learn from Apollo 1 are not materials selection or ignition sources, but in the need for a rigorous stop-the-job culture and to protect against the cavalier cutting of costs and corners. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 07-14-2015 10:54 AM
I don't think material analysis is needed, just job performance and safety and institutional 'culture' review. You can publish reams of data trying to pinpoint the ignition source inside the capsule, but the real culprit was inside the heads of engineers and managers. This article gives as good an overview of the fire and its causes.Soviet cosmonaut Bondarenko and his death in an oxygen-rich test chamber, which was kept secret for decades and revealed only in 1986 (ironically, after Challenger), and a near-disaster involving a Gemini suit test in 1962 also in a pure oxygen environment, should have tipped off engineers on both sides of the space race as to the dangers of complacency. But that's a subject for a longer discussion. |
Jonnyed
Member Posts: 408
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014
|
posted 07-14-2015 08:39 PM
This question is an interesting question in the larger context of "Should we go back, after the passage of many years and after several advances in technology, and re-investigate old mishaps?"So, should we re-investigate Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 13, Apollo 1 and others? Is there much to be gained in our understanding or is it only on the margins? I am not an expert accident investigator but my sense is that not much significantly new is learned after so much time has passed. You're pretty much stuck with the fact finding that the initial investigation team conducted — only analysis can evolve after decades. So the limited ability to perform new fact finding proves to be restraining. But maybe my impression is wrong... |
oly
Member Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-15-2015 04:55 AM
New test techniques and processes could possibly find some additional evidence. The context of this evidence may be beneficial for an investigation as long as the wiring and other materiel items were not damaged during the original investigation by the use of non destructive testing methods.However, the source of the fire is only a small part of the investigation. The use of 100% oxygen during the test was the main fault and it was an expensive lesson. The condition of the spacecraft, the condition of the wiring, the design of switches, the use of flammable materials, the design of the hatch and a long list of other items were lessons learnt from the original investigation that were hard learnt. However they were learnt and design and procedures changes were made as a result. There are a lot of good sources of information regarding the fire, the investigation, the lessons learnt and the effect on the program. The MSC oral history site has numerous good interviews that address these items and the general feeling seems to be that these lessons, either new lessons or reminders of already known facts, needed to be learnt by the program. This is a subject that should be understood by anyone involved in aviation, aerospace or any similar area. And the results should be understood and respected by all. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-15-2015 06:11 AM
With every account of the Apollo 1 fire there is the stated fact that the exact cause of the fire and the location of the initial fire is unknown. Maybe new techniques could change these facts.On another note, does anyone have a copy of or a link to the photograph taken of the wrench, in situ, left inside the spacecraft? |
oly
Member Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-15-2015 07:00 AM
The Apollo 1 capsule was shipped to the cape in an unfinished condition due to delays in production and a tight time line. Several people had voiced their concerns that the program was being rushed. The wiring used within the capsule was of the lightest gauge or size that could be used of each electrical circuit in an effort to save weight. The wiring being used at the time was capton wire. Today this material is week documented as being flammable when the insulation is damaged or breaks down. There are several documented aviation fires and crashes attributed to capton wire. The wiring looms were exposed on the capsule floor and there were complaints that it was being stood on, walked on and the installation should be improved on future craft. There were suspicions that the wire insulation was chaffed where it passed by storage a locker door from continual opening and closing of the door. This information had been talked about by engineers and astronauts involved with the capsule. When the wire was exposed to fire in pure oxygen environment the insulation coating each wire burnt or charred. This made identification of an singular point of ignition difficult. In addition to this, the switches and other electrical items were not potted or environmentally sealed. Any spark or arcing from these switches was also considered a potential ignition source. The use of flammable material such as Velcro, a product identified as highly flammable before the 100%oxygen environment was introduced. The suits and other fabric material was also identified as material that sustained combustion. Add the above to the other items that were changed or modified in the block 2 spacecraft and you can begin to imagine how intense the fire was and what type of damage was done to the items within the craft. Any Evidence of electrical arcing from wire to any structure of the craft after the fire would not prove to be the source of ignition but only as a potential source of ignition. Proving conclusively that it was the cause would be almost impossible. At the end of the investigation the result was a fire had occurred, there were many possible points of ignition. The craft was filled with flammable material in a pure oxygen environment, a point that had been an initial design requirement but began to be overlooked during production progress and change. The hatch was unable to be opened while then craft was pressurised. And what today we call a positive safety culture had been allowed to slip dour to many reasons. What came out of the fire and investigation was a much safer craft, safer procedures, safer culture and a successful program. A modern investigation into the fire would probably come up with the same result for the cause, however the recommendations that followed would inhibit the landing on the moon and returning safety to earth by the end of the decade. As for the tool found in the craft during the investigation there were many reports of foreign objects being found within the capsule and the lunar modules on several missions. From small pieces of wire lacing tape, wire offcuts, drill and machining swarf. Foreign object control is an ongoing problem during aircraft and aerospace manufacturing processes and become more important with spacecraft in zero g and aircraft that perform inverted flight and high g manoeuvres. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-15-2015 10:47 AM
I agree on the merits of using modern methods on Apollo 1, however, I doubt NASA would allow access to the spacecraft and related materials. The Fire is not a topic they would like to open up again. |
BA002
Member Posts: 177
From: Utrecht,NL
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 07-16-2015 12:37 AM
In the Dec 23, 1966 issue of Roundup, the in-house news magazine for the JSC, I found the following remarks about the Gemini program: Cabin atmosphere: Concern was expressed whether the 100 percent oxygen would prove to be a hazard. There have been no accidents involving fire, and we have seen no gross effect on man. Obviously it is sad that a little over a month later there would be a lethal accident, but it also made me wonder whether the potential fire hazard was overlooked, as we are sometimes led to understand, or that it was known but mistakenly thought to be under control? |
oly
Member Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-16-2015 08:12 AM
My understanding is that the fire hazards were always known. One hundred percent oxygen environmental hazards were familiar to aircraft design and maintenance personnel since oxygen systems were introduced to aircraft and high altitude aircraft and flights, hyperbaric chambers and such.There was a requirement written into the build contract with North American to keep flammable materials to a minimum. As the program progresses small problems of where to stow items crept in, the solution was Velcro. There were problems with space suit manufacture and the flammable materials used crept in. These facts are well documented. The culture of these items creeping into the program was one of the hard learnt lessons. 100% oxygen environmental hazards are hard to come to terms with for people unfamiliar with. Shoe polish, deodorant, hair spray, hair wax, floor polish, rust in steel oxygen bottles, fuels and oils, petroleum products such as plastics can all not only ignite spontaneously or with the slightest ignition source, they burn with such a greater intensity. Aluminum in a 100% oxygen environment with slightly elevated pressure can ignite and burn with incredible intensity. So the Apollo fire was an intense event. Very frightening. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-16-2015 08:51 AM
What would be the point? Pinpointing the actual source would not change things now or even back in the day except for a few more words added to the accident report. The outcome would still be the same thing. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 678
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 07-18-2015 09:42 AM
The cause of the "flash" fire was/is clear: 16 psi pure O2. The cause of the astronauts deaths was/is clear: no fast emergency egress capability. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-20-2015 11:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Paul78zephyr:
The cause of the "flash" fire was/is clear: 16 psi pure O2. The cause of the astronauts deaths was/is clear: no fast emergency egress capability.
These two statements don't really make sense. O2 is not flammable on it's own, even at 16 psi. The cause of the fire was an electrical arc in damaged wiring, the location of that specific arc was never determined. The cause of death was not just due to not being able to get out. The crew had been in two similar tests during which the exit capability was the same as the fatal test. Cause of death was cardiac arrest brought on by asphyxiation. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 342
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 07-22-2015 10:13 AM
As has been noted, NASA was not ignorant of the risks of pure oxygen, but made a deliberate programmatic decision to accept those risks to go with the simpler life support system.On the 40th anniversary of the Apollo fire, I reviewed the experience base NASA had at the time of the fire, and tried to debunk the notion that the Bondarenko secrecy made any difference. |
Glint
Member Posts: 1044
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 07-22-2015 02:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by oly:
As for the tool found in the craft during the investigation there were many reports of foreign objects being found within the capsule and the lunar module.
Uhhh, lunar module, On Apollo 1? |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1313
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 07-23-2015 08:19 AM
Maybe he was referring to subsequent manned Apollo flights, like on Apollo 9, where objects were seen floating from behind panels despite the LM being 'shaken' in a clean room to clear any debris before being stacked on top of the Saturn. |
Glint
Member Posts: 1044
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 07-23-2015 12:37 PM
That's probably what was implied, although given the topic and the absence of any clarification... quote:
Originally posted by onesmallstep:
...objects were seen floating from behind panels despite the LM being 'shaken' in a clean room to clear any debris
But I thought those objects were purposely placed in order that they would later be observed weightlessly floating around the cabin in order to debunk the "moon landing was faked" claims.  |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-24-2015 06:24 AM
Does anyone have a copy of the photo showing the wrench insitu inside the spacecraft?Also, the comms between the crew and the outside team were recorded but was the internal comms between the crew recorded? |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-26-2015 07:14 AM
I do not think the internal crew conversations were recorded. We can only imagine what they would have added to the investigation. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-26-2015 10:54 AM
I may be wrong and open to correction but didn't the Mercury/Gemini capsules have the capacity to record comments by the crews onto onboard recorders, these to be recovered after the flight? If so, then isn't it likely that Apollo had the same facility?If this is the case, the question would be would these recordings have survived the fire? |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 678
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 07-26-2015 11:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
On another note, does anyone have a copy of or a link to the photograph taken of the wrench, in situ, left inside the spacecraft?
The socket (wrench) is show on page 281 of David Baker's "The History of Manned Spaceflight." It is referred to in the text: But another object was also found inside the spacecraft: a .6636 cm wrench socket pressed into a bundle of wires. In procedures established by North American to maintain control of the movement of tools, all such instruments and equipment carried from a special box alongside the spacecraft into the pressure module proper were to be logged out to a specific recipient at a recorded time and day. In testimony from Dale Myers, 'A review of the logs shows that the procedures and instructions were not being fully implemented in practice. Specifically, the records do not show the date on which the...wrench socket was left in the spacecraft or the identity of the person that left it.' Although indicative of an obvious breakdown in procedures, the errant wrench socket was eliminated as a possible cause of the short that ignited the cabin materials. The caption for the photo: Wrench socket found between two wire bundles in spacecraft 12 was eliminated as a likely cause of the tragic fire. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-26-2015 01:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
...didn't the Mercury/Gemini capsules have the capacity to record comments by the crews onto onboard recorders, these to be recovered after the flight?
The voice recording was not automatic. The crew member had to actively select the recording mode. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-27-2015 12:28 AM
Yes Jim, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. |
Space Cadet Carl
Member Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 07-27-2015 10:23 AM
I seem to recall that about 30 seconds before the Apollo 1 fire broke out, there was both accelerometer evidence and audio evidence that at least one crew member was moving around. There was no clear determinination by the review board of what bearing this had, correct? |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-27-2015 10:43 AM
Most likely it was the crew springing into action and starting their emergency exit procedures. There is also evidence to suggest that Grissom tried to activate a valve to release internal pressure.Regarding the onboard recorder, the Block II spacecraft had one but I'm not sure about the Block I and even if it did I'm not sure whether they would use it for a routine test. |
Space Cadet Carl
Member Posts: 225
From: Lake Orion, Michigan
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 07-27-2015 11:10 AM
To clarify, I'm talking about 30 seconds before the first report of fire and the crew yelling "Hey!!" I'm talking about crew movement taking place half a minute before anyone knew something was happening. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-27-2015 03:56 PM
The 20 seconds of activity would have been the crew starting their exit procedures independent of the outside. By the time the crew made their first comms with the outside, the fire would have been well established. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-27-2015 07:01 PM
Some of the movement may have been by Grissom, who by some accounts was working on the Cobra cable. This thread made me read again the account of the fire in "Apollo: The Race to the Moon." Still riveting. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-28-2015 07:41 AM
Are there new investigation techniques that can detect if a fire damaged wire was associated with the cause of the fire or damaged during the fire? |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-28-2015 08:28 AM
Regardless if there is, it doesn't change anything. |
bwhite1976
Member Posts: 283
From: Belleville, IL
Registered: Jun 2011
|
posted 07-28-2015 09:29 AM
In regards to a few of the last posts, I would refer to Spacecraft Films Apollo 1 DVD which does an excellent job of overlaying the movement in the cabin, audio and overall sequence of events leading up to the fire in the spacecraft. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-28-2015 10:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Paul78zephyr:
The cause of the "flash" fire was/is clear: 16 psi pure O2. The cause of the astronauts deaths was/is clear: no fast emergency egress capability.
Is it? The Accident Report says: Although the Board was not able to determine conclusively the specific initiator of the Apollo 204 fire, it identified the conditions that led to the disaster. As with all cases where the actual cause is unknown with absolute certainty, one starts with a known fact and then arrives at a scenario that is the best fit of the likely causes within the bounds of probability.Or to put it as Sherlock Holmes would say, "When one has eliminated all the possible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." |
astro-nut
Member Posts: 970
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-29-2015 04:14 PM
As a firefighter and having been in the fire service for 23 years I would like to listen and discuss issues concerning the Apollo 1 fire. It would be interesting to compare fire technology from 1967 to today (2015) regarding fire behavior and the materials used during and concerning the Apollo 1 tragedy. Never forget Grissom, White and Chaffee! |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-29-2015 06:02 PM
Maybe someone could clarify exactly how the fire started. I think we all agree that damaged wiring was at fault here but what happened? An electrical arc occurred but did a flash of electricity explode in the oxygen environment or did the arc occur over a length of time allowing heat to build up at the point of arcing and this heat caused netting/velcro to heat up and combust? |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4208
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-29-2015 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
I think we all agree that damaged wiring was at fault here but what happened?
I don't agree. The damaged wiring hypothesis (proposed by Max Faget I believe) was not corroborated by eyewitness testimony. Visual inspection of the wiring on the morning of the fire turned up nothing.It has been quite a while since I last studied the post fire review findings but from memory, analysis of some 2000 suspected wiring anomalies during the spacecraft disassembly turned up just two issues neither of which was considered serious enough to have been an ignition source. More likely sources of the fire included the presence of grease which in 100% oxygen at 16 psi can spontaneously combust. Or a live cable, left in place following the removal of a Gas Chromatograph. For the latter there was corroborative telemetry evidence to support this theory. It was made clear to North American Rockwell however that any evidence that involved input from the crew, however involuntary, would not be entertained by the post fire review board. To put that position in to a modern context, just consider for a moment, the NTSB ruling out from the outset any involvement by the crew in the Virgin Galactic accident. The most probable source was a slightly loosened wire connection where the cycle of electrical resistance, heat and oxygen corrosion progressively increased until the wire insulation caught fire. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-29-2015 06:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
An electrical arc occurred but did a flash of electricity explode in the oxygen environment
How is that to happen? Electricity does not explode. An arc creates heat and in the 100% O2 environment, something easily catches fire. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-30-2015 01:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Mulheirn:
It was made clear to North American Rockwell however that any evidence that involved input from the crew, however involuntary, would not be entertained by the post fire review board.
Rick - would you care to elaborate on this? |
oly
Member Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-30-2015 06:32 AM
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project has some fascinating interviews touching many subjects, the interview with Glynn Lunney from 9 March 1998 has some good insight into the Apollo fire. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-30-2015 10:04 AM
Does anyone think that escaping fumes from piping played a part in the start of the fire? |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4208
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-30-2015 12:12 PM
Eddie, I can't put my hand on the specifics at this moment, but when Rockwell's Director of Research engineering Dr. John McCarthy proposed at a House subcommittee hearing a theory that included Grissom's involuntary actions in the chain of events that may have triggered the fire Representative William F. Ryan responded by saying "I take exception to your trying tonight to place the blame on someone who is not here to speak for himself." He went on to ask..." do any of you (Rockwell witnesses) intend to leave the impression that astronaut Grissom was responsible for the accident?" Under such questioning Rockwell's representatives "back peddled." |
advertisement