Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Apollo 1: What if Grissom refused to fly

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Apollo 1: What if Grissom refused to fly
taneal1
Member

Posts: 271
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 10-07-2021 08:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for taneal1   Click Here to Email taneal1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Gus Grissom made it clear that if he protested too much or outright refused to fly Apollo 1, NASA would simply have replaced him or the entire crew.

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."

Due to the long lag before the LM could fly, CSM 101(?) would have been completed and flown as the first manned Apollo, hopefully with Grissom, White and Chaffee as the crew. Flown, but albeit without the fireproofing modifications...

oly
Member

Posts: 1293
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 10-07-2021 11:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for oly   Click Here to Email oly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If any crew member had refused to fly based on flight safety I would like to think that the management and engineers would have taken the action seriously and addressed the safety concerns accordingly. If Grissom, as a senior member of the astronaut office, refused to fly because he believed the vehicle was too dangerous, I doubt a junior astronaut would have stepped up without some changes being made.

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.

A crewed flight of the capsule was needed to test the design and systems in spaceflight conditions. There is only so much simulation at 1g can achieve, NASA needed to have the capsule in space with a crew living and working in a low g environment, which is why the decision to use the block 1 vehicle was made before block 2 design was available. There was no requirement for a docking hatch or fast action escape hatch to achieve these tests because they were not identified as critical. It is difficult to identify what it is that we do not know.

Ken Havekotte
Member

Posts: 3314
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 10-08-2021 05:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken Havekotte   Click Here to Email Ken Havekotte     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just my two cents, and while I do agree with some of the comments made above, 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.

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.

Grissom did express concerns beforehand about Apollo not being ready to fly soon, but they were mostly of a non-fire basis, such as communications, environmental, and so on. But if the first Apollo spacecraft commander was not happy at all about any sort of possible major safety issue concern(s) that might result in a fire, etc., if seriously raised or protested by him and how it would had been handled, I just don't know.

taneal1
Member

Posts: 271
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 10-08-2021 09:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for taneal1   Click Here to Email taneal1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.


Grissom made it clear that he was told if he pushed any harder for a better spacecraft, he would be replaced. Period. This threat had unquestionably been made and has been confirmed by Schirra and Young, et al. Therefore, Grissom must have *at least* strongly implied that he wouldn't fly this spacecraft, as is. I suspect he asked for some *specific* changes be made in the spacecraft to make it fit to fly, and these changes were summarily denied for the sake of the launch schedule. Joe Shea?

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.
Although the astronauts and management had no fear of a fire, specifically, Grissom and Schirra were plainly dissatisfied with CSM 012, and made that abundantly clear to management. To reiterate, Grissom went far enough to be told he could back off, or be replaced. To my knowledge no astronaut had a similar attitude regarding Mercury or Gemini. This was unprecedented action by an astronaut!

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.

If 012 wasn't ready to fly by launch date, Grissom's decision, in my opinion, would depend entirely on the support he received from Slayton, Kraft and his fellow astronauts. IF he received no support from them, IMO he would have launched on schedule and hoped for the best.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2021 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement