Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Astronomy Magazine)   New analysis released today suggests that astronaut Gus Grissom had the right stuff after all and did not panic resulting in the loss of his spacecraft   (astronomy.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Project Mercury, Gus Grissom, Mercury-Redstone 4, Liberty Bell, astronaut Gus Grissom, recovery aids, quick-exit exploding hatch, Static electricity  
•       •       •

686 clicks; posted to STEM » on 21 Jul 2021 at 9:42 AM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



27 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-07-21 8:53:37 AM  
Will they make a special edition of the movie to correct this?
 
2021-07-21 9:20:00 AM  
OK, so that's one f*ck-up that might not have been his fault, which everyone but NASA has been saying since it happened.

Next do his design of the Gemini capsule that had to be completely re-done because only he fit in it.

/Mad props to any astronaut, but I don't understand why Grissom is so popular.
 
2021-07-21 9:28:17 AM  
I spent A LOT of time in Gus Grissom Hall

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-21 9:48:11 AM  
It's been known that he didn't hit the button since they recovered it 20 years ago.
 
2021-07-21 9:56:03 AM  
No shiat. All of those guys had brain problems that made them incapable of panicking.
 
2021-07-21 10:07:53 AM  
You've got it wrong...the issue here is monkey.
 
2021-07-21 10:16:25 AM  
That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.
 
2021-07-21 10:23:11 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.


Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.
 
2021-07-21 10:25:39 AM  
flagging this for space cat Kittypie070
 
2021-07-21 10:25:59 AM  

Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.


It was a lot of things, but damaged wiring is what caused the spark. The rest was just the fuel which as you said made it into an instant blast furnace once lit. The door design made a rescue attempt impossible.
 
2021-07-21 10:51:13 AM  

snowybunting: You've got it wrong...the issue here is monkey.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-21 10:57:48 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: OK, so that's one f*ck-up that might not have been his fault, which everyone but NASA has been saying since it happened.

Next do his design of the Gemini capsule that had to be completely re-done because only he fit in it.

/Mad props to any astronaut, but I don't understand why Grissom is so popular.


He didn't design the Gemini. Blame the people who used him as a measuring dummy when they designed the cockpit.
 
2021-07-21 11:05:10 AM  

keldaria: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

It was a lot of things, but damaged wiring is what caused the spark. The rest was just the fuel which as you said made it into an instant blast furnace once lit. The door design made a rescue attempt impossible.


Saying a spark caused it is like saying a spark caused a house to explode rather than the week-long gas leak. The pure oxygen environment was extremely unsafe, especially around the electrics and electronics of the day. They might as well have soaked the astronauts in fuel while they were at it.
 
2021-07-21 11:05:32 AM  

snowybunting: You've got it wrong...the issue here is monkey.


F*ckin' A, Bubba.
 
2021-07-21 11:06:46 AM  

Slypork: snowybunting: You've got it wrong...the issue here is monkey.

[Fark user image 400x223] [View Full Size image _x_]


Dammit
 
2021-07-21 11:09:52 AM  
A very plausible explanation. It's a bit of a stretch to understand how the squib *inside* the capsule could have fired, since it wasn't electrically actuated (and should have been shielded by the capsule itself), but it's certainly a plausible explanation, given that there was an observed spark (firing the cutter squibs) to the antenna, which was connected to electronics inside the capsule. And the lean of the capsule places the hatch in the shortest path between the antenna and the seawater ground, so that would have been the path the current took.

If the static charge hypothesis is true, it wouldn't have mattered whether Grissom removed the safety pin or not.
 
2021-07-21 11:20:54 AM  

bingethinker: Benevolent Misanthrope: OK, so that's one f*ck-up that might not have been his fault, which everyone but NASA has been saying since it happened.

Next do his design of the Gemini capsule that had to be completely re-done because only he fit in it.

/Mad props to any astronaut, but I don't understand why Grissom is so popular.

He didn't design the Gemini. Blame the people who used him as a measuring dummy when they designed the cockpit.


Um... no.

Wikipedia, because I'm too lazy to go after the original source material: Astronaut Gus Grissom was heavily involved in the development and design of the Gemini spacecraft. What other Mercury astronauts dubbed "Gusmobile" was so designed around Grissom's 5'6" body that, when NASA discovered in 1963 that 14 of 16 astronauts would not fit in the spacecraft, the interior had to be redesigned.[9] Grissom wrote in his posthumous 1968 book Gemini! that the realization of Project Mercury's end and the unlikelihood of his having another flight in that program prompted him to focus all his efforts on the upcoming Gemini program.

Anyone who has read anything about the Gemini program knows Grissom designed the Gemini capsule, because he knew they would have to actually fly the damn thing and he wanted to make it as effective for the astronauts as possible.  But only 14 of the 16 astronauts could fit in it, because he designed it for himself and he was small.  It never occurred to him that he heeded to make it good for men of different sizes (which, to my mind, is a HUGE design error).  So they had to redesign it.
 
2021-07-21 11:22:43 AM  

Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.


But it was caused by an electrical fault in the panel wiring, not static and not a fart.  Well, maybe not a fart.
 
2021-07-21 11:39:55 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

But it was caused by an electrical fault in the panel wiring, not static and not a fart.  Well, maybe not a fart.


It was caused by the oxygen environment. A tiny electrical spark normally wouldn't do a farking thing.
 
2021-07-21 11:47:48 AM  

Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.


Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.
 
2021-07-21 11:54:32 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.


Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.
 
2021-07-21 12:18:09 PM  

Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.

Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.


Jesus, you have a one track mind. Nobody is disputing that the pure oxygen environment which was also listed as a cause of the accident on the official report was a primary factor to the blazing inferno the occurred. We are just stating that the source of ignition was faulty wiring, or a spark from faulty wiring to be specific. Yes a pure oxygen environment will make any fuel source ignite into a blazing inferno if you look at it wrong, but it's not what started the reaction, it's just what drove the reaction to such extremes. It is what you might call, an accelerant.
 
2021-07-21 12:24:17 PM  

keldaria: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.

Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.

Jesus, you have a one track mind. Nobody is disputing that the pure oxygen environment which was also listed as a cause of the accident on the official report was a primary factor to the blazing inferno the occurred. We are just stating that the source of ignition was faulty wiring, or a spark from faulty wiring to be specific. Yes a pure oxygen environment will make any fuel source ignite into a blazing inferno if you look at it wrong, but it's not what started the reaction, it's just what drove the reaction to such extremes. It is what you might call, an accelerant.


You make it sound like the pure oxygen environment was safe but because of a simple spark they all burned to death. No, it was the oxygen environment and it was a catastrophic mistake. It was practically guaranteed to burn astronauts alive at some point. It was reckless.
 
2021-07-21 12:57:24 PM  

Russ1642: keldaria: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.

Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.

Jesus, you have a one track mind. Nobody is disputing that the pure oxygen environment which was also listed as a cause of the accident on the official report was a primary factor to the blazing inferno the occurred. We are just stating that the source of ignition was faulty wiring, or a spark from faulty wiring to be specific. Yes a pure oxygen environment will make any fuel source ignite into a blazing inferno if you look at it wrong, but it's not what started the reaction, it's just what drove the reaction to such extremes. It is what you might call, an accelerant.

You make it sound like the pure oxygen environment was safe but because of a simple spark they all burned to death. No, it was the oxygen environment and it was a catastrophic mistake. It was practically guaranteed to burn astronauts alive at some point. It was reckless.


Which was ironic because the pure oxygen environment was actually established by NASA for safety reasons...
 
2021-07-21 1:05:41 PM  

Russ1642: keldaria: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.

Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.

Jesus, you have a one track mind. Nobody is disputing that the pure oxygen environment which was also listed as a cause of the accident on the official report was a primary factor to the blazing inferno the occurred. We are just stating that the source of ignition was faulty wiring, or a spark from faulty wiring to be specific. Yes a pure oxygen environment will make any fuel source ignite into a blazing inferno if you look at it wrong, but it's not what started the reaction, it's just what drove the reaction to such extremes. It is what you might call, an accelerant.

You make it sound like the pure oxygen environment was safe but because of a simple spark they all burned to death. No, it was the oxygen environment and it was a catastrophic mistake. It was practically guaranteed to burn astronauts alive at some point. It was reckless.


Also, no i am not saying a pure oxygen environment is safe, it's a known factor that increases the intensity of a burn. It is a serious risk factor to an accident. Nobody is disputing that, but it alone isn't the sole cause of the Apollo 1 fire, it was a major contributing factor but is not the sole factor. They had performed numerous pressure and atmospheric tests of the same rig with the same pure oxygen environment without sparking a fire. You need 3 things to have a fire, without all 3 you have no fire. Something changed between earlier tests and the fatal one, I'm willing to bet it was a spark.
 
2021-07-21 6:01:55 PM  

Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: Russ1642: TheMysteriousStranger: That static electricity is to blame makes Apollo 1 even more ironic.

If I recall correctly, the bad design of that door was, in part, a response to this incident.

Static electricity wasn't to blame. They were using a 100% oxygen environment so they could have a lower internal pressure of the craft. A big enough fart would have caused a fire.

Bad description on my part.

Let's just say a spark.

Fill a house up with natural gas. When it explodes do you blame the gas leak or do you blame it on someone turning on a light switch? The Apollo 1 fire had everything to do with the pure oxygen environment.


You failed to see that I already agree with you. Indeed I've already knew the main problem was the pure molecular oxygen combined with the door and bad workmanship. In any chemical reaction, energy of activation must be added. In Apollo 1's case that was a spark. That LB7 was taken down, in part, by a spark is ironic.  I am not saying, nor would ever say, that the spark was the prime cause.
 
2021-07-21 11:37:14 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: OK, so that's one f*ck-up that might not have been his fault, which everyone but NASA has been saying since it happened.

Next do his design of the Gemini capsule that had to be completely re-done because only he fit in it.

/Mad props to any astronaut, but I don't understand why Grissom is so popular.


The Gemini farkup was actually McDonnell's fault. They were trying to pinch pennies in the company tradition and completely forgot to read NASA's astronaut requirements (5'11'' max - Alan Shepard only just fit). Gus was 5'5'', and since he was around all the time because he had a burning hatred of the Mercury design, they didn't measure the other guys. They also proposed to send 2 guys to the Moon in a Gemini capsule (which didn't have room for Moon suits or anything else) and tried to sell the Gemini-with-an-asshole MOL to NASA as Big G. 

/Yes, my Mickey Donnell axe is well ground and big as fark
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.