Apollo 1 disaster

[Tranquility Base]

One of the so-called "conspiracy theories" relating to Apollo deals with the accident that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.  I heard that the Grissom family even has some suspicions of sabotage.  I was wondering if anybody could elaborate on what exactly Scott Grissom, his son, believes about the accident.  All of the evidence seems to point toward a spark underneath the couch of one of the astronauts resulting in the tragic accident, but it's at least interesting to note that even the family of this famous astronaut may have misgivings about the fire and investigation.       

[Bob B.]

There was a discussion about this at the Apollohoax forum not too long ago.  Here is a link to the thread:

Grissom a whistleblower? Noob intro.

Below are some of the best responses:

Originally written by Jason Thompson:

What about his son, who is quite adamant it was murder

What about the rest of his family, who aren't? It is not uncommon for people close to such things to be unable to accept reality. Scott Grissom seems to me like someone who desperately wants to blame someone for the death of his father and cannot accept the possibility that it was an accident that cannot be laid at any one person's door.

Does he have evidence, as I recall he has claimed to be in posession of, that proves his father was murdered?

He claimed that a small piece of metal he came into possession of (don't ask me how he came to be in possession of it) was used to cross-circuit a couple of connections behind the control panel and cause the spark that started the fire. Unfortunately this claim was thoroughly investigated, at Scott Grissom's insistence, and found to be false. A thorough investigation showed that it was a piece of a bracket used to hold some piece of equipment behind the control panel, and that it was cut out of the bracket during the dismantling procedure after the fire. If I recall correctly the strongest evidence for this was that the cut surface was clean and showed no signs of having been exposed to fire, while the other surfaces, that would have been exposed during the fire, showed clear signs of its effects. The report is available online, but I can't recall the link right now.

Originally written by JayUtah:

What about his son, who is quite adamant it was murder

I've had extensive conversations with Scott Grissom.  I found him to be quite immature and irrational.

Does he have evidence, as I recall he has claimed to be in posession of, that proves his father was murdered?

I examined his evidence, at his request, through photographs.  I found it to be extremely flimsy.  All he had at the time was a parts bag pertaining to a certain switch.  In the parts bag there was a shim-like piece of metal that had been crudely cut, with no part number.  It had some pitting on it that was consistent with an electrical short circuit.  Grissom lept to the conclusion that this piece had been fastened between the switch and panel in such a way -- he couldn't say exactly how -- as to abrade the switch wiring harness and cause a short circuit.

The switch wiring, however, was intact.  And I could not see how the piece of metal could be fastened as he said -- it interfered with the anti-rotation washer.  I could not see how it could have cut the wires as suggested -- it was nowhere near the wiring harness.  And the sooting patterns indicated there was nothing on the switch but the switch.  There was simply no evidence -- and considerable counterevidence -- that the switch had been doctored as he suggested.

Then, through some collective detective work, we found out that NASA had been informed of this evidence and had been directed by Congress to investigate it on Grissom's behalf in order to identify the stray metal piece.  The report had not been published in NASA's normal fashion in order to protect the sensitivity of the rest of the Grissom family, and of the White and Chaffee families, who do not believe Scott Grissom at all.

Thanks to Scott Garber at NASA, I received permission to publish a copy of the report.

http://www.clavius.org/bibhill.html

I then asked Scott certain questions regarding the report, which I felt conclusively identified the metal as having been cut post-fire from a control panel support bracket.  Based on his answers I was able to determine that he indeed knew of the report and had apparently known about it for some time.  He simply declined to mention it to any of his followers.  After I published the report, Scott essentially stopped talking to me, except to call me grade school playground names every so often.

Originally written by JayUtah:

Scott Grissom seems to me like someone who desperately wants to blame someone for the death of his father and cannot accept the possibility that it was an accident that cannot be laid at any one person's door.

Originally he blamed NASA, even going so far as to call Borman and Lovell "felons" every time he mentioned their names, as if it were a title.  Apparently he believed these two astronauts knew of the plot to murder the Apollo 1 crew and testified otherwise to Congress.

He claimed that a small piece of metal he came into possession of (don't ask me how he came to be in possession of it)...

Scott received permission in the late 1990s to examine the disassembled Apollo 1 capsule at its storage facility in Langley, Virginia.  He wanted to see whether it could be prepared as a museum display.  The CM is a mere carcass, with the panels and interior equipment removed and stored in boxes in the facility.  While attempting to reassemble some of the panels, he noticed the foreign part in the parts bag of a switch.

Unfortunately this claim was thoroughly investigated, at Scott Grissom's insistence, and found to be false.

Not exactly.  Grissom and his mother immediately went public with their claims and theories.  Congressman Sensenbrenner asked for the investigation based on those public claims.  The report was delivered to him.  Originally S. Grissom claimed he did not know of the report and had not seen it.  But then he demonstrated knowledge of the report one could have only had from reading it.  (This was before I published it, when it was still relatively unknown.)

A thorough investigation showed that it was a piece of a bracket...
If I recall correctly the strongest evidence for this was that the cut surface was clean and showed no signs of having been exposed to fire...

Close.  The top and bottom surfaces are anodized, as are the inside edges of a small hole that has been drilled through it.  The outside edges are not anodized, indicating it was cut from its ancestor part after manufacturing.  There was little fire damage behind the control panel in question -- just some sooting.

The remainder of the bracket was recovered from the storage facility.  The alien piece fits very well (there is a void where another, still missing, piece should fit).  The marks on the edges are consistent with the cut edges of the bracket, and the geometry is fully consistent with a rotary grinding-wheel type cutting tool.  The thickness, composition, and coating of the piece are identical to the bracket.

There is no question that the piece was cut from the bracket.  The report mentions that it was likely cut so that it could be examined under an optical microscope.  The pitting on the piece is consistent with electrical arcing; all arc evidence was examined carefully as part of the investigation.  It was apparently determined that the arc had occurred long before the fire, probably during assembly and checkout.

[Nik]

Saddest part is that the USSR had had an almost identical accident during ground testing, which is why they switched breathing mixtures...

Due to the paranoid secrecy of that time, nothing was reported...

If anything was said --'15psi Oxygen = flash fire hazard' and/or 'You need a quick-release hatch'-- would it have made a difference ??

In that scramble for Space, perhaps not in time for Apollo 1...

[SpaceChem]

That concentration of oxygen was an accident waiting to happen - and it did.

[DonPMitchell]

The Americans and Russians took fairly different approaches to life support systems.  Originally, the US capsules were filled with pure oxygen at very low pressure.  The special problem with Apollo 1 was that it had pure oxygen at sea-level pressure, which was far more dangerous than the capsule environment when it was in space.

I assume the change in procedure was to use air during ground tests, but I don't know if they changed the mixture used in space.  It's only the partial pressure of oxygen that is important.  In other words 25% oxygen at 1 atm is exactly the same (fire-wise) as pure oxygen at 1/4 atm pressure.

On Vostok, the Russians used Oxygen + Nitrogen at 1 atmosphere of pressure, essentially just air.  They could do that because they didn't carry compressed oxygen tanks to keep replacing the atmosphere.  They used potassium superoxide to absorb CO2 and water and emit oxygen.  The nitrogen just remains as a neutral component, while they constantly scrub the same atmosphere over and over.

This was also the system used in Sputnik-2, for the dog Laika.

[Bob B.]

I assume the change in procedure was to use air during ground tests, but I don't know if they changed the mixture used in space.

I'd have to look it up to verify, but my recollection is that the pressure suit loop used 100% oxygen but the cabin was initially pressurized on the ground using a nitrogen-oxygen mixture.  Once underway the cabin atmosphere would bleed off down to 5 PSI and that pressure was maintained using pure oxygen.

[jdbenner]

Actually Pure oxygen at .209atm (sea level partial pressure) is still a greater fire risk than air at sea level since nitrogen helps cool the combustion gasses.   

[sparkmaster]

It's really sad that their forum is more active than this one.

 

[LunarOrbit]

You mean the ApolloHoax forum? I'm the moderator there too. It is sad that there needs to be a place to discuss the hoax theory, but fortunately most of the members of that forum are debunking the theory, not supporting it.

As for how active this forum is, I'm kind of glad it isn't any bigger than it is.

[SpaceChem]

To the best of my knowledge, Bob B. and jdbenner are correct in their information.

[DonPMitchell]

Apollo 14 used pure oxygen at 5 psi.  Just saw that factoid somewhere, so I think it was the use of pure oxygen at sea-level pressure that was stopped after the tragedy.

[jdbenner]

Apollo 14 used pure oxygen at 5 psi. Just saw that factoid somewhere, so I think it was the use of pure oxygen at sea-level pressure that was stopped after the tragedy.

I think that you are right. 

P.S. In my line of work we are not permitted to go in to a room with 23.5% or more oxygen due to fire hazard.  But we some times use rebreathers that supply pure oxygen.  And despite appearances a Level A chemical protective suit is nothing like a space suit, you can not move your arms when some prankster pressurizes it by sealing the outlet valves with tape.

[sparkmaster]

Has anyone seen a fire in a pure oxygen envirionment? I have not, and was wondering how it differed from a fire in a normal (Oxygen and Nitrogen).

[jdbenner]

Yes, in Chemistry class.  The fire burns faster and hotter. 

[sparkmaster]

Man I wish I had a cool chemistry class where we got to light stuff on fire.