Did Gus Grissom Screw the Pooch and Blow Liberty Bell 7's Hatch?

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=astorian]
If you’re serious, and IF there was a condom, it might have been Gus Grissom’s urine holder.
[/QUOTE]
No, no, and my father used to that on long missions. They were all issued condoms before they went on leave and he added to his contribution to the war effort by dropping his full spares on Germany. I’ve been hit by a water balloon that had reached its terminal velocity and it doesn’t hurt but had it been filled with urine it would’ve been extra-special-degrading. And LSLGuy, they hold a LOT of water (gallons), but not very securely. Condoms are better used for their original purpose.

Mach Tuck, did you ever see the Soviet’s Lunar Lander? We used that fancy, two-piece thing with a frickin’ CAR, already, and theirs looked like one and a half 55-gallon oil drums welded together. The Kosmonaut flew it standing up and I’m not entirely sure he could’ve used it to get back to the Command Module. Kosmonauts were MEN (even the women, though I don’t have the test results) while NASA only produces women. Girly women who expected to get home alive. It ain’t called “bleeding-edge technology” for nothing.
Note: The preceding was meant as a sick joke. I wept when Challenger blew up and am still angry that NASA had such a cavalier attitude toward safety. They had sold us on a safe space program. When Columbia went in I was back to my cynical, even jerkish, self.

22

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Had he seriously been suspected of losing a spacecraft, I doubt he would have been named to command the first manned flights of two new designs.
[/QUOTE]
All of Johnny’s post is true. To suggest that Gus Grissom “screwed the pooch” is to violate the memory of a brave and capable man with whom NASA retained its faith for years after the incident. Remember, this was when NASA was frickin’ NASA. They would not have done so if there had been any question of his competence.

23

[QUOTE=user_hostile]

Unfortunately, I failed to ask the obvious follow-up question: so did the Soviets reuse any of their manned vehicles? I don’t know; Stranger on a Train do you know otherwise?
[/QUOTE]

Nope. A single use design is easier to design and build than a reusable design.

24

[QUOTE=Scruloose]
(And here’s an awesome video of such a splashdown.)
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen this video before and it IS definitely awesome. It’s amazing that the opposite booster maintains the exact same rotation rate for as long as you can see it. I will say that viewing this video a second time caused me to notice something I hadn’t seen before. Right at the 3:38 mark, an alien face shows up momentarily, but quite clearly. I’m waiting for the nuts to come out of the woodwork on this one. :stuck_out_tongue:

25

[QUOTE=Scruloose]
Doesn’t NASA re-use the shuttle boosters? They hit the water.

(And here’s an awesome video of such a splashdown.)
[/QUOTE]

Yes they do. But 1) they’re not manned (even though they’re man rated–i.e., NASA intends to use a varient of them to place a manned spacecraft on top for lauch into orbit). 2) They’re essentially segmented steel tubes with a parachute on one end and a nozzle sitckiing out the other end. Refurbishemnt is pretty straigh forward, and based on some NASA guy I talk to years ago, the fuel is the major cost component of the SRB (I can’t find a cite for this though).

A manned spacecraft, on the other hand, has numorous sub systems electrical, life support, communications, attitude control, etc. All of these sub-systems are necessary for a sucessful mission. From what work I’ve done with satellites, by analogy it would require tearing out all the systems retesting them (visual, thermal, shake and vibe, etc.), and then reinstalling the equipment back in. Not to mention tearing down the S/C itself and inspecting every nook and cranny for corrosion and other such detriments and tearing out the old ablative material and replacing it with new (although to be fair that would also apply to a land based one). That would be much more expensive than just buying a new one.

26

[QUOTE=flex727]
I will say that viewing this video a second time caused me to notice something I hadn’t seen before. Right at the 3:38 mark, an alien face shows up momentarily, but quite clearly. I’m waiting for the nuts to come out of the woodwork on this one. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]
Who do you think is manning the camera?

Or should that be ‘aliening’ the camera?

27

The heck with the eleventy-gazillion spacecraft that was lost for a time on the sea-floor, what about the roll or two of “mercury” dimes that Cdr. Grissom took with him? Were they found as well?

28

[QUOTE=Common Tater]
The heck with the eleventy-gazillion spacecraft that was lost for a time on the sea-floor, what about the roll or two of “mercury” dimes that Cdr. Grissom took with him? Were they found as well?
[/QUOTE]

I’d like to know about these as well. Weren’t they in his spacesuit, and part of the reason he nearly drowned, due to the extra weight dragging him down?

29

[QUOTE=flex727]
I’d like to know about these as well. Weren’t they in his spacesuit, and part of the reason he nearly drowned, due to the extra weight dragging him down?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he had that many dimes.

From wiki:

30

[QUOTE=user_hostile]
A landing on terra firma, however, does apparently allow reuse. I can prove it by noting you’ve never seen the Space Shuttle using water skis on landing :smiley:

Unfortunately, I failed to ask the obvious follow-up question: so did the Soviets reuse any of their manned vehicles? I don’t know; Stranger on a Train do you know otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
As user_hostile indicated, the cost and risk of recovering and refurbishing a spacecraft after exposure to salt water makes it not worth the effort. The SRB cases, however, are like cartridge brass; you just sandblast them, check their trueness, and fill 'em back up. (It’s not quite that easy, but they aren’t sophisticated hardware. IIRC, Feynman has a description of the refurbishment process in What Do You Care What Other People Think?.) The cases aren’t the only thing that is reused; nozzles, thrust vector actuators, and the APUs are supposed to be reusable if not damaged by the landing. The ordnance and descent systems are not reused for reliability reasons. I’m not sure how many actual reuses they get out of each SRB, but I’d guess somewhere between 5 and 10.

Back when the Air Force was planning to use the STS for polar orbit launches out of VAFB, they had a fiber-wound composite case designed. Due to the lower bending strength of FWC they used a different “forked” joint design which ended up very similar to the redesign of the SRB after the Challenger disaster. These cases would not have been reusable, AFAIK.

The Russians don’t reuse their Soyuz capsules, but they have had a number of other concepts and at least one operational spacecraft that was designed to be reusable, that one being the Buran shuttle. Like the STS, Buran was vertically launched, albeit all of its boost came from external (liquid) boosters, a single main Energia booster burning liquid hydrogen with a liquid oxygen oxidizer, and 4-8 Zenit strap-on kerosene/LOx boosters. The Zenits were designed to be partially reusable (and still find use today in both whole form and main propulsion systems in a variety of launch systems) and the Russians had plans for a later generation of boosters that would be completely resusable, flying back to the launch point for immediate refurbishment. (This is something that was also considered by NASA during the STS development, but shelved as a later phase, and then indefinitely, owing to time and budget constraints. Liquid fly-back boosters were still being studied, at least provisionally, through the late 'Nineties.) Except for one unmanned test launch, Buran has not been used, but like the Shuttle it is reusable, albeit now destroyed in a hangar collapse, with other models in states of partial construction.

In looking around at the recent developments on the Ares I launch vehicle and Ares V heavy booster, I see there is considerable discussion on whether to reuse the lower stage motors (a 5 segment booster based on the SRBs). Brilliant.

Stranger

31

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
I don’t think he had that many dimes.

From wiki:
[/QUOTE]

Well, this article from Air & Space Magazine seems to agree, and says he had 52 dimes. Another source I saw indicated they were in the capsule, not in his suit. But I clearly remember a reference to him being weighed down by many rolls of Mercury dimes while trying to avoid drowning in the book The Right Stuff. I can’t seem to lay my hands on my copy at the moment to confirm my recollection. Perhaps Mr. Wolfe was using a bit of artistic license in that passage.

32

[QUOTE=flex727]
in the book The Right Stuff.
[/QUOTE]

It’s been years since I read the book, but in the film Grissom was portrayed as having ‘screwed the pooch’. There was a line by the Yeager character that indicated that Grissom was a professional test pilot with gobs of training and experience, so people should take Grissom’s word for what happened; but the impression I got from the film, if not the book, is that Wolfe condemned him. Wolfe got a lot of things right, but remember that he was writing a dramatic story.

33

Spacelink

He might have had some in the suit, too.

I don’t recall Wolfe saying Grissom did or did not “screw the pooch”, he left it open and concentrated on who believed it.

34

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
I don’t recall Wolfe saying Grissom did or did not “screw the pooch”, he left it open and concentrated on who believed it.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t remember what he wrote in the book. In the film, IMO, he weighted the arguments toward Grissom’s accusers and basically had Grissom running around saying ‘I didn’t do it! Why won’t you believe me?’ He did leave it open, but it still seemed biased to me.

35

Again, from a hard-core and rather informed air and space buff, what was he supposed to have done wrong on a detailed level? I have never heard an explanation and therefore don’t believe it. What were the systems, procedures, and switches that were not done correctly?

36

[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
Again, from a hard-core and rather informed air and space buff, what was he supposed to have done wrong on a detailed level? I have never heard an explanation and therefore don’t believe it. What were the systems, procedures, and switches that were not done correctly?
[/QUOTE]

I can’t answer in detail, but as I recall the allegation from the film he ‘panicked’ and blew the hatch by whatever means were provided for that purpose. IRL he did not have the bruise that would certainly have shown up if he did panic and deliberately blow the hatch. I don’t recall that being mentioned in the film. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but I think the editing implied that maybe his helmet ‘hit the switch’ (after he seemed to become cluastrophobic in the helmet); so maybe he panicked getting the helmet off and the helmet ‘hit the switch’.

In any case, my recollections are that Grissom did not panic or do anything wrong, and the hatch really did ‘just blow’. Engineers discovered that a hatch could blow inadvertently, and did not install one on Apollo I. Ironically, the astronaut whose ship was lost after the hatch was lost was killed because his new spacecraft did not have an explosive hatch.

37

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Ironically, the astronaut whose ship was lost after the hatch was lost was killed because his new spacecraft did not have an explosive hatch.
[/QUOTE]
There is some irony in the fact that Apollo 1’s capsule did not have an explosive hatch. However, I would debate that an explosive hatch would have saved those three astronauts. Nothing short of ejection seats would have got them out of that capsule before the fire seared their lungs.

38

[QUOTE=Tully Mars]
There is some irony in the fact that Apollo 1’s capsule did not have an explosive hatch. However, I would debate that an explosive hatch would have saved those three astronauts. Nothing short of ejection seats would have got them out of that capsule before the fire seared their lungs.
[/QUOTE]

The reason the fire started and rapidly went out of control, however, was the pure oxygen atmosphere in the capsule. Blowing an explosive hatch would have filled the capsule with normal atmospheric air, possibly extinguishing the fire.

As it was, they were doomed. The wiki entry indicates that they were dead within 17 seconds.

39

[QUOTE=LSLGuy]
I have a hard time believing that any cigarette butts would still be intact after 30 years on the sea floor, presumably immersed in sea water. This sounds real fishy (ar ar) to me.
[/QUOTE]

Cite. I may have mis-remembered the coke bottle, but the cigarette butts were found. I doubt the filters are bio-degradable.

The dimes and dollars were probably Grissom’s. Astronauts were known for taking souvenirs up with them. I suspect that’s why NASA now has a personal weight allowance. I would rather they out the trinkets in officially sanctioned pouches, than stowing them an whatever nook they can find in the spacecraft.

40

[QUOTE=robby]
The reason the fire started and rapidly went out of control, however, was the pure oxygen atmosphere in the capsule. Blowing an explosive hatch would have filled the capsule with normal atmospheric air, possibly extinguishing the fire.

As it was, they were doomed. The wiki entry indicates that they were dead within 17 seconds.
[/QUOTE]

Seventeen seconds? I’m not sure what that means. The heart stops? The brain goes through irreversible ischemia? I would have thought it would have taken that long to fall unconscious; clinical death of some sorts would have followed within minutes…

Rats :rolleyes: , I should have read Tully Mars a little more closely… still even with your lungs seared-- would that cause death that quickly?