[HN Gopher] Gus Grissom taught NASA a hard lesson: "You can hurt...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Gus Grissom taught NASA a hard lesson: "You can hurt yourself in
       the ocean" (2016)
        
       Author : ColinWright
       Score  : 98 points
       Date   : 2021-07-21 08:26 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
        
       | billfruit wrote:
       | Why did NASA prefer landing in sea rather than over landmasses
       | like Soviets did? I think there could be factors that makes
       | landing on dry land safer than on water.
        
         | vikingerik wrote:
         | Well, the splashdown was only a temporary stage of NASA's space
         | flight history. They switched to land landings with the
         | Shuttle. Only a couple dozen Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions
         | splashed down, compared to a hundred-plus Shuttle missions on
         | land.
        
         | VLM wrote:
         | Earths surface is 70% water so if there's an incident then
         | there's a 70% chance you'll be landing in water.
         | 
         | Its possible to build a land lander that would not survive an
         | ocean landing. So if for safety reasons you have to modify the
         | design for water landing, may as well just make a water lander.
         | 
         | (edited to add, speed at splashdown for Apollo capsules was
         | about 15 MPH, so accidentally crashing an Apollo into a flat
         | cornfield would feel about like falling off a bicycle... there
         | would be some damage but its rather unlikely to kill the
         | astronauts, so most water landers can safely-ish land on land
         | with an extremely high odds of survival)
         | 
         | Also helps that with the implosion of the English Empire the
         | USA ruled the seas. Yes we had/have air force bases everywhere
         | also, but there's just more surface area controlled.
         | 
         | If the Soviets had tried ocean recovery it would have been
         | extremely awkward. Very handwavy the Soviets had an enormous
         | number of low quality attack subs and extremely limited surface
         | ships, whereas the USA had/has a huge dominating surface fleet.
         | For better or worse the USA has enormous experience fishing
         | aerospace vehicles out of the water, the USSR simply could not
         | do ocean recovery like we did.
        
         | dogorman wrote:
         | The Soviet system injured a number of people quite seriously.
         | It gave Sigmund Jahn a permanent spinal injury in 1978, and in
         | 1969 it broke Boris Voylnov's teeth. Water landings weren't
         | without incident, but I don't think there were ever any
         | injuries as severe as those.
        
         | busterarm wrote:
         | More equipment is involved in a land landing. That's more that
         | can fail. you also have to consider where they're going to have
         | an abort landing.
         | 
         | The Soviet's launch locations weren't exactly surrounded by
         | oceans. I'm sure landing in the Caspian Sea was undesirable to
         | them for other reasons.
        
         | sparker72678 wrote:
         | A few of the pros:
         | 
         | * It's a big, flat surface (relative to uneven dry land)
         | 
         | * Safe to land a heavier craft with only parachutes (no retro-
         | rockets required to soften landing)
         | 
         | * There's a lot of ocean all around the US, so lots of possible
         | landing zones
         | 
         | * Large margin for error that still has a safe touchdown
        
       | jtbayly wrote:
       | It would be a more interesting article if it delved into the
       | question of whether his claim can be believed. For example, did
       | they ever verify a fault with the mechanism such that the hatch
       | could blow without pressing the plunger?
        
         | whartung wrote:
         | It's a shame that the most prolific public view of Grissom is
         | how he was portrayed in "The Right Stuff". His exasperation
         | trying to describe it as a "glitch, a technical malfunction" in
         | front of the unbelieving review board.
         | 
         | Apparently, they did, indeed, later learn that the bolts "just
         | blew". And, at least in part, because of that, the door on
         | Apollo 1 did NOT have explosive bolts. If the bolts had worked
         | properly on Mercury, then the bolts may have been in place on
         | Apollo 1, and the crew and Gus Grissom may well still be alive
         | today because of them.
         | 
         | As the engineer said in "From the Earth to the Moon", where
         | this was dramatized, "I've never been a fan of irony."
        
           | leereeves wrote:
           | > Apparently, they did, indeed, later learn that the bolts
           | "just blew".
           | 
           | When the capsule was recovered in 1999, they found no burn
           | marks on the remains of the bolts, suggesting, according to
           | some, that "perhaps the explosive cord never detonated". I
           | don't know, but it is interesting.
           | 
           | 1: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
           | xpm-1999-dec-12-mn-43115...
        
           | jtbayly wrote:
           | I've never even heard of the guy. I'm not criticizing him.
           | I'm just criticizing the article. It raised a fascinating
           | question and then gave 0 info about it. Just a short quote by
           | the guy in question to close the article. I was listening to
           | it on my phone and I thought the rest of the article had been
           | skipped somehow when it ended there.
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | It's worse than that. Because of that incident with his
           | module, he was shifted in the astronaut rotation. If I
           | understand that history properly, without the roster change,
           | he would not have been on the Apollo 1 test crew at all,
           | bolts or no bolts.
           | 
           | Poor guy could not catch a break from NASA.
           | 
           | (Also Fred Ward has not gotten anywhere near enough screen
           | time)
        
       | DonaldPShimoda wrote:
       | > If we die we want people to accept it. We are in a risky
       | business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it will not
       | delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of
       | life.
       | 
       | --- Gus Grissom
       | 
       | I always find this quote relevant in any thread about Grissom's
       | accomplishments because he was involved in this incident 6-7
       | years prior to saying it. He honestly believed that the risks
       | were worthwhile, and he wasn't afraid to be the guinea pig to
       | stand by that belief.
        
       | ChrisArchitect wrote:
       | Other discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27869450
        
       | macksd wrote:
       | >> More than half a century later, Grissom's name has faded from
       | memory... Grissom deserves recognition not as an unlucky footnote
       | but as a genuine hero.
       | 
       | He was also very personally involved in the design for Project
       | Gemini, which certainly had its flaws but is underappreciated
       | IMO. It ends up being seen as simply a stepping stone toward
       | Apollo, but it had actually had a bunch of very interesting
       | design goals of it's own: very precise and controllable landings
       | (including, in earlier plans, a fold-out glider with the pilot's
       | windows facing forward for landing), the beginnings of space
       | stations, much faster turn-around time and more modular design
       | than Mercury, etc.
        
       | one_off_comment wrote:
       | It's always funny to me when people talk about Gus Grissom being
       | an obscure figure. I'll always remember the name because my
       | family would take me to the Grissom Air Force Base in Indiana to
       | see air shows almost yearly when I was a child.
        
       | AYBABTME wrote:
       | Eric Berger is quite prolific. I wonder how he got started.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | doodlebugging wrote:
       | I'm old enough to remember most of the early space program. Our
       | small TV gave us a window to the world colored in black and white
       | with shades of grey.
       | 
       | It was so exciting as a kid to watch these rocket launches, ocean
       | recoveries, and television updates that used crude models of the
       | activities to give viewers an idea of how things were supposed to
       | be working.
       | 
       | I remember when Apollo 1 burned up and have never forgotten
       | Grissom, Chaffee, and White. When Armstrong and Aldrin landed on
       | the moon I was glued to the TV.
       | 
       | Space is hard though to a casual observer it may look easy.
       | Success does that to your perception.
       | 
       | Thanks for this article as I didn't know some of the details
       | behind Grissom's contributions to our efforts.
        
       | jccooper wrote:
       | There's recent thought (as in: published today) that static
       | electricity, triggered by the helicopter recovery process, was
       | responsible for activating the hatch:
       | 
       | https://astronomy.com/news/2021/07/did-static-electricity-bl...
        
         | macintux wrote:
         | That's a compelling explanation, thanks. Quite detailed.
        
         | selimthegrim wrote:
         | A similar phenomenon was implicated in triggering the
         | Hindenburg explosion on a recent PBS documentary.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-21 23:01 UTC)