Apollo 1 capsule moved

[Murph]

From the local fishwrapper

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-63429sy0...1&cset=true

A tragic artifact

With little notice, the fire-scarred Apollo 1 capsule remains at NASA Langley Research Center after 40 years. Meanwhile, the sensitive debate about its fate continues.

BY PATRICK LYNCH

247-4534

February 25, 2007

HAMPTON -- A 1967 fire in the Apollo 1 capsule at what was then Cape Kennedy, Fla., took the lives of three astronauts and momentarily brought the space race to a breathtaking halt.

For the past 40 years, the charred capsule has sat largely unnoticed in a corrugated-steel shed at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton. Last weekend, it was moved for the first time - to a warehouse 90 feet away, where it can be kept in a climate-controlled environment.

It's not clear now - nor has it ever been -what will be done with the most heart-wrenching artifact from the otherwise-triumphant era of NASA's march to the moon. The final report from an investigation of the accident directed Langley to keep the capsule, and that order stands today.

In 1989, NASA said it was going to truck the capsule to Florida and dump it in an abandoned missile silo. An outcry about abandoning history reversed that decision but hasn't led to any known change in its status.

Any mention of the capsule since has been tempered by concern about a proper and tasteful display and a search for agreement among family members of the three deceased astronauts about what to do with it.

Is the move to a climate-controlled environment a clue that there are plans to keep the capsule for the long run?

"That's encouraging, anyway," Lowell Grissom said in a telephone interview from his St. Louis home. His older brother, Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, was commander of the fateful Apollo mission.

"The climate has certainly changed now," Lowell Grissom said. "People are looking more at what really came out of that accident. I think it would be a great thing to get it back to Launch Pad 34. That's the place it most likely belongs."

SPARK IGNITED BLAZE

Gus Grissom, Edward H. White II and Roger Chaffee died in the capsule Jan. 27, 1967, during a launch-sequence practice run on Pad 34 at Kennedy Space Center. A spark from an uncertain source started the blaze, which quickly spread in the pure-oxygen environment inside.

The three astronauts - wearing spacesuits and strapped in their seats when the fire ignited - struggled for a few minutes, yelling for help over a radio as bystanders tried helplessly to open the capsule's hatch. They were turned back by smoke and intense heat.

The oxygen burned quickly, leaving the astronauts nothing to breathe. The crew asphyxiated on toxic gases. Their tragic end struck a stunning blow to the people close to them and to a huge organization that had been charging toward its vision of putting a man on the moon.

Exhaustive investigations and examinations of NASA's work on the space program followed. Many Apollo astronauts and NASA administrators credit the success of the later lunar landings to changes in capsule design and management practices that came out of the Apollo 1 investigation.

John Young is an astronaut who went to the moon, flew the first space shuttle mission and flew with Grissom on Gemini 3. He said last month that the Apollo 1 astronauts' sacrifice was a turning point in getting the U.S. to the moon.

"They weren't paying attention. Bureaucracies get that way after a while," Young said at a 40th-anniversary memorial. "If we hadn't had the Apollo fire, we'd never have got to the moon. Without the vehicle being built right, you'd have lost one on the way."

'THERE IS NO CHANGE'

NASA said it moved the capsule Feb. 17 because the shed that it was in was deteriorating. J.D. Harrington, a spokesman at NASA headquarters, said the move didn't necessarily foreshadow any long-term plan for displaying the capsule.

"There's a lot of concerns with the proper storage of the capsule," he said. But "there is no plan. There is no change."

Lowell Grissom acknowledged that while he was perfectly open to displaying the capsule, some family members of the other Apollo 1 astronauts didn't think it should be done.

"They've kind of hidden this thing away for a long time. Exactly how it would be done is important," Grissom said of any display or memorial.

In recent years, NASA officials have been playing a more public role in anniversary memorials of the Apollo 1 tragedy. The astronauts' names are inscribed in granite at the Space Mirror, a memorial at Cape Canaveral, Fla., that also includes the names of those who died in the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. In 2004, three hills on Mars were named after Grissom, White and Chaffee.

'IN MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT'

But for a long time, the task of keeping the memory of the crew alive fell to a few people who really had no connection to the mission.

David W. Alberg now works in Newport News as director of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. But 17 years ago, his history project as a junior at George Mason University helped bring to light the plan to dump the Apollo 1 capsule in a missile silo at Cape Canaveral.

Alberg was doing a research project about how NASA dealt with certain artifacts from the space program. Looking through archives, he came across a misfiled memo from 1989 that outlined plans to get rid of the Apollo 1 capsule. "It was going to be moved in the middle of the night," Alberg said.

He began urging NASA to drop its plans and keep the capsule. Eventually, he was given access to the Langley shed that had housed the craft for 23 years.

"There's no lights, so you crawl in through this hatch and turn on your flashlight, and your beam hits the side of the capsule with the flag and the words 'United States' and this big burn mark running through it," Alberg recalled in a 1990 Washington Times story about his effort.

"It really sparked something in me. My heart just sank seeing this thing. All this history I've just read about in textbooks and seen in films. But then I was in this dark room, touching history. It was so emotional."

After NASA decided not to scrap the capsule, Alberg stayed on the case. His research project eventually led him to a job at the then-new Virginia Air & Space Center in Hampton, where he eventually became curator.

Alberg said his first goal was simply not to let history get destroyed. He thinks that the capsule should be displayed but recognizes that it could still be a long time before that's possible.

"It may take another 20, 30 years in history before cooler heads prevail," he said. "We never would've got to the moon if they'd not made changes after Apollo 1. I believe that very strongly. It's a pivotal part of the story."

Alberg attended a memorial at Cape Canaveral on the tragedy's 30th anniversary in 1997.

That event was the fruit of work by two men, Bob Castro and Mark Pinchal, who also were young boys at the time of the accident but later thought that it was glossed over.

The two actually met at the launch site, on the 25th anniversary in 1992, when both made individual pilgrimages to pay their respects.

Accompanied by NASA employees at Kennedy Space Center who shared their interest, Castro and Pinchal began working together to bring greater attention to the significance of Apollo 1.

In those years, Castro, Pinchal and a few others planned makeshift remembrances at the launch site, culminating in a ceremony with family members and a jet flyover on the 30th anniversary.

NASA was not officially involved.

Reached by phone last week, Castro, a television producer in Atlanta, said this year's 40th anniversary - in which NASA played a key role - was gratifying.

"(Remembering) the crew has come a long way," Castro said, "since it was couple guys with flashlights and a boom box, standing on the concrete pad."

[David Walker]

Very interesting story. Thanks for posting it.

[BAM'n'IVM]

I say display it (either restored or as-is) in the National Air and Space Muesum as a tribute to Grissom, White and Chaffee, and the other lives lost over the history of the space program.

[Keith Diamond]

I guess it would be difficut for some to have it displayed becuase it's an artifact that three men have died in. That's very different from the usual artifact displayed in a museum. I guess they're caught in the debate on what is an approprite way to preserve this piece of history. Just preservation, or preservation in a display? It's history, but should it have been destroyed after the conclusion of the investigation due to it's morbidness?

Now, I'm not trying to compare NASA missions to NASCAR, but I remember when Kenny Irwin and Adam Petty died, the cars were later destroyed. I have no idea what happened to Dale Earnhardt's car.

[BAM'n'IVM]

I guess it would be difficut for some to have it displayed becuase it's an artifact that three men have died in. That's very different from the usual artifact displayed in a museum.

This is exactly why I think it should be displayed - not as a morbid item, but as a tribute to the crew and their tragic loss. I can't think of a better way to drive to point home to the general public that this stuff was (and is) dangerous than to preserve and display the capsule as a memorial.

[f14tomcat]

I think that at pad 34 it should be buried. I grewup from the early days of the space program. I remember very plainly the funeral for them. Out of respect for the families it should buried.

Wayne

[vince14]

Now, I'm not trying to compare NASA missions to NASCAR, but I remember when Kenny Irwin and Adam Petty died, the cars were later destroyed. I have no idea what happened to Dale Earnhardt's car.

The remains of both Ayrton Senna's and Roland Ratzenberger's cars (and, indeed, their helmets and overalls) were destroyed after their deaths - Senna's Williams many years later, after the Italian inquest was finally over.

If the capsule is going anywhere, it should go somewhere inside NASA's Space Flight programme to remind the engineers of what can happen when you get things wrong.

Vince

[Val K]

Certainly a tough choice to make. I think ultimately though I think it should be preserved, maybe even restored to it's pre-fire condition. Yes, three men died there, but I think that the emotional import of that fact will fade with time. People always line up out the door to see King Tut, Dealey Plaza in Dallas is still the most visited site in Texas and people still journey to places like Auschwitz to memorialize the Holocaust. There may be some who go because of some weird morbid fascination with death, but most simply wish to make an honest memorial to those that went before them. Ultimately, Apollo 1 should be no different. That's why I think it should be restored and put on display in as dignified a manner as possible.

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Very moving bit of history.... *sigh*

[niart17]

I guess it would be difficut for some to have it displayed becuase it's an artifact that three men have died in. That's very different from the usual artifact displayed in a museum.

I'm no expert, but seems to me, out of all of the planes, tanks, and other war machines that are displayed in museums, surely alot of them have had men die in them. Think of just the B-17's on display, I would bet most of them have had a gunner or so killed in them. That to me is just as much a reason to preserve and display it for all to see and learn. I believe if kids were shown that, as cool looking as all the artifacts in a museum are, there have been lives lost in and by these machines, those kids may have a little more respect for them. History is not just a spectator sport, it should be used for advancement as well as honor.

Just my 2 cents.

Bill

[yardbird78]

I think that it should be displayed "as is" at the Cape Canaveral missile museum, both as a tribute to the three astronauts and as a warning to all concerned of the hazards of space travel. If it were restored to it's pre-accident condition, it would lose most of it's significance. It would look just like all the rest of the space hardware, just with a sign denoting what it is. :lol:

Darwin

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

I think that it should be displayed "as is" at the Cape Canaveral missile museum, both as a tribute to the three astronauts and as a warning to all concerned of the hazards of space travel. If it were restored to it's pre-accident condition, it would lose most of it's significance. It would look just like all the rest of the space hardware, just with a sign denoting what it is.

Darwin

That's how I feel. Displayed in a solemn setting, not just out in the open for all to see. Besides...I see the burning and scorch marks as sort of "sacred soot," and I for one would never want to be the person who has to scrub that off.

[Randy Wise]

Put me down for not displaying it. The fitting tribute to the three Apollo 1 astronauts are the moon rocks that are scattered all over the world and the fact that every man that ventured to the moon - returned alive. Without the sacrifices of Grissom, White and Chaffee none of that would have happened.

The capsule doesn't belong out in the open where it can be gawked at. None of the parts from the two Shuttle disasters are on display. And the Apollo 1 capsule should be treated accordingly.

Randy

[Just call me Ray]

I remember hearing about a debate concerning the remains of the shuttle Columbia after that incident. Apparently, they recovered enough of the shuttle in good enough condition such that, if they wanted to, they could reasonably rebuild it good enough for static display, and there were already provisions being made for it to become a museum piece before its final flight. I remember reading from a NASA spokesman that some still want to see it preserved because it was, after all, NASA's first (operational) shuttle. Although I get the impression that a lot of that enthusiasm has died down and the Enterprise (operational or not) is now just considered NASA's true first shuttle (and it is, well, true).

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Well, in this case, it's far smaller, and it wouldn't have to be rebuilt.

I think part of it for me is, I wouldn't have the heart to scrap it.

[BAM'n'IVM]

I think part of it for me is, I wouldn't have the heart to scrap it.

I agree. I don't think it should be scrapped or hidden away like something to be forgotten. It should be displayed, but displayed appropriately with a lot of information about the men who died inside it - you should have to walk through a display dedicated to the lives of Grissom, White and Chaffee before seeing the capsule, and it should be displayed not as a curiosity, but as a somber memorial so museum visitors will understand what impact their loss had not only on the Apollo program, but the nation. The next exhibit in line should tout the successes of the moon program.

At least as I see it.

[Tomcat Fanatic]

I say display it (either restored or as-is) in the National Air and Space Muesum as a tribute to Grissom, White and Chaffee, and the other lives lost over the history of the space program.

I say display it as is. It IS a part of the history of the Apollo program for better or worse. The fact is that even in death, those three men did the Apollo program an invaluable, if costly, service. They deaths showed us, in no uncertain terms, where we had gone wrong with the Apollo program, and what we REALLY needed to fix in order to ensure a successful lunar landing. If they hadn't died, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins might have died in their places. In the end I think that fire saved more lives than it took, and that should be remembered.

[Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy]

Well said.