History of the Apollo 1 Tragedy

History of the Apollo 1 Tragedy On   January 27, 1967, three men lost their lives in NASAs first disaster. It occurred on the ground as Virgil I. Gus Grissom  (the second American astronaut to fly into space),  Edward H. White II, (the first American astronaut to walk in space) and Roger B. Chaffee, (a rookie astronaut on his first space mission), were practicing for the first Apollo mission. At the time, since it was a ground test, the mission was called Apollo/Saturn 204. Ultimately, it would be called Apollo 1 and it was going to be an Earth-orbiting trip. Lift-off was scheduled for February 21, 1967, and would be the first of a series of trips to train astronauts for the moon landing slated for the late 1960s.   Mission Practice Day On January 27th, the astronauts were going through a procedure called a plugs-out test. Their Command Module was mounted on the Saturn 1B rocket on the launch pad just as it would have been during the actual launch. The rocket was unfueled but everything else was as close to reality as the team could make it. That days work was to be an entire countdown sequence from the moment the astronauts entered the capsule until the time that launch would have occurred. It seemed very straightforward, no risk to the astronauts, who were suited up and ready to go.   A Few Seconds of Tragedy Right after lunch, the crew entered the capsule to start the test. There were small problems from the beginning and finally, a communications failure caused a hold to be placed on the count at 5:40 p.m. At 6:31 p.m.  a voice (possibly Roger Chaffees) exclaimed, Fire, I smell fire! Two seconds later, Ed Whites voice came over the circuit, Fire in the cockpit. The final voice transmission was very garbled. They’re fighting a bad fire- let’s get out. Open ‘er up or, We’ve got a bad fire- let’s get out. We’re burning up or, I’m reporting a bad fire. I’m getting out.The transmission ended with a cry of pain.   The flames  spread quickly through the cabin. The last transmission ended 17 seconds after the start of the fire. All telemetry information was lost shortly after that. Emergency responders were dispatched quickly to help. The crew most likely perished within the first 30 seconds of smoke inhalation or burns. Resuscitation efforts were futile. A Cascade of Problems Attempts to get at the astronauts were stymied by a host of problems. First,  the capsule hatch was closed with clamps that required extensive ratcheting to release. Under the best of circumstances, it could take at least 90 seconds to open them. Since the hatch opened inward, pressure had to be vented before it could be opened. It was nearly five minutes after the start of the fire before rescuers could get into the cabin. By this time, the oxygen-rich atmosphere, which had seeped into the materials of the cabin, had ignited and spread flames throughout the capsule.   Apollo 1 Aftermath The disaster put a hold on the entire Apollo program. Investigators needed to probe the wreckage and figure out the causes of the fire. Although a specific point of ignition for the fire could not be determined, the investigation boards final report blamed the fire on electrical arcing among the wires hanging open in the cabin, which was filled with materials that burned easily. In the oxygen-enriched atmosphere, all it took was one spark to set off a fire. The astronauts couldnt escape through the locked hatches in time.   The lessons of the Apollo 1 fire were tough ones. NASA replaced cabin components with self-extinguishing materials. Pure oxygen (which is always a danger) was replaced by a nitrogen-oxygen mixture at launch. Finally, engineers re-designed the hatch to open outward and made it so that it could be removed quickly in the event of a problem. Honoring those Who Lost their Lives The mission was officially assigned the name Apollo 1 in honor of Grissom, White, and Chaffee. The first Saturn V launch (uncrewed) in November 1967 was designated Apollo 4 (no missions were ever designated Apollo 2 or 3).  Ã‚   Grissom and Chaffee were laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, and Ed White is buried at West Point at the US Military Academy where he studied. All three men are honored throughout the country, with their names on schools, military, and civilian museums and other structures.   Reminders of Danger The Apollo 1 fire was a stark reminder that space exploration is not an easy thing to do. Grissom himself once said that exploration was a risky business. 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.   To minimize risks, astronauts and ground crews practice relentlessly, planning for almost any eventuality. as flight crews have done for decades. Apollo 1 wasnt the first time NASA had lost astronauts. In 1966, astronauts Elliott See and Charles Bassett were killed in a crash of their NASA jet crashed on a routine flight to St. Louis. In addition, the Soviet Union had lost cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov at the end of a mission earlier in 1967. But, the Apollo 1 catastrophe reminded everyone  again of the risks of flight.   Edited and updated by  Carolyn Collins Petersen.

Email overconfidence is a dangerous thing - Emphasis

Email overconfidence is a dangerous thing Email overconfidence is a dangerous thing Considering that an estimated 247 billion emails are sent each day, you might think we would all be dab hands at getting our messages across. But a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reveals that, while we believe we’re making ourselves clear, we actually need to be more careful. Lost in translation The tone and context of your email is likely to be misinterpreted in at least 15 per cent of emails, according to the study. And part of the problem is the fact that we are overly confident that what we write will be understood as we mean it to be. A series of five experiments showed that email senders overestimate how accurately the tone of their message will be identified. Sarcasm and humour are particularly problematic: trying to express either in email is clearly a risk. However, the most notable result from the experiments was not how many times the reader misunderstood the tone, but the disparity between how often the writer expected to be understood and how often they actually were. In one experiment, half the participants emailed a series of statements – a mixture of serious and sarcastic – to the other half, who had to deduce how each statement should be read. While the sending group expected 97 per cent to be recognised, only 84 per cent were. Put into real terms, that means almost one fifth of your recipients might be misled, confused or even offended by your emails. But my colleagues understand me Do they, though? Further experiments showed that the success rate in interpreting tone was the same whether the recipient knew the sender or not, meaning equal care is needed whether writing to a new client or a well-known colleague. Less surprisingly, the recognition of tone was identified correctly most often in spoken statements – though still not as regularly as the speaker predicted. Evidently, without the non-verbal cues – the facial expressions, body language and gestures – of face-to-face communication, any ambiguity of tone in your writing may well lead your reader to misunderstand your meaning. So judge your recipient well, or joke at your own risk. Read the full white paper, ‘Lost in translation’. Our blog contains lots of tips on how to write good emails, and we also run an in-company course on effective email writing.