Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
“The fire-in-the-hole abort was the most critical test of the mission and one we had to accomplish successfully prior to a manned mission.” Gene Kranz – Flight Director Apollo 5
Apollo 5 Mission Patch
Lunar Module 1 delivered to the Cape
LM 1 mated to the spacecraft lunar module adapter
LM 1 inside adapter being hoisted to the booster
Apollo 5 on the launch pad
Apollo 5 lift off
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
After the uncertain days of February 1967, NASA officials began to realize that a recovery from the tragedy was under way. Through hard work and problem solving, morale of Nasa personnel started to improve…
Remains of Launch Complex 34
Memorial benches on the edge of launch pad 34
Memorial plaque attached to launch pad 34
Memorial plaque attached to launch pad 34
Apollo 1 medallion flown on Apollo 9
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
What went wrong? Even years after the investigators began to sift through the wreckage of Apollo 1 piece by piece, no one could say exactly. But within weeks the general picture became clear: The fire was a disaster waiting to happen.
Apollo 1 during the investigation
Apollo 1 at Langley Research Center
Seamans, Webb, Mueller, and Apollo Program Director Phillips testify before a Senate hearing on the Apollo accident
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
The tragedy of Apollo 1 was widely reported in the Soviet Union. The Soviets sent condolences and letters to the families of the men who had died. But, the Soviet Press criticized the US for an overzealous attempt to send men to the moon.
Apollo 1 Command Module disassembled for the investigation
Apollo 1 Command Module parts were studied and catalogued in the Pyrotechnics Installation Building at KSC
Apollo 1 Command Module wiring harness goes through X-Ray inspection
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Mercury-Redstone 4 was the fourth mission in the Mercury-Redstone series and the second U.S. manned suborbital spaceflight. The mission was essentially a repeat of Alan Shepard’s Freedom 7 flight. So why was it necessary to launch another sub-orbital mission? Why not proceed with an orbital flight to match the Soviet Vostok 1? Among other things the U.S. needed more space experience to corroborate the “Man-in-Space” concept. Also the Redstone was the only booster NASA had that was approved for manned launches. The Atlas booster was available but not ready. Atlas was capable of putting a Mercury Capsule into orbit, but it had been launched three times with unmanned capsules, and it had exploded on 2 of the 3 attempts.
MR-4 Launch
Gus Grissom
Ready to Go
MR-4 Hatch
Rescue
Liberty Bell 7
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
“Some of those guys came in figuring, “I’ll write my textbooks and my thesis and teach [university courses] and I’ll come by twice a week and be an astronaut.” Well, that didn’t work …. We were devoting our lives to this whole thing, and you couldn’t devote anything less, I don’t care what your discipline was.”
Back, Swigert, Pogue, Evans, Weitz, Irwin, Carr, Roosa, Worden, Mattingly, Lousma. Front, Givens, Mitchell, Duke, Lind, Haise, Engle, Brand, Bull, McCandless
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
With Group 4, for the first time, the selection criteria did not include a requirement for test pilot proficiency. Selectees who were not qualified pilots would be assigned to the Air Force for a year of flight training. The primary scientific requirement was a doctorate in medicine, engineering, or one of the natural sciences.
Astronaut Group 3
Astronaut Group 4
Scientist-Astronaut Harrison Schmitt
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Selection of Group Two virtually depleted the pool of qualified candidates from the small corps of test pilots in the country, and it was the last group for which test-pilot certification would be a requirement. The new trainees reported to Houston in October 1962 to begin a two-year training course. A four-day work week was normally scheduled, the fifth day being reserved for public relations duties or for travel.
Group 1, The Mercury 7
Back – See, McDivitt, Lovell, White, Stafford. Front – Conrad, Borman, Armstrong, Young
Astronaut Groups 1 and 2