Talk:Apollo 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Apollo 1 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 6, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 27, 2005, January 27, 2006, January 27, 2007, January 27, 2008, January 27, 2009, January 27, 2010, January 27, 2014, and January 27, 2017.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Florida Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo 1

These two pictures should show the same hatch (AS-204 = Apollo 1) but they don't. The first one doesn't even have windows, the rectangular "window" is just an opening. Whatever the first picture shows, it's not an actual hatch. Perhaps it's part of an early mockup, or a temporary hatch to protect the interior during some kind of ground transport? I don't know.

The source given is NASA, but the link https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/images/c226a.jpg doesn't tell us anything. I recommend to remove this picture. --93.104.182.100 (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's probably an early mockup. I see no reason to remove it. It should be properly identified. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from page 226 of Chariots for Apollo: History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft (PDF and HTML). The caption just reads "The command module's two-hatch system" but does not specify what exactly is depicted. At least, from the NASA number S66-57577 we can assume that it was taken in 1966. --Asdert (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Other view of the same thingy is S66-57580 and it is clearly labeled "MOCK UP ONLY". Apollo 207? Wouldn't that have been a block II? --Asdert (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the items listed in the Civic and other memorials sections are to one of the individual astronauts, and not to the crew as a whole or to the mission. I propose to move these entries to the articles on the respective astronauts, i.e. to Gus Grissom, Ed White (astronaut) and Roger B. Chaffee.

The entries I propose to move are:

Grissom

• There are Grissom or Virgil I. Grissom middle schools in Mishawaka, Indiana,[81] Sterling Heights, Michigan,[82] and Tinley Park, Illinois.[83]
• School #7 in Rochester, New York, is also known as the Virgil I. Grissom School.[87]

White

• Ed White II Elementary e-STEM (Elementary-Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) Magnet school in El Lago, Texas, near the Johnson Space Center.[80] White lived in El Lago (next door to Neil Armstrong).

Chaffee

• The Roger B. Chaffee Planetarium is located at the Grand Rapids Public Museum.[91]
• Roger B. Chaffee Memorial Boulevard in Wyoming, Michigan, the largest suburb of Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is today an industrial park, but exists on the site of the former Grand Rapids Airport. A large portion of the north-south runway is used today as the roadway of the Roger B. Chaffee Memorial Boulevard.[92]
• Roger B. Chaffee Scholarship Fund in Grand Rapids, Michigan, each year in memory of Chaffee honors one student who intends to pursue a career in engineering or the sciences[93]

Any objections? TJRC (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former 'Bunker Hill AFB' was renamed for him. 166.205.107.78 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a memorial to Grissom, not to Apollo 1, so it's covered in Gus_Grissom#Memorials. TJRC (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Croney worked there and took me and Stan Skaret on a tour and showed us the charred capsule ‘that had just arrived’! 73.83.234.103 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're contesting the "Destroyed January 27, 1967" claim? If so, do you have reliable sources to support your claim? Personal knowledge is not verifiable to our readers or editors and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an Expert. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC) do not change this article or talk[reply]

please remember to celebretate the birthdays of the 3 astrounuat and the day they lost there lives. 70.124.19.92 (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's well-known that the ruined capsule still existed after the fire and underwent painstaking analysis. The photographs of it in this article were taken on January 28. In the context of the infobox, "Destroyed January 27, 1967" clearly means rendered incapable of spaceflight or of supporting the lives of the astronauts aboard at the time. Gildir (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read elsewhere, the internal oxygen pressure was 5 PSI, which was much lower than the 14.7 PSI outside. So why does this article describe it as high pressure? Also the plug door would be easier, not harder, to open outward, but rather was hard to open because of the closure method (fasteners and the like).

As an aside, all three lives could have been saved if they had equipped the launch tower with a flushing hose having an explosive head to penetrate the skin wherever it was placed in order to blow in cooling and smothering N2 and suck out the O2 along with any combustion products in a matter of seconds. But then they thought “what could possibly go wrong?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.41.92.239 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, I pasted your comment here at the bottom of the page to keep things in order. Sourced info in the article states that "After the hatches were sealed, the air in the cabin was replaced with pure oxygen at 16.7 psi (115 kPa), 2 psi (14 kPa) higher than atmospheric pressure", and that "The heat of the fire fed by pure oxygen caused the pressure to rise to 29 psi (200 kPa)". The plug door was sealed by high pressure, so extreme high pressure (as present in the fire) would render it utterly incapable of opening. Also having a hose attached would have been impossible, since the idea was - you know - going to space, where there aren't any hoses. I'd suggest giving the article and its sources a thorough read-though, I believe it would answer a lot of questions you might have. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]