Failure Is Not an Option

[Glom]

My copy had been sitting in a box for years and I only now just got round to reading it. I'm loving it. I've so far got up to the chapter where the Apollo 1 fire happened.

It's been fascinating getting the scoop on things. I never quite appreciated how much of a leap Gemini was from Mercury. Rather than being Mercury Plus, it was very much Apollo Lite. I never knew about the little altercation between Kraft and Slayton and the turf wars between astronauts and controllers. It was also interesting the read the bit about how orbital mechanics flustered McDivitt's attempts to return to his rocket after separation as was hearing more about what flustered everyone on Aurora 7 and Gemini 8 than I knew before. I loved the story about Llewellyn riding a horse to MCC when they suspended his parking pass. Tonight's chapter is Apollo 7. No spoilers please.

The one bit of confusion was Kranz's account of the changes to the Apollo mission numbering after the fire. Didn't AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203 precede Apollo 1? Wasn't it known as Apollo 204 prior to the fire and the name Apollo 1 was posthumously added?

[Obviousman]

It's kinda complex.

Each component had a designation: CM, SM, LM, S-IVB, etc. Each one of those components had a production number. For instance, the Apollo 1 CM was CM-012, the SM was SM-012, the S-IVB was S-IVB-204 (I think), etc.

Once they were all assembled, they ended up with three designations: a designation by Houston, a designation by Huntsville, and a mission designation.

So to Houston, we are talking about AS-204: Apollo / Saturn 204 (the 2 referred to a Saturn 1B launch, and the 04 for the fourth in the series).

To Huntsville, we are referring to the launch vehicle, SA-204: Saturn / Apollo 204.

To everyone else, we are talking about the mission: Apollo 1.

The Apollo flights represented a change in mission designations. Prior to Apollo, even the unmanned missions had a Mercury / Gemini designation. The original unmanned Apollo flights (Feb 66, Jul 66, Aug 66) just used the Houston designation (AS-201, AS-203, and AS-202 respectively).

After the fire, the flights were informally called Apollo 1A, 2, and 3 respectively (Apollo 4 was the first flight of the Saturn V).

The first planned manned Apollo flight (AS-204) was called Apollo 1 from about mid-1966, when the Apollo 1 patch was approved by NASA. When NAA delivered the CM to the Cape in Aug 66, it had a banner on it that read Apollo One.

So, it's a little complex.

[gwiz]

Dec 17, 2010 23:57:11 GMT -4 Obviousman said:

After the fire, the flights were informally called Apollo 1A, 2, and 3 respectively (Apollo 4 was the first flight of the Saturn V).

I think the missing Apollo 2 and 3 names were actually intended to be the two manned missions for which crews had been assigned, and which were cancelled in the period after the Apollo 1 fire. I don't recall any contemporary NASA references to the unmanned "AS-20x" missions as "Apollo x".

[Obviousman]

That's correct - if you dig through the archives, you'll see that crews were assigned.

The "original" Apollo 2 (actually a Block I CSM flying mission AS-205) was cancelled; its crew of Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham was reassigned. It was cancelled because it was essentially a rerun of Apollo 1.

A new Apollo 2 (Block II CSM, first manned LM, mission AS-205/208) was put in its place, with McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart as prime crew and Stafford, Young and Cernan as backups.

Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham were moved to the backup spot for Apollo 1 (Block I, AS-204), formerly occupied by the McDivitt crew.

The Apollo 3 crew were also named on this occasion: Borman, Collins and Anders on the first manned Saturn V.

[Obviousman]

Oh - and you might ask why Apollo 2 was going to use both AS205 and AS-208. That's because the Saturn 1B could launch a CSM or a LM, but not both at the same time.

[Glom]

It's a sad ending. So much potential wasted. I'm of half a mind to rant about how we have allowed ourselves to be distracted by our parochial pursuits instead of building on the greatness of early space exploration, but first I'm going to read the Wikipedia article on Birmingham Moor Street railway station for no reason.