|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 5, 2005 21:09:33 GMT -4
One of the greatest and saddest ironies of the whole things was that after the accident with the Libity Bell hatch, NASA had it redesigned so that it couldn't happen again, removing the ability to "blow the hatch." It was this new design that was installed into the Apollo 1 CM, and because of it they couldn't open the door fast enough to save the crew. Had they still had the explosive mechnism on the hatch, they would have been ablke to get it open and extigushed the fire, hopefully without the loss of the crew.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 6, 2005 8:47:54 GMT -4
Thanks for the info, Jay. Of course, now I come to think about it I remember that I read the report on your site.
Just out of interest, how old was Scott Grissom at the time of the accident, and is it just him who thinks it was murder? Do any of his family agree with him? You mentioned his mother. Presumably when the report was finished she accepted its findings?
There is no evidence that Grissom activated the hatch on Liberty Bell, and considerable possibility that it was accidentally activated by a parachute shroud from the outside.
Didn't Wally Schirra check it out by actuating the relase switch on another capsule? As I recall he found that the actuator had such a strong recoil to it that it injured his hand even through the spacesuit glove he was wearing. Further, all the later Mercury astronauts showed some injury to their hands as a result of using the explosive hatch release, but Grissom had no such injury, strongly suggesting he did not pull the release himself.
The clincher is that NASA chose Grissom to command the shakedown missions of both the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft. That's a big responsibility and thus a great honor.
And not one you give to someone who panics on his first flight and loses his capule!
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Oct 6, 2005 10:35:42 GMT -4
Glenn did not like Grissom? I have not heard that one before. Why the dislike? It have anything to do wth Glenn being grounded after his flight? Thanks.
Ranb
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 6, 2005 12:41:42 GMT -4
Well, I might have been a little unfair. Grissom and Glenn were simply cut from different cloth -- both good and competent people, but having different personalities that weren't necessarily compatible. Grissom liked to ruffle feathers, for example, while Glenn believed more in tact. It doesn't have anything to do with Glenn having been grounded.
The problem was Wolfe using Glenn and Yaeger as primary sources. That was something of Glenn's doing. He devoted a lot of energy to Wolfe hoping that it would give him clout for a presidential bid. Factually The Right Stuff leaves something to be desired, and on more than just the Grissom splashdown issue. But dramatically, Glenn is characterized as a straight-laced, gleaming-toothed, squared-away American hero with a multitude of virtues and no significant vices, while all the other astronauts have some kind of personality quirk or flaw. I believe that's the product of Wofle's bias in favor of Glenn.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 6, 2005 13:09:52 GMT -4
Just out of interest, how old was Scott Grissom at the time of the accident...
Pre-teen, if memory serves.
...and is it just him who thinks it was murder?
Well, the conspiracy theorists have been saying that for years. Scott Grissom does not believe Apollo was hoaxed; he believes they landed on the moon. But the hoax crowd has nevertheless co-opted his claims into their own theories. They've been saying Grissom was murdered because he was about to reveal the hoax, and they say Scott has uncovered the physical evidence that proves it.
At one time, Scott had a petition going to have the case criminally investigated, and there were some prominent people on it. However, that largely dried up once the NASA report became public knowledge. Most people apparently drew the same conclusion as I: that Scott was leading them down a primrose path of his own delusions.
Do any of his family agree with him? You mentioned his mother.
So far only his mother. And most notably, Scott's brother does not agree. I don't know what has been said and done beyond that, and I consider that a private matter for the Grissom family.
Presumably when the report was finished she accepted its findings?
I don't think she has changed her story. She has always supported Scott no matter what he said, and apparently that's all she intends to do.
Didn't Wally Schirra check it out by actuating the relase switch on another capsule?
Yes, and as you say it was found to be impossible to activate without noticeable injury.
Guenther Wendt's theory seems the most probable. There is a handle on the outside of the capsule by which a diver or rescue worker can operate the explosive hatch fasteners. Wendt's tests showed that the parachute shrouds could become entangled in this handle, and that a gust of wind would be strong enough to activate that control. Wolfe either doesn't know about this or ignores it.
And not one you give to someone who panics on his first flight and loses his capule!
This is the key point. Glenn, and therefore Wolfe, looks at the differences or graded abilities among the Mercury 7 with an insider's knowledge. Surely the men had different approaches, different strengths, and different weaknesses. But they were collectively the seven most qualified pilots in the United States. Their individual weaknesses are significant only when compared to their six peers.
Grissom was an Air Force test pilot, instructor, a veteran of 100 combat missions, and the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was believed by many to be the most likely candidate for the first man to walk on the moon. This is not a man to whom the notions of "incompetence" and "fear" ought to be casually attached.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 6, 2005 23:30:13 GMT -4
Suspicious death is a useful tool for the malicious HB. After all, the HB can say that the person was *about* to make a confession, and you can't disprove them. Of course, the simple response to that is that without proof, their statement is meaningless.
Bill Kaysing used this line about the death of Jim Irwin - according to Kaysing, Irwin was about to confess to him, but died of a suspicious heart attack. Kaysing never provided any evidence that Irwin was about to do anything of the sort. And in any case, Irwin had already suffered a heart attack, so dying of a second can hardly be called suspicious.
On the other hand there's the story of Thomas Barron, who'd already criticised NASA before committing suicide. In his case, HBs refer to it in such terms as to imply doubts about the reliability of the determination of suicide, again with no evidence to support that doubt. And in Barron's case, he'd already said his piece, so killing him would hardly silence him.
Then you have the astronauts who died before flying their missions - Bassett, See, Givens and Freeman. Though the HBs never refer to them by name, inflate their numbers, and simply refer to their deaths as suspicious. Eh? They fly planes which crash. How suspicious is it that a plane crashes while trying to land in fog? And again, the HBs merely sow doubts without providing any reason for why the astronauts might have been killed.
And anyway, let's play Devil's Advocate and assume that some astronaut had some dirt about NASA they wanted to air. What would they do? Raise their concerns with NASA like the last astronaut who died, and await the executioner? Not me. I'd be taking the first opportunity to go to the media, and go into hiding with my family.
Finally, remember what Gordon Cooper did when NASA stopped him from entering a 24 hour car race? Held a press conference to criticise NASA. What did NASA do? Drop him from the back-up crew and never select him for a mission.
Why the heck would NASA need to kill these men? It's a lot cheaper to ground them, and induces much less investigation.
In other words, the actions of NASA weren't indicative of an organisation which had something to hide, and the actions of the astronauts weren't indicative of people who had something to reveal.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 7, 2005 2:05:52 GMT -4
I guess I can understand how Scott Grissom feels; he was obviously shaken over his father's death. He is still seeking some sort of closure over it.
The facts people have said say it all, though. His claims were investigated and found to be without foundation.
It must be tough to have your dad die in a 'simple' accident like that, but life in rarely ever fair - especially when it could have been prevented.
Not too many accounts mention the payout that Betty Grissom got from (then) North American Aviation over the accident. I'm not sure if they admitted liability or what, but perhaps it was also meant as a small measure of their regret over the whole incident.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 7, 2005 5:24:39 GMT -4
It may also have compensated for the astronauts being unable to get life insurance.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 7, 2005 9:03:51 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing was about to confess to me that the whole "hoax" claim was just a stunt, but he got addicted to the notoriety and money. His supposedly "natural" death occurred shortly after Bart Sibrel, David Percy, David Collier, Una Thurman, and margamatix were seen leaving his home at high speed in a black car.
|
|
|
Post by ShowCon on Oct 7, 2005 11:49:44 GMT -4
Uma Thurman was at Bill's house?
You go, Bill!
There's a natural cause I could stand dying of.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 7, 2005 12:00:00 GMT -4
LOL, I think he meant "Una Ronald", the pseudonym of one of Percy's whistle-blowers, but who can tell with these wacky Hollywood types anymore.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 7, 2005 12:22:32 GMT -4
Ah, I never watched the second "Kill Bill" movie so I never really found out who "Bill" was. So thank you for explaining that it was Bill Kaysing.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 7, 2005 12:48:04 GMT -4
Una Ronald, Uma Thurman... we're not hung up on the accuracy thing. Though it was the former I meant. Natural mistake for a guy to make ;-)
|
|