"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:Had the Block 1 Apollo CSM flown, it wouldn't have been surprising to have
:similarly serious failures during the flight.

It would have surprised me.

:Of course, the (Block 1)
:Apollo 1 fire was a deadly serious failure...

Yes, and it wasn't the sort of thing that would occur during flight,
was it?

:After the Soyuz 1/Apollo 1 failures, the Soviets and the Americans both went
:back to the drawing board and fixed some serious, lingering, problems with
:their respective designs.

Could you provide a list of what you think were the "serious,
lingering, problems" in the Apollo Block I design that were fixed that
you consider most likely to cause a fatal accident?

:After that, the US was lucky it didn't lose the Apollo 13 crew. Had it not
:been for the LEM, the failure would have lead to death in a similar manner
:to that of Soyuz 11's crew.

No, it wouldn't have been "in a similar manner to that of Soyuz 11's
crew" at all. Start with the difference between freezing to death on
a Moon flight and dying of hypoxia on reentry from an orbital flight
and go from there.

The main reason for getting out of the main module and using the LEM
was because there was concern about main module damage from the
explosion and a desire to 'save' it for reentry. The issue for Apollo
13 was electrical power, not breathable atmosphere.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer