what was Apollo 1's mission to be?

PowerPost2000 wrote:
If Apollo 1 had been successful, what was the goal of the mission? You
always hear of the fire, but I've never heard what the plan was.

Was threre Apollo 2 & 3? My videos only tell of 4,5 & 6 being
unmanned tests of the Saturn V.


From various NASA sources, here is a 1966-67 chronology of AS-204
(Apollo 1), other planned manned missions, and how they were numbered
and renumbered.

NASA was constantly changing the schedules, so this should be looked at
as a snapshot in time.


-February 26, 1966

A suborbital launch vehicle development test of the Saturn IB was
carried out; an Apollo block I CSM served as payload (AS-201)


-July 5, 1966

A successful orbital launch vehicle development test of the Saturn IB
(for a time called Uprated Saturn I) was conducted. The flight was an
orbital test of how liquid hydrogen reacted in a weightless
environment. An Apollo CSM was not flown on this flight. (AS-203).


-August 25, 1966

A second suborbital test of the Saturn IB with an Apollo block I CSM
was launched
successfully. (AS-202)


-October 19, 1966

It was announced that the crew of the first manned Apollo mission,
AS-204, would be Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White, II, and Roger B.
Chaffee. The earth-orbital flight was scheduled for February 12, 1967.

(NASA Historical Data Book - Volume 2)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1988016045.pdf

Apollo-Saturn 204 was to be the first manned Apollo mission, NASA
announced through the manned space flight Centers. The news release,
prepared at NASA Hq., said the decision had been made following a
Design Certification Review Board meeting held the previous week at
OMSF. The launch date had not been determined. Crewmen for the flight
would be Virgil I. Grissom, command pilot; Edward H. White II, senior
pilot; and
Roger B. Chaffee, pilot. The backup crew would be James A. McDivitt,
command pilot; David R. Scott, senior pilot; and Russell L.
Schweickart, pilot. The AS-204 spacecraft would be launched by an
uprated Saturn I launch vehicle on its earth-orbital mission "to
demonstrate spacecraft and crew operations and evaluate spacecraft
hardware performance in earth orbit."
TWX, NASA Hq. M-N-311 to KSC, MSC, MSFC, Oct. 19, 1966.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-Decemer 15, 1966

News briefing on Project Apollo was held at Manned Spacecraft Center,
Houston. Dr. Joseph Shea, manager of NASA Apollo Spacecraft Office at
MSC, said NASA hoped to launch three manned Apollo mission in 1967
involving "essentialy every test that needs to ge done in order to
insure that the lunar operation is proper." He outlined the flights:
(1) AS-204 - three-man, earth-orbital mission of up to 14 days to check
out crew, spacecraft, and ground equipment; (2) AS-205/208 - 10 to
12-day flight in which Uprated Saturn I boosters would launch an Apollo
(block II) spacecraft with three-man crew and an unmanned Lunar Module
(LM) on successive days for rendezvous mission: and (3) AS-503 -
full-duration lunar mission rehearsal in earth orbit in which single
Saturn V would launch manned Apollo spacecraft and LM.

Grissom confirmed that AS-204 mission would carry camera for live
television coverage.

(Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1967029479.pdf


-Decemer 22, 1966

NASA announced crew selection for the second and third manned Apollo
missions. Prime crew for AS-205/208 would be James A. McDivitt,
commander; David R. Scott, CM pilot; and Russell L. Schweickart, LM
pilot. The backup crew would be Thomas P. Stafford, commander; John W.
Young, CM pilot; and Eugene A. Cernan, LM pilot. The crew for AS-503,
the first manned mission to be launched by a Saturn V, would be Frank
Borman, commander; Michael Collins, CM pilot; and William A. Anders, LM
pilot. The backup crew would be Charles Conrad, Jr., commander; Richard
F. Gordon, Jr., CM pilot; and Clifton C. Williams, Jr., LM pilot.
NASA News Release 66-326, "NASA Names Crews [or Apollo Flights," Dec.
22, 1966.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-January 3, 1967

B. Kaskey, Bellcomm, Inc., gave NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C.
Phillips three reasons why an AS-204 rescue of or rendezvous with a
biosatellite would be impracticable: (1) The Block I spacecraft hatch
was not designed to open and reseal in space, therefore no
extravehicular activity could be planned for AS-204. (2) The launch
window for 204 was five hours on each day, set by lighting available
for launch aborts and normal recovery; rendezvous would reduce the
launch window to minutes. (3) More than half of the reaction control
system propellant was committed because of the requirement that deorbit
be possible on every orbit without use of the service propulsion
system. Phillips sent the information to ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea at
MSC.
Note, Kaskey to Phillips, NASA Hq., "Working Note," Jan. 3, 1967.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-January 19, 1967

Testing of CSM 012 at Downey, Calif., and KSC revealed numerous
failures in the communications cable assembly caused by broken wiring,
bent pins, and connector malfunctions. Certain design deficiencies in
the system had been remedied by adding adapter cables in series with
the cobra cable, but these additions had resulted in additional weak
points in the system and in an unacceptably cumbersome cable assembly
connected to crew members. For these reasons, Donald K. Slayton,
Director of Flight Crew Operations, ruled the existing communications
assembly unsafe for flight and requested that the biomedical tee
adapter, cobra cable, sleep adapter, and noise
eliminator be combined into one new cobra cable for CSM 012. Memo,
Slayton to Manager, ASPO, "Communications cables [or Spacecraft 012,"
Jan. 18, 1967.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-January 27, 1967

Fire sweeping through command module 012 atop its Saturn IB launch
vehicle at Launch Complex 34, KSC, took the lives of the three-man crew
scheduled for the first manned Apollo space flight. ASPO Manager Joseph
F. Shea sent a flash report to NASA Hq. : "During a simulated countdown
for mission AS-204 on January 27, 1967, an accident
occurred in CM 012. This was a manned test with the prime astronaut
crew on board. A fire occurred inside the command module resulting in
the death of the three astronauts and as yet undetermined damage to the
command and service modules." The launch had been scheduled for
February 21.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-February 14, 1967

Command module 012 was scheduled for removal from its launch vehicle
February 17 because of satisfactory progress in removing systems from
it.
"Board Proceedings," p. 3-21.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-February 16, 1967

NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., informed Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller that, in view
of the interim nature of schedule outlook for manned uprated Saturn I
and Saturn V missions, he had decided to show these missions as "Under
Study" in the Official NASA Flight Schedule for February 1967. As soon
as firm approved dates for the missions were available the schedule
would be updated. He said that all participants in the Apollo program
should be advised that--except for unmanned missions 206, 501, and
502--official agency schedule commitments had not been made and
certainly could not be quoted until management assessments of the
program had been completed and schedules approved by the Office of the
Administrator.
Memo, Seamans to Mueller,
"Official NASA Apollo Schedules for Manned Missions," Feb. 16, 1967

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-February 20, 1967

The Apollo 204 Review Board approved a plan to remove the spacecraft
012 service module from the launch vehicle on February 21. The service
module was to be taken to the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building at
KSC for detailed examination and testing. Board Chairman Floyd Thompson
directed that a plan be developed to release Launch Complex 34 from
impoundage and to return it to KSC for normal use after the SM was
removed. Preparations were being made to remove the aft heatshield from
the command module to permit inspection of the CM floor from the lower
side.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-February 23, 1967

The spacecraft-lunar module adapter (SLA) was removed from the launch
vehicle and moved to the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building for
examination.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-24, 3-25, 3-55 through 3-59.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-March 20, 1967

NASA announced it would use the Apollo-Saturn 204 launch vehicle to
launch the first lunar module on its unmanned test flight. Since the
204 vehicle was prepared and was not damaged in the Apollo 204 fire in
January, it would be used instead of the originally planned AS-206.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-April 24, 1967

OMSF (Office of Manned Space Flight) further instructed Centers that
AS-204 would be
officially recorded as Apollo 1, "first manned Apollo Saturn
filght-failed on ground test." AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203 would not be
renumbered in the "Apollo" series, and the next mission would be Apollo
4.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-May 4, 1967

Directions had been prepared to designate mission AS-501 formally as
Apollo 4, AS-204/LM- 1 as Apollo 5, and AS-502 as Apollo 6, NASA Apollo
Program Director Samuel C. Phillips informed Associate Administrator
for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller. Phillips said he thought it
was the right time to start using the designations in official releases
and appropriate internal documentation. Mueller concurred.
Note, Phillips to Mueller, May 4, 1967.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf


-December 19, 1967

NASA announced an Apollo mission schedule calling for six flights in
1968 and five in 1969. NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight George E. Mueller said the schedule and alternative plans
provided a schedule under which a limited number of Apollo command and
service modules and lunar landing modules, configured for lunar landing
might be launched on test flights toward the moon by the end of the
decade.
Apollo/uprated Saturn I flights were identified with a 200 series
number; Saturn V flights were identified with a 500 series number.
The 1968 schedule was :

-Apollo/Saturn 204--first unmanned test of the LM in earth orbit
-Apollo/Saturn 502--second unmanned flight test of the Saturn V and
Apollo CSM
-Apollo/Saturn 503--third unmanned test of the Saturn V and Apollo CSM
-Apollo/Saturn 206--second unmanned flight test of LM in earth orbit
-Apollo/Saturn 205--first Apollo manned flight, a 10-day mission to
qualify the CSM for further manned missions
-Apollo/Saturn 504--first manned Apollo flight on Saturn V. This
mission would provide first manned operation in space with both the CSM
and LM, including crew transfer from CSM to LM and rendezvous and
docking.

These flights would be flown in the above order and as rapidly as all
necessary preparations could be completed.

The 1969 flight schedule called for five manned Apollo/Saturn V
flights, AS-505 through AS-509. Four of these--505, 506, 507, and
508--were programmed as lunar mission development flights or lunar
mission simulations. It was considered possible that the lunar landing
could be made on Apollo/Saturn 509, but it was also possible this might
be delayed until one of the remaining six Saturn V flights.

(The Apollo spacecraft: A chronology volume 4, 21 January 1966 - 13
July 1974)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf





-Rusty

On 29 Jun 2006 05:14:24 -0700, wrote:

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/youelled.htm

....And as I was about to post that link, the author himself delurks
and beats me to it. Tell us, O father of Evolvo Lad, what's up and
coming on EA that we should look forward to? Perhaps finally an entry
for Roy Flemming on the Phantom Cosmonauts page, along with Lee
Stegler?

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:58:07 GMT, PowerPost2000 wrote:

If Apollo 1 had been successful, what was the goal of the mission? You
always hear of the fire, but I've never heard what the plan was.

Essentially the same as the later Apollo 7.

Was threre Apollo 2 & 3? My videos only tell of 4,5 & 6 being
unmanned tests of the Saturn V.

NASA was thinking of Grissom's mission (AS-204) as Apollo 4 (with
unmanned AS-201 to 203 presumably being Apollo 1-3), but Grissom
wanted it called Apollo 1 and wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. After
the Fire, NASA acquiesced and just skipped 2 and 3 (since there were
three, not two unmanned Saturn-Apollo flights already and no way to
retroactively designate them and make any sense) and went straight on
to 4.

The Apollo 1, Apollo 4, etc. identifiers only appeared after the
AS-204 fire, due largely to the insistence of the news media.
The original plan, which made perfect sense, was to
use the "AS-2XX" identifiers for the Saturn IB missions and the
"AS-5XX" identifiers for the Saturn V missions. There were
never supposed to be Apollo [Number] identifiers, and I think
that NASA never officially dropped the "AS-NNN" system
in-house. The first manned landing occurred during the
AS-506 mission.

- Ed Kyle

In article . com,
(Ed Kyle) wrote:

The Apollo 1, Apollo 4, etc. identifiers only appeared after the
AS-204 fire, due largely to the insistence of the news media.
The original plan, which made perfect sense, was to
use the "AS-2XX" identifiers for the Saturn IB missions and the
"AS-5XX" identifiers for the Saturn V missions. There were
never supposed to be Apollo [Number] identifiers, and I think
that NASA never officially dropped the "AS-NNN" system
in-house. The first manned landing occurred during the
AS-506 mission.

Life isn't as simple as that. The issue has been rehearsed here many
times. It appears that, whilst NASA HQ was trying to get away
from numbered missions, Deke Slayton and the Astronaut Office were
using "Apollo 1" as a designation before the fire* although it wasn't
officially sanctioned**. Only the manned missions were going to go that
way, so one of the earliest full schedules looked like: SA-201***, SA-202,
SA-203, AS-204 (manned, "Apollo 1"), AS-205 (manned "Apollo 2"), AS-501,
AS-206, AS-502, AS-207 (manned, "Apollo 3", AS-503 (manned, "Apollo 4")
....

* For example "Flight crew/MCC-H Working Agreements for Apollo 1" - the
heading of a memo from Deke Slayton dated 28 November 1966.

** The final flight plan dated 9 December 1966 from MCC-H for example
was for AS-204A not "Apollo 1"

*** Whether they were SA or AS was a debate between, unsurprising,
Marshall and Houston. Marshall wanted the launcher name first, Houston
wanted the s/c. The AS-nnn system was officially in use to the end and
the Apollo N system also became official after the fire with a revised
numbering for reasons which still seem open to interpretation.

Malcolm B

In article ,
Malcolm Bacchus wrote:
*** Whether they were SA or AS was a debate between, unsurprising,
Marshall and Houston. Marshall wanted the launcher name first, Houston
wanted the s/c...

Houston officially won that battle -- HQ decided that AS was to be used
for the mission as a whole -- but you'll still find SA in some Marshall
documents.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Houston officially won that battle -- HQ decided that AS was to be
used for the mission as a whole -- but you'll still find SA in some
Marshall documents.


Hence the switch in my list from SA-203 to AS-204. I only put the
footnote in to explain the change. The battle wasn't germane to the
issue in question of Apollo numbering.

In fact, I think Marshall continued to use the SA number as a
designation for the integrated booster, but the AS number was used as
the designation for the booster plus s/c. A sort of compromise.

Malcolm B

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:58:07 GMT, PowerPost2000 wrote:

If Apollo 1 had been successful, what was the goal of the mission? You
always hear of the fire, but I've never heard what the plan was.

Was threre Apollo 2 & 3? My videos only tell of 4,5 & 6 being
unmanned tests of the Saturn V.
For an excellent, thorough summary of what the Apollo 204 missions
would have been like, see APOLLO: THe LOst and Forgotten Missions by
David Shayler. There's also a fine summary of the planned lunar EVAs
for Apollo 13,too