[APOLLO 1 on fire]



[APOLLO 1 on fire]

The Apollo 1 fire took place in the charged environment of Cold War national urgency - speed was imperative. In addition, NAA was under intense scrutiny and criticism from NASA over cost overruns and schedule delays in the years prior to the mishap. NASA aggressively responded to implement the Board's suggestions, switching to “Block II” (upgraded) spacecraft already in development, which included many of the recommendations of the Board, such as better hatch design which would open outwards and be operable in less than 10 seconds.

(Stephen Garber 2002 Pp. 34)

Better fire resistant materials were developed for spacesuits, concerns about a pure oxygen environment for ground tests were addressed, higher quality wiring with abrasion protection and fireproof coatings was used, new emergency procedures and equipment were added, and almost all flammable materials inside the spacecraft were removed. In all, about 1500 changes were made, resulting in a more secure and safer vehicle. The stride of Russian lunar missions had U.S. space planners genuinely worried. In the month prior to the April 1968 meeting between Borman and reduced, the Soviets had commenced the unmanned Zond 4, which had a similar configuration to the Soyuz modules conceived to convey cosmonauts. Zond 4 took flight out to about 200,000 miles from Earth, then turned around and performed a high-speed reentry. It came in too sharply, although, and had to be blown up over west Africa to bypass the risk of its dropping into western hands. Zond 4 was pursued rapidly by Luna 14, an unmanned air travel that went into lunar orbit on April 10—leading to speculation that a manned type would shortly follow.

Then, just a week subsequent, the Soviets commenced Cosmos 213 and 214, unmanned Soyuz check vehicles that did well in docking mechanically in soil ...