posted 10-12-2010 11:16 AM               

We are working on updating the whole museum, and also adding on to the current museum building. One of the things that we are discussing and researching is requesting the Apollo 1 Command Module for a display and memorial in the museum.

We understand that this is a fragile situation, and I wanted to try to feel out what those more in the know about spacecraft think about it.

My specialty is in warbirds and restoring military aircraft. So a few questions.

What are your feelings about if a proper display could be done using Apollo I? If so, what are your thoughts on who to contact, although I have a few contacts I am using already at NASA HQ, but is there someone I have missed?

posted 10-12-2010 11:29 AM               

In my opinion it should be displayed. It is an important part of the Apollo program and should have a place where people can see it and understand the sacrifice that went into a successful Apollo program.

There are a couple of threads on this topic:

• Should the Apollo 1 spacecraft be displayed? (Oct. 2000)
  
• Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia: Should they be displayed? (Jan. 2007)

posted 10-12-2010 11:45 AM               

Tributes to the fallen crew members exist. I believe if the command module is to be exhibited, it should be done so within the context of how NASA investigated the fire, learned from its mistakes and improved the safety of the vehicles that ultimately took men to the moon.

Ideally such an exhibit would be more expansive than Apollo 1 alone, incorporating artifacts and materials from the Challenger and Columbia tragedies to tell the larger story about how NASA has responded to and recovered from failures.

My own desires aside, were NASA to decide/be convinced to display the Apollo 1 command module, the Smithsonian would receive first right of refusal per a standing agreement between the space agency and the institution. Were that to occur, I do not foresee the Smithsonian passing on the capsule.

Were the Smithsonian to not take ownership (for whatever reason), NASA would then need to consider what venue would best help tell its story, taking into account museum resources and attendance (much like the agency is doing now for the space shuttle orbiters).

As I have never visited the Grissom Air Museum, I would not presume to judge if it could meet NASA's requirements but I would imagine the competition would be steep with a number of very high profile museums potentially interested.

I don't write that to discourage the Grissom Air Museum's efforts, but only to place the request into the bureaucratic and political landscape as it exists now.

posted 10-12-2010 11:59 AM               

I also understand that NASA did have an interest in displaying the CM but the NASM did not have an interest in it. I am a fan of the NASM but they have their hands full with a restoration line up that is pretty long.

I think that we could stand a good shot at being in the running should they release it as we are in Gus's home state, we do not have a Apollo Command module anywhere near us Chicago, and Dayton are two hours away. We are at a base that was named in his honor, and we are trying to work more on board with the Grissom Childhood Museum in Mitchell, IN.

We are also obtaining an F-86 from the NMUSAF to place in Gus's markings, and adding a new building to the house, and restore some of the collection.

posted 10-12-2010 04:56 PM               

Having just visited the '27 Seconds' exhibit on the Apollo 1 fire at New York's USS Intrepid museum (see related thread under this forum), I can say that a tragic event such as the fire (or even Challenger and Columbia) can be presented responsibly and with respect. And put in the context of the space program and Gus Grissom's life as combat pilot and astronaut, it surely will resonate with the public, especially young people.

Apart from the Apollo 1 CM and the F-86, will you be putting replicas of Liberty Bell 7 and Gemini 3 (which is at Mitchell, IN of course) on display? They had artifacts from the Grissom Memorial archives at the Intrepid exhibit, together with items from the Chaffee archives from the Grand Rapids, MI library. The more items that tie into Grissom's life and achievements, the more interesting the visit will be. Sadly, the small Neil Armstrong museum in Wapakoneta, OH has not been updated/refurbished in years, and can be easily missed (or dismissed, due to its meager artifacts-the only compelling one being the flown Gemini 8 capsule).

posted 10-13-2010 02:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
So over the top in fact that one has to question just exactly what lies behind their desire to do so.

---

Some say that photos and videos should suffice, but then why display any spacecraft? Why not fill the National Air and Space Museum with photos of Apollo 11's Columbia and Friendship 7? More poignantly, why maintain the concentration camps or build a viewing bridge over a sunken ship?

I am not advocating a memorial. The Apollo 1 capsule need not serve as a memorial to Grissom, White and Chaffee for its display to be justified. Is Apollo 11's Columbia only a monument to Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins?

posted 10-13-2010 02:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...two words that can describe why people are encouraged to visit Auschwitz and the USS Arizona Memorial: Never forget.

---

posted 10-13-2010 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
my own desire to see CM-012.... on display is motivated by two words, which I understand are the same two words that can describe why people are encouraged to visit Auschwitz and the USS Arizona Memorial: Never forget.

---

"Anyone coming leaves with a strong impact they will carry for the rest of their lives."

As one of the camp’s few survivors, Henry Appel, once said: "There is only one thing worse than Auschwitz itself and that is if the world forgets there was such a place."

posted 10-14-2010 06:36 AM               

I do have to comment on the issue of what is behind our wanting to display Apollo 1, our motives, and thought process. Just as it was stated before, a bigger crime would be forgetting that this happened, or that Gus, Roger, and Ed gave all they had for the exploration of space.

Should you feel "good" seeing it? No, of course not. Do you feel "good" standing by the Vietnam Wall in Washington D.C.? No. How about going to the Henry Ford Museum and seeing the Limo that President Kennedy was killed in? No. How about in the Air Force One that transported JFK's body, and the first lady home and had Johnson sworn in on board that is on display at the National Museum of the USAF? No. But you feel as if you are reaching back in time and actually dusting off the past. We are not morbid or anything, we just don't want people to forget.

The Memorials you mention are great, however more needs done. I had a conversation last night with five people. Five people of various ages from 21-40. All of them are well educated, and none of them knew what Apollo 1 was, and only one of them knew who Gus Grissom was. One person thought I was talking about CSI! Like some of the others say, a bigger crime in our minds, is that 10 years from now, people have almost all together forgotten about Apollo 1.

If you are not for displaying it, that is fine, and that is why I am here to gather data, and learn from those here that know far more about this than I do. Your opinion is welcome and wanted. However questioning our motives, and state of mind, is not acceptable.

posted 10-14-2010 12:07 PM               

The way I see it, space exploration is an important aspect of the future of the human species. We need to have a visible, tangible reminder of the risks of spaceflight...not just the rewards...as we continue into the future.

posted 10-14-2010 12:26 PM               

The same logic applies to displaying artifacts of triumph, as well. How many museums would love to have the Apollo 11 capsule, instead of a boilerplate or even any of the other lunar flights? They may look the same and are part of the same story, but knowing that this was the central symbol of the lunar landing program has a significance that cannot be matched.

posted 10-14-2010 02:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I find the concept utterly distasteful and cannot begin to comprehend the mental processes of those wishing to undertake such an enterprise.

---

I am compelled to respond to this statement as I am one of those people that feel these parts should be displayed.

First of all let's frame this some what. What is to be displayed are parts, not people, not even pictures of people, just the hardware. I believe those of us that are left brained do not see this in the same way right brained people do. It is not out of some morbid fantasy of death; rather, it is how the hardware failed and what the result was.

The section of the SRB that shows the burn through, the crew compartment final configuration (an external view not inside the compartment), how about the fracture of the block I CM from the heat, how the main door was installed showing how difficult it was to remove, what parts made it though the reentry heating at break up, any evidence proving causality, none of which deals with the details of the human aspects, it's the hardware, the machine.

For some of us the space program is more about the hardware than the astronauts. Don't read into that statement that the human involvement is not important, of course it is, but the machine is what allows humans to explore space. I can connect with the machine and its failure as a reminder of how my daily decisions have consequences.

There are many of us that post to this forum that deal with life and death decisions. For me, it's can I allow this aircraft to fly in the condition stated, is the issue I see in the fleet something I should ground aircraft for, can the aircraft reposition in the current damaged condition it is in, all of these could ultimately result in harm to people if wrong.

This goes the same for the pilots, police, doctors, firemen and others who deal with life and death decisions who post here. There are grave consequences for poor decisions. This is what went wrong in all three failures, someone made a poor decision.

Apollo 1, someone approved these high pressure pure oxygen test; Challenger, they gave the go not knowing what the temperature affects on O-rings were; for Columbia it was ignoring the warning signs of foam shedding and the assumption, in the absents of data, that a leading edge strike would not be an issue. All of which was not a failure of the machine, it was a failure of the decision making process and it is the management that is responsible for those decisions.

posted 10-15-2010 07:05 AM               

What has caused some surprise is the comparison made between a tragic accident costing three lives with the attempted mass extermination of a race, the wholesale slaughter on the battlefields of WW1 and the horrors of the jungles of Vietnam. The two do not equate. In any case, the atmosphere generated by the simple names inscribed on a wall at the Menin Gate and at the Vietnam Memorial are enough. Neither need artifacts to make us 'never forget'.

posted 10-15-2010 09:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
...nor the people to ask to get a reasoned answer

---

quote:

---

The two do not equate.

---

quote:

---

Neither need artifacts to make us 'never forget'.

---

quote:

---

In any case, it still begs the question as to how the remains of this horrific accident can be displayed 'tastefully'.

---

posted 10-15-2010 10:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I'm sorry, but this implies that because the opinions expressed are opposite yours, they are not "reasoned." That is an unreasonable conclusion.

---

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm still right about this.

There is a world of difference between a flight recorder on display and the burnt out remains of a whole capsule.

posted 10-15-2010 11:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
...steadfastly refuse permission for archaeologists to excavate the field of Agincourt.

---

posted 10-15-2010 12:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
What I meant was that it is only to be expected that 'space enthusiasts', especially those who contribute to cS, would be keen to have the capsule on display. Perhaps biased would have been a better choice of word.

---

If the capsule is displayed in a museum that has a focus on space travel or the astronauts, then it's plausible that many who visit the museum would feel similarly to the "biased" space enthusiasts on this message board. In many respects, it makes the most sense to poll the target audience for the museum...as they are already knowledgeable about Apollo 1 and know many of the details associated with accident.

posted 10-15-2010 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Ultimately, their opinion matters the most...

---

The families have a very specific point of view, one that may or may not allow them to separate the artifacts from the personal loss they experienced and place them into the larger historical context in which they belong.

As an example, reportedly members of the Grissom family objected to Liberty Bell 7 being raised from the ocean floor. Leaving the capsule where it was however, did not serve history's cause well. By recovering and restoring it, millions of people have been exposed to the history of that flight that might otherwise have never recalled or learned about it at all.

posted 10-15-2010 01:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
At least some excavation seems to have been allowed...

---

posted 10-15-2010 01:56 PM            

I think it was well put earlier - Titanic and many other wrecks also sadly served as the final resting places of the crew and passengers.

This is not the case for Apollo 1, and may be why I know of a number of people who have negative feelings about recovered Titanic artifact displays, but support Apollo 1 being placed on display with the appropriate, careful and respectful context.

posted 10-15-2010 02:05 PM               

We need to think of the surviving family members, and their feelings, as I find this akin to displaying an automobile after it's occupants were killed in a crash. Everyone is allowed his or her opinion as this is why this forum exists. Maybe the replica capsule from the Apollo 13 movie would be the best display.

posted 10-15-2010 02:08 PM               

One distinction between displaying Columbia's data recorder and displaying Apollo 1 is that with Columbia, you are not seeing the crew compartment, i.e., where the human beings were sitting when they died. I think it is a matter of good taste not to take the exhibit to that extent.

posted 10-15-2010 02:17 PM               

If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life.

On my trips to KSC, I've always noticed that there really isn't a whole lot of mention of the Apollo 1/STS disasters other than a nice plaque, the wall, and mention of the accidents, but not a whole lot of in-depth description of what happened.

posted 10-15-2010 04:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I agree that the families should be polled and their feelings taken into account. But I do not believe they should have the last say. The decision should be based on the input of all stakeholders, including historians, conservators, mission team members, the public and the families.

---

I probably wasn't clear in my posting, as I wasn't suggesting that the family members have the last say regarding an Apollo 1 display. But I do believe that their wishes should be weighed a little more heavily than that of most other parties, as one runs the risk of creating a display that could open a lot of old wounds if done improperly.

posted 10-15-2010 06:56 PM            

There are family members of the astronauts still alive so their views should bear some weight.

For my own part if it was displayed and I was to go and see it, it would be as a space artefact that I have read much about so I would be viewing it as something that played a part in a topic I am interested in. For others with only a passing interest in the subject, it could be just a gory attraction in a museum.

For anyone with an interest in space travel and the men that went into space, the Apollo 1 spacecraft would be something to look at and appreciate the full story so from that point I would say display it but it must be remembered that three men with families died a terrible death in that spacecraft and maybe from that stand point it shouldn’t be displayed. Maybe we are still too near the event for it to be considered as a museum piece yet, maybe when this generation has gone and men have walked on Mars then that would be a better time to display it.

posted 10-15-2010 09:13 PM               

There are two events that galvanized my interest in space travel, Ed White's spacewalk and the Apollo 1 fire that took two other souls including Mr.White. Pure joy with the first event, and a complete and utter sadness with the second that is still with me to this day.

I continue to have difficulty looking at the capsule pictures without a feeling of utter sorrow.

posted 10-17-2010 07:30 AM               

Also as long as NASA still maintained ownership of the CM, the National Air and Space Museum would NOT have a say in the display. We just were in contact with NASA on Friday. So we are going to continue forward.

What we imagine is a long hallway with the CM at the end of the hallway in it's own display area. The room will be painted black, no music, and just an American Flag hanging. Theatre style lighting will illuminate the area.

There will be the normal air museum style baracades around it so that you can not touch it, and the hatch will be closed.

Story boards will be hung along the hallway that lead up to the CM to declutter the CM area, and make it more of a somber mood.

It will be many things. It will be a display that some gave all for the space program, a memorial to the fallen, and an important artifact. I guess it just depends on how you view it. I think that is the nice thing about our planned display, is that it is simply displayed and the CM will have the affect on you and nothing else.

We were also just in touch with the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH and it looks like the F-86 that will carry Gus's markings is a go. Does anyone have any idea what Gus's markings looked like on his F-86? We know he flew in the 4th FG.

Thanks for everything, and I will be keeping you guys up to date, and will continue reading the feelings posted here.

posted 10-17-2010 07:58 AM               

My father flew F-86's in the Korean War with the 18th Fighter Wing. Each Fighter Wing had distinctive markings on the vertical tail. Gus's 4th Fighter Wing will have the yellow ID band on the vertical stabilizer as well as on the wing and fuselage.

Here is a nice excerpt from Gus's NASA biography which I hope is included in the display:

Less than one year later, Grissom was shipped out to Korea to complete one hundred combat missions with the 334th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. He ignored the tradition of naming a jet after one's wife or girlfriend and chose to fly his F-86 Sabre jet with the name "Scotty" boldly printed on it in honor of his son who had been born the year before.

Another code of conduct existed on the bus ride which transported pilots from the barracks to the flight line. Pilots who personally had been shot at by a MIG were allowed to sit. Those who had not yet experienced a real piece of the action were unworthy of a seat and forced to stand.

After only two missions, Gus took a seat on the bus. His first experience of being shot at came as a bit of a surprise. "I was flying along up there and it was kind of strange. For a moment I couldn't figure out what those little red things were going by. Then I realized I was being shot at."

Grissom "usually flew wing position in combat, to protect the flanks of other pilots and keep an eye open for any MIGs that might be coming across". He was proud to be able to say, "I never did get hit and neither did any of the leaders that I flew wing for".

After spending six months in Korea, Gus reached the one hundred combat missions mark. His request to fly twenty-five additional missions was denied and he was sent back to the states, having earned both the Air Medal with cluster and the Distinguished Flying Cross during his tour of duty.