NASA killed Grissom, family says
Paul M Watson
Christopher Ruddy
February 11, 1999
Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to
walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the
February 16 edition of STAR magazine.
In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has
charged the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the
catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.
The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom,
48, has gone public with the family^Òs long held belief that their
father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.
The January 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in
preparation for an actual lunar flight.
NASA concluded the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as
astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of
an explosive fire that enveloped the pure oxygen atmosphere of the
space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused
the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.
"My father^Òs death was no accident, he was murdered," Grissom,
a commercial pilot, told STAR.
Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule
and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control
panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules^Ò electrical power
source from an outside source to the ship^Òs batteries. Grissom
argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of
sabotage. When the one of the astronauts toggled the switch to
transfer power to the ship^Òs batteries, a spark was created igniting a
fireball.
Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by
NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence.
Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald alleges
that he determined an electrical short caused by the change over to
battery power had caused the fire.
He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an
effort to stem public criticism of the space program.
"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth but I didn^Òt
want to hurt NASA^Òs image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told
the paper. "But I can^Òt let one more day go by without the truth
being known."
Grissom^Òs widow, Betty, now 71, told STAR she agrees with her
son^Òs claim that her husband had been murdered.
"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove
NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to
protect funding for the race to the moon."
Scott Grissom told STAR the motive for his father^Òs killing may
have been related to NASA^Òs desire not have his father be the first
man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom
in 1961 after his Gemini capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.
Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed
Grissom panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and
he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship^Òs
hatch, causing it to sink.
Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt
for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean war pilot
who had flown nearly 100 combat missions. He was a courageous
man not known to panic.
There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch
could accidentally blow without being pulled -- a fact that led
NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.
Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his
hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks. Neither
were found.
Grissom, one of the original Mercury seven, was the senior
astronaut when the Apollo missions began.
Among the astronauts, Grissom was the most critical of the
problem-plagued Apollo program, and the main Apollo contractor,
North American Aviation.
Shortly before his death, Grissom had taken a large lemon and
hung it around the space capsule as the press looked on. He had
suggested publicly that the project could never be accomplished on
time.
The Associated Press reported, "^ÑPretty slim^Ò was the way
[Grissom] put his Apollo^Òs chances of meeting its mission
requirements."
The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling
from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received
death threats which his family believed emanated from within the
space program.
The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret
Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure
safe house.
According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is
ever a serious accident in the space program, it^Òs likely to be me."
The Apollo I disaster led to a series of Congressional hearings into
the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad
inspector, Thomas Baron, sharply criticized NASA's handling of
the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape
the capsule earlier than officially claimed.
Baron was fired soon after giving the testimony, and died, along
with his wife, when his car was struck by a train. Authorities ruled
the deaths as suicide.
During the Congressional hearings, Senator Walter Mondale
questioned the efficacy of manned space programs. Manned space
flights were opposed by many of the leading space scientists at the
time, including Drs. James Van Allen and Thomas Gold.
We do NOT charge for the material.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes.
To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE
just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPDL
in the subject line to t...@callamerica.net.
To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e-mail message with
Unsubscribe TPDL or in the subject line to t...@callamerica.net.
Thank you. No Charge, it's FREE.
\\/ayne //\ann
Tad Danley, K3TD
> Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges
> Christopher Ruddy
> February 11, 1999
If you're going to spam a news group , at least get the correct one -
sci.space.history. Unless of course you believe Tripoli had some
involvement in the "accident" ...
--
Tad Danley, K3TD
mailto:tada...@mindspring.com
TRA 4501, TARA 18, NAR 14020
For amateur radio contesting try http://www.contesting.com
For high power rocketry try http://www.rocketryonline.com
Stefan E. Jones
> walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the
> February 16 edition of STAR magazine.
This is really sad.
What's sadder is that a lot of people will take it at face value.
There are tribes in Africa where everything bad that happens is blamed on
witches or sorcerors . . . so if someone gets sick, or dies in an accident,
there's a witch hunt. Gotta have _someone_ to blame, you know! Accepting
that Shit Happens just isn't as satisfying as pointing a finger and yelling
"conspiracy!"
Stefan
Tom Wideman
Would it be crass to suggest model rocketry, since he chose this newsgroup
to post to?
Scott McCrate
>
>Paul M Watson wrote:
>
>snip
>
> This is very disturbing but I have a hard time believing NASA would
>deliberately kill anyone, let alone 3 people or jepardize the entire
>space program, in order to prevent them from being the first man on the
>moon. They could've come up with a reason to give it to someone else.
>
>It sounds too much like an X-File...even to me.
>
> Trust No One,
> Randy
Absolutely! The horrendous political, public relations, and investigative
nightmare that ensued from the accident came closer to anything to destroying
the program. If they wanted to get rid of someone in a permanent fashion, an
engineered traffic accident would be far easier and smarter.
Scott McCrate NAR 71680
smcc...@nospam.tui.edu
mccr...@nospam.fuse.net (remove nospam. to respond by e-mail)
Brett Buck
> I just can't see this conspiracy happening; although I CAN see Betty Grissoms
> anger at NASA, specifically testing the Apollo Capsule in a pure oxygen
> atmosphere at high pressure; which any high school science student can tell you
> is a bomb just waiting to explode.
An interesting aspect of this was that it was much more likely to
happen during a ground test. For testing on the ground, they wanted to
keep a positive pressure differential between the capsule and the
atmosphere. As a result, the absolute pressure was in the 16 psi range,
as opposed to the 4.5 psi range it would be in space. 4.5 psia is not a
lot more dangerous than sea-level air, from a oxidizing standpoint. 16
psia is.
If you read the report, there seemed to be enough accidental reasons
for the fire and fatalities to preclude the need for any conspiracies.
Brett
Mike Burch
I am sorry but I disagree.. Why would they murder 3 hero's when they
could have (and had the power to do so) just boot him or all three out
of the astronaut crop? Conspiracy here does not make any sense. I think
the accident was due to crappy decision making, lack of attention to
important details and being in a rush to meet a deadline. He was later
exonerated of any wrong doing as I was told so by Alan Shepard
personally. < I know name dropping. :-) I met him one day and it was the
greatest day of my life! I think NASA just got sloppy then
straightened up.. and then got sloppy again in 1986. Best wishes..
Mike Burch
Stephen DeArman
James Zalewski
>February 16 edition of STAR magazine.
>
Oh yea, here's a reliable source..
What next, Jerry Springer?
WhattaLoadaCrap..
MikeTEACHR
width away from scrubbing the entire moon landing program?
Nitch
have let him fly in Gemini?
Ken Paduch
GCGassaway
>>If you're going to spam a news group , at least get the correct one -
sci.space.history. <<
Well, it's wormed its way over there too. Though I'm not sure it was the same
person who posted it there who also posted it here. Totally bozo that NASA
would want to kill Grissom to get him out of the way, at least by sabotaging
the capsule. That did far more harm to NASA at the time than the bad PR if NASA
had just plain taken Grisson off flight duty, or left him on active status but
never assigned him another mission (The John Young in limbo scenario). Hell
that story didn't mention his Gemini flight, he was commander of the first
manned Gemini, and he did so well that his experience was wanted for the first
manned Apollo flight too.
Figures this was a story from the "Star". I think the last time I noted
anything about them was 3-4 years ago with an issue with a superbly ridiculous
photo of the "Lost orbiter Challenger" sitting relatively intact (though with
lots of damage) on the bottom of the ocean. As anyone who has a clue about that
disaster knows, the orbiter broke up into many many pieces in the air, and even
more when those pieces hit the ocean. Not to mention that something like 80-90%
of the orbiter was recovered. But why let facts get in the way of yet another
fake photo and story.
Maybe next year they'll run a picture of Liberty Bell-7 being raised by a
mysterious group aboard a ship that include old men that look like Grissom,
JFK, and Elvis. Oh and Princess Diana too, what the heck.
- George Gassaway
Paul Smith
Nitch wrote in message <19990211233625...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
>If NASA was so upset about him sinking his Mercury spacecraft, why would
they
>have let him fly in Gemini?
The other guy in the capsule (John Young) was supposed to push him out,
but lost his nerve. Then they ordered him (Young) to land the capsule far
away from the recovery group and drown Grissom before the helicopters
arrived, but Grissom had more practice swimming in a space suit than Young,
and was able to defend himself. :)
Paul Smith
Diere...@my-dejanews.com
Okay after this line we all stop reading anyway ;-)
Koen
P.S. a) NASA wouldn't be stupid enough to leave a sabotage plate in place b)
NASA would've just told Gus he's grounded if they didn't want him to be
first.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
TM SRA
>I just can't see this conspiracy happening; although I CAN see Betty Grissoms
>anger at NASA, specifically testing the Apollo Capsule in a pure oxygen
>atmosphere at high pressure; which any high school science student can tell
>you
>is a bomb just waiting to explode.
As I recall, the operating O2 pressure was quite low (4-5 psi?) although it was
probably atmospheric during the test...and that was part of the "oops!" The
fire fighting procedure was to vent the capsule to space. DOOH! Seems that
doesn't work on the pad when the external pressure is higher or equal! As
well, it was reported (I seem to recall) that the first suit burned through in
like 15 to 20 seconds, and that all the suits were on a "common" system. It
supposedly took about 60 seconds to vent the craft when in space....and several
minutes to re-pressurize. Any fire on Apollo 1 was sure to end the lives of
the crew.
Terry Miller
Alex Mericas
>
> Nitch wrote in message <19990211233625...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> >If NASA was so upset about him sinking his Mercury spacecraft, why would
> they
> >have let him fly in Gemini?
>
> The other guy in the capsule (John Young) was supposed to push him out,
> but lost his nerve. Then they ordered him (Young) to land the capsule far
Didn't Grisson bribe Young with a sandwich (corned beef I recall). "Look,
you let me live and I'll give you half this sandwich."
The "real" story:
During his Mercury flight, Grissom was abducted through the hatch
of his spaceship by aliens. This was done during the re-entry
period, the radio blackout. NASA claims this radio outage is
caused by the intense heat of re-entry, but THEY know it is
really caused by aliens abducting the astronauts and modifying
their memory to erase any possible sightings of said aliens (they
have a giant mother ship in low earth orbit that is shielded from
earth view). The aliens had not perfected the memory modifications
until after the Mercury program, hence Glenn's mysterious egg
shaped object story. The specifics of this memory modification
technique were documented by Soviet scientist Nicholi Perchance,
who died in Siberia in 1973. Anyway, the abduction weakened the
hatch which caused it to fail on landing. The memory modification
did not work on Grissom and he remembered the whole thing. He
threatened to disclose the truth unless he was given the
first ride on each new generation of spacecraft. To keep him in
check the Government's chief alienologist, aka the Glue Sniffing
Man, worked with NASA to ensure Grissom didn't spill the beans.
The arrangement turned tragic when Young, who turned out the be
the Glue Sniffing Man's son, died along with Grissom in Apollo I.
BTW, this abduction during re-entry is the reason NASA wanted
the astronauts to wear their pressure suits during re-entry.
Grissom told his good buddy Wally Shirra all about the aliens
and the Government's coverup. That is why he was such a problem
on Apollo 7, the aliens really messed with him. He thought he
could expose the whole thing if he refused to wear his suit, but
by then the aliens had perfected a better abduction method (after
some failures abducting Soviet cosmonauts).
The truth doesn't matter....
P.S. no disrespect to anyone in, or associated with, NASA or the
space program.
--
Alex Mericas
NAR 62956 Level 1 Insured
President, Austin Area Rocketry Group
Roger Smith
>probably atmospheric during the test...
I think the pressure was actually about 4 or 5 psi higher than
atmospheric for the test to simulate the difference in pressure which
would occur in space. But, as you said, it was still wasn't possible
to vent all the O2 outside during an emergency on the pad.
-- Roger
* Harry Nilsson Web Pages: http://www.jadebox.com/nilsson/
Mark Johnson
>
> I think the pressure was actually about 4 or 5 psi higher than
> atmospheric for the test to simulate the difference in pressure which
> would occur in space. But, as you said, it was still wasn't possible
> to vent all the O2 outside during an emergency on the pad.
>
SOP for the Block I Apollo spacecraft was 16 psi pure oxygen on the
ground and 5 psi in space, I believe. They knew the 16 psi was bad news
and the Block II already had changes to deal with that situation -- right
now, I can't remember if it was oxygen/nitrogen during pre-launch or
5 psia full time.
The biggest problem with the Block I spacecraft was the hatch that had
all the elaborate crank handles and dogs. It had to be opened from the
inside and took about 60 seconds even under ideal conditions.
The worst tragedy of all this was that the Block II spacecraft already had
most of the fixes for the problems that led to the Apollo I fatalities. In fact,
it was only going to fly on that mission, since Block I's didn't have any
provision for a top hatch or docking adapter. Block II had been repeatedly
delayed and wasn't ready when they wanted to integrate Apollo I.
--
Mark Johnson LSI Logic Storage Systems, Inc.
M/S 18 (formerly Symbios, Inc.)
mark.j...@lsil.com 3718 N Rock Road
(316)636-8189 Wichita, KS 67226-1397
>qnet.com
Not even an X-file, more like a B.S. File.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bishop Telescope Fund | Akumaizer Cattery | E-mail List Owner |
|470 20th ST West #23 | Japanese Bobtails | Dahlia-net |
|Rosamond,Ca.93560 | Home Rasied JBT's | Canna-net |
|star...@qnet.com | | Astronomy/SIAR-L |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John H. Cato, Jr.
> The tabloid exclusive...
That about explains it, doesn't it?? "Tabloid". Yep. Works for me.
> man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom
> in 1961 after his Gemini capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.
Did he 'lose' his "Gemini" capsule, too?? And, to think ole Gus named
BOTH his Mercury AND Gemini capsule the same name. Man. Talk about NOT
being superstitious!! No *wonder* they 'killed' him -- had to save
those (more expensive) Apollo capsules.
What was the name of the Apollo 1 capsule?? Wait - don't tell me - let
me guess. "Liberty 7".
Am I close???
> Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed
> Grissom panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and
> he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship^Òs
> hatch, causing it to sink.
Did you "prematurely" hit "send" on this message??
Sure seems that way.
> Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt
> for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean war pilot
> who had flown nearly 100 combat missions.
... not to mention one SOLO 'Gemini' mission.
:)
(Just too anxious to get going and left the 'other' one back at HQ)
> There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch
> could accidentally blow without being pulled -- a fact that led
> NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.
Did that include the rest of the Gemini capsules?? You know -- those
with the single seats.
-- john.
Now, remember -- the correct email address is:
science_editor(yeah, right)@nationalenquirer.com
-- maybe they can run this with a re-run of the (headline) "Scientists
plan to blow up the Moon" article they had several years ago. Maybe
(with a little (more) creativity), they could call this new article:
"Scientists plan to salvage Gus Grissom's sunk 'Gemini' capsule (aka
'Liberty 7'), pack it full of dynamite (and/or Extes E-15s) and blow up
the Moon with it."
:)
Bill Westfield
to the 4.5 psi range it would be in space. 4.5 psia is not a lot more
dangerous than sea-level air, from a oxidizing standpoint. 16 psia is.
I thought that prior to the fire, NASA plans were to use pure oxygen at
atmospheric pressure even in space, and it was the fire that converted them
to pure oxygen at reduced pressure?
BillW
--
(remove spam food from return address)
dracomi...@my-dejanews.com
tm...@aol.com (TM SRA) wrote:
> fire fighting procedure was to vent the capsule to space. DOOH! Seems that
> doesn't work on the pad when the external pressure is higher or equal! As
> well, it was reported (I seem to recall) that the first suit burned through in
> like 15 to 20 seconds, and that all the suits were on a "common" system. It
> supposedly took about 60 seconds to vent the craft when in space....and
several
> minutes to re-pressurize. Any fire on Apollo 1 was sure to end the lives of
> the crew.
>
True only if the fire occurred on the ground. In zero-G, the lack of free
convection causes a small flame to suffocate in its own exhaust gases, since
there is no "up" direction in which the hot gases can rise. Therefore, a
small fire after the vehicle reached orbit would not propagate as did the pad
fire.
Even after the two-gas system was introduced for the Apollo spacecraft, the
atmosphere inside the craft was gradually replaced with pure oxygen after
reaching space. This compromise allowed a less flammable atmosphere while on
the ground, did not require heavy inert gases to be carried into space in
tankage, and still allowed for safety while in space due to the lack of free
convection.
Cheers,
Joe
Brett Buck
> Brett Buck wrote:
> As a result, the absolute pressure was in the 16 psi range, as opposed
> to the 4.5 psi range it would be in space. 4.5 psia is not a lot more
> dangerous than sea-level air, from a oxidizing standpoint. 16 psia is.
>
> I thought that prior to the fire, NASA plans were to use pure oxygen at
> atmospheric pressure even in space, and it was the fire that converted them
> to pure oxygen at reduced pressure?
Looking at :http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/find.html
reveals that the pressure during the test (prior to the fire) was
16.7 psia.
On page:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/response.html it is stated
"One Hundred Percent Pure Oxygen Environment
NASA has defined all tests taking place in 100 percent pure oxygen
environment as hazardous. While NASA has reconfirmed by detailed review
that the
inflight cabin atmosphere, outside the Earth's atmosphere, should
continue to be 100 percent oxygen at 5 p.s.i.a., it has modified the
command module
systems on the launch pad. Should full scale flammability tests indicate
a need to change to an air atmosphere for ground operations, NASA will implement
this capability. However, the dual gas cabin atmosphere, while reducing
the fire hazard, creates other risks such as the risk of the astronauts
getting the
"bends" if their cabin pressure is reduced quickly."
This seem to imply that they had already planned on using 5 psia as
on Mercury and Gemini. I had seen a report on the debate on designing it
to use air at atmospheric pressure (which North American had advocated)
suring hte initial design studies, but I can't find it any more.
Obviously, the comment about getting the bends if the pressur was
reduced quickly was directed at using higher pressure during flight ops
rather than ground tests, since the pressure drop would only be about 2
psi if it was on the ground.
5 psia pure oxygen of course provides a higher oxygen partial
pressure than normal air at sea level, and I think the Lunar module and
the suit helemts actually used 3.5 psia once free of the CM. I think
they wound up with air at about 9-10 psia /(pretty thin) for the
Apollo-Soyuz flight, as a compromise with the Russian's usual 14 psi air
atmosphere.
Brett
Tom
>
> True only if the fire occurred on the ground. In zero-G, the lack of free
> convection causes a small flame to suffocate in its own exhaust gases, since
> there is no "up" direction in which the hot gases can rise. Therefore, a
> small fire after the vehicle reached orbit would not propagate as did the pad
> fire.
This is not entirely so since normal cabin circulation can keep a fire
going - just like the Mir fire did. That one got quite large. Also, if
the fire occurred during ascent or descent you're also barbecued.
GCGassaway
>>This is not entirely so since normal cabin circulation can keep a fire
going - just like the Mir fire did. That one got quite large. <<
Well, the Mir fire was somewhat unique because they were temporarily using an
auxiliary oxygen generator that actually burned chemicals to produce oxygen
(along the lines of the emergency oxygen generating canisters on airliners.
Remember the ones that caught fire in the luggage hold causing the Valuejet
crash?). So the fire which somehow got out of control was fueled (oops,
"oxygenated") by the oxygen generator itself.
- George Gassaway