Phillips conducted an extensive investigation of the management of the contractor on programs and recommended remedial action for North American Aviation, Inc.
J. Budget Impacts at NASA
It is reported that NASA did not feel effects from the accident budget-wise of the 1967 fiscal year however the Apollo 204 accident "therefore, will appear in future years as is evidenced bit the increase in the total runout cost estimate for the Apollo program." (Report of Apollo 204 Review Board-- NASA Historical Reference Collection) Findings of the Apollo Review Board of the Apollo accident reported having "…determined that the test conditions at the time of the accident were 'extremely hazardous by either NASA of the contractor prior to the accident." (Report of Apollo 204 Review Board-- NASA Historical Reference Collection)
The consequence was the failure to established safety precautions that were efficient in handling this type of incident and procedures were never established or group support focused on assisting the crew. There was a failure as well to locate medical emergency equipment or fire-fighting equipment on the scene in the 'white room' which surrounded the Apollo command module nor were emergency fire and medical rescue teams in attendance." (Report of Apollo 204 Review Board-- NASA Historical Reference Collection) the Review Board of the Apollo 204 stated that there "appears to be no adequate explanation for the failure to recognize the test being conducted at the time of the accident as hazardous." (Report of Apollo 204 Review Board-- NASA Historical Reference Collection)
K. NASA Firmly Claims Mitigation of all Hazards in the Apollo 204 Project
NASA is stated to have maintained through the entire investigation that they believed that all ignition sources had been effectively eliminated and NASA also held firm that the combustible materials and oxygen were effectively sealed off from one another. The truth is however, that "all ignition sources had not been eliminated." (Report of Apollo 204 Review Board-- NASA Historical Reference Collection)
Figure 5
Differences in Apollo Spacecraft Design
CM
SM
LM
Shape
Cone
Cylinder
Bug-like cab on legs
Height
10 ft, 7in.
22 ft, 7in. excluding fairing
23 ft, 1in. (legs extended)
Diameter
12 ft, 10in.
12 ft, 10in.
31 ft (diagonal of landing gear)
Habitable volume
210 cu ft
N/a
160 cu ft (approx)
Launch...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now