Index IntroductionCase Study OverviewLessons LearnedAssessments and RecommendationsConclusionReferenceIntroductionThe first Apollo 1 named AS-204 was the first mission of the American Apollo program and will be the first mission to land on the moon. Staged as the first low-Earth circle test of the Apollo Command and Administration Module launched by the group on February 21, 1967, the mission was never streamed; 34 lodge flames during practice testing at Kennedy Point Air Force Base, focus of the January 27 dispatch. Three members of the team died: Command Pilot Virgil I. 'Gus' Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed Wright, and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee were destroyed by the Command Module (CM). The crew's chosen name for Apollo 1 was officially retired by NASA on April 24, 1967, to commemorate them. The purpose of the report is that we must learn from that failure experience and understand what we need to improve for a better future until we achieve success. The background to the mission is that Grissom announces that he intends to keep his plane in orbit for a full 14 days. The newspaper article published on August 4, 1966 was called "Apollo 1". CM-012 arrived at Kennedy Space Center on August 26 and was marked NAA Apollo One on its packaging. In October 1966, NASA announced that the flight would carry a small video camera from the command module site. The camera can also be used to allow the flight controller to monitor the dashboard of the spacecraft in flight. All manned Apollo missions have a camera. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Grissom's staff was approved in June 1966 and designed a mission patch called Apollo 1. The center of the drawing depicts a command and service module flying over the southeastern United States and has a prominent dot (dot launch) in Florida. Looking at the moon from afar symbolizes the ultimate goal of the plan. The name of the yellow border is the mission and the astronaut, while the other border is stars and stripes, with gold decorations. The badge was designed by the staff, and North American airline employee Alan Stevens completed the work. Apollo plans to change forever on January 27, 1967. During this time, during launch tests, the flame engulfed the command module of Apollo 1. Despite the efforts made by the staff, three astronauts died. It takes a long time for NASA to put more people into space and do large-scale redesigns. The three astronauts who died in this failure are unforgettable in people's minds. Apollo 1 Commander Virgil "Gus" Grissom is an Air Force veteran of the Korean War. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Edwin is an Air Force lieutenant colonel. He was the first American to walk in space on Gemini No. 4 in 1965. Roger Chaffee is an experienced Navy lieutenant commander who joined the program in 1963. Case Study Overview The accident occurred during the full plug test. The purpose of this test is to bring all systems and operating procedures of the spacecraft as close as possible to the flight configuration and to verify the system's capabilities in simulated launch. The test began at 12:55 GMT on 27 January 1967. After testing the initial system, the crew entered the command module at 18:00 GMT, scheduled for 18:20 GMT, and collected oxygen samples from the system. It is expected to resume at 19:42 GMT and to begin incubation and subsequent oxygen cleaning at 19:45 GMT. Next it isIt was determined that the odor was not fire related. Communication difficulties and is collected around 10.40pm GMT to resolve the issue. This issue included a microphone that could not be turned off by the crew. Since communication is allowed, various final countdown functions are still performed while waiting. “At 11.20pm GMT, all final countdown functions complete the transformation to the simulated fuel cell, and the count remains at T-10 minutes, waiting to resolve communication issues.” according to research the reason that caused the fire was due to these factors: The capsule is pressurized with an oxygen atmosphere. Flammable materials are widely distributed in the engine room. Fragile wiring that carries the power of a spacecraft. Flammable pipes transport flammable and corrosive liquid coolants. The rules for crew escape are insufficient. Insufficient reserves for rescue or medical assistance. While the committee was unable to pin down the specific sponsor of the Apollo 204 fire, it determined the conditions that led to the disaster. After NASA determined these problems, the Commission addressed how these conditions existed. The Commission concluded that the Apollo team did not pay sufficient attention to some details, such as safety issues, and that the space travel effort was equally important. NASA investigations show that there are many deficiencies in design, engineering, manufacturing and quality control. Safety changes were also made to Launch Complex 34. These included structural changes to the White Room for the new fast-opening spacecraft hatch, improved firefighting equipment, emergency exit routes, emergency access to the spacecraft, purging of all the electrical equipment in the White Room with nitrogen, installation of a portable water pipe and a large exhaust fan in the White Room to extract fumes and fumes, fire resistant paint, moving some structural elements to provide easier access to the spacecraft and faster egress, adding a water spray system to cool the launch escape system (solid propellants could be ignited by extreme heat), and installing additional water spray systems water along the exit path from the spacecraft to ground level. Lessons Learned After the Apollo 1 accident, the Apollo Review Committee conducted a thorough investigation, and test conditions at the time of the accident were "very dangerous." However, before the accident, NASA had not determined that the test was very stubborn and dangerous. Therefore, neither the established nor the rigorous plan nor adequate safety precautions were followed for this test. The number and location of fuels in the command module are not strictly limited and controlled. In such an emergency, the crew cannot quickly exit the command module or establish a safety regime for ground support personnel outside the spacecraft. Help the astronauts. In the "white room" around the Apollo command module there is no emergency equipment, nor an emergency fire and medical rescue team, which could cause an accident. Tests that were not performed at the time of the accident were deemed dangerous because the fire required an ignition source, combustible materials, and oxygen, and NASA deemed that necessary and sufficient measures had been taken to prevent the fire. From the committee report and the testimony of the commission it can be seen that the accident was a complete accident and atemporary negligence; although the fire danger had been recorded in a pure oxygen environment, NASA and the contractor were not fully prepared. . The committee can only conclude that NASA has had positive experiences in previous tests. Too little stress can lead to overconfidence and complacency. The Apollo 1 accident was a tragic event in the country's space program. As a result, NASA conducted a comprehensive analysis and review of all aspects of the Apollo program. As a result, many areas have been improved. Many improvements have been made in the design, operation, management and procedures of the Apollo system. NASA will improve spacecraft and booster systems. The NASA committee hopes that the rest of the plan will be implemented into a more detailed plan, unless there are any surprises. The full impact of the Apollo accident on the Apollo program is unclear. While continuing to pay close attention to the Apollo program, the NASA committee will pay close attention to the accident's impact on planned schedules and costs, as well as the effectiveness of NASA's management and operational changes in recent months. It is important to learn from mistakes, summarize past experience and make great improvements. Ratings and Recommendations I think the most important step towards success is understanding how we can take risks and pay the price for them. If there is no risk, there is certainly no gain. No matter what field you achieve some form of success in, you must be willing to lay the foundation for progress in case of failure. Thinking about those who have experienced failures and how to get good returns, we should be willing to pay the risks. What else can we do? The high we get from failure is real. These experiences are designed to help you learn and do better next time. Think about what we are doing, you can do better, and you should stop doing what you want to do in the next process. I think this is one of the simplest ways to analyze how to learn from failure. On the one hand, in these cases, I don't like to use the word failure. Frustration is my first choice. For example, in my case study Apollo 1, even if it is a failure, we need to understand how we can improve for next time. The main reason that caused this accident is the fire, you need to know how the fair was caused, which part of the work went well. Realize that failure is the best teacher for us. Think about it, if NASA didn't experience the Apollo 1 test failure, how can it learn to improve? How can we reach the advanced level of humanity today? People say that experience is the best teacher. If you think this is true, then you have to accept failure. This is one of the many courses you have learned from experience. Therefore, we can learn from failure. It's that simple. Think of failure as a lesson in life's journey. How can NASA be better for future work? If NASA wants to make progress today, then it is worth failing. When you are too cautious, you should not allow yourself to take any risks. If NASA experimented without a hitch, then NASA will not give itself a chance to learn from the failure. Give yourself the freedom to fail and see how the lessons of success open up for you. For Apollo 1 the main reason is the lack of sufficient preparation for the test and a plan for safety issues as in these areas: Flammable materials are widely distributed in the engine compartment. The fragile wiring carries the spacecraft. The crew did not have enough escape routes. Preparation for rescue or medical care is inadequate. Not 4,6,7