Talk:Apollo 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Apollo 1 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 27, 2005, January 27, 2006, January 27, 2007, January 27, 2008, January 27, 2009, January 27, 2010, January 27, 2014, and January 27, 2017.

Spaceflight Top‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Florida Mid‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo 1

Did I miss 'Grissom AFB'? I didn't see it in the article.

The former 'Bunker Hill AFB' was renamed for him. 166.205.107.78 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a memorial to Grissom, not to Apollo 1, so it's covered in Gus_Grissom#Memorials. TJRC (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Apollo 1 capsule was in Houston Texas at the Johnson Space Center on February 6, 1967

Marty Croney worked there and took me and Stan Skaret on a tour and showed us the charred capsule ‘that had just arrived’! 73.83.234.103 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're contesting the "Destroyed January 27, 1967" claim? If so, do you have reliable sources to support your claim? Personal knowledge is not verifiable to our readers or editors and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an Expert. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC) do not change this article or talk[reply]

please remember to celebretate the birthdays of the 3 astrounuat and the day they lost there lives. 70.124.19.92 (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's well-known that the ruined capsule still existed after the fire and underwent painstaking analysis. The photographs of it in this article were taken on January 28. In the context of the infobox, "Destroyed January 27, 1967" clearly means rendered incapable of spaceflight or of supporting the lives of the astronauts aboard at the time. Gildir (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure

From what I have read elsewhere, the internal oxygen pressure was 5 PSI, which was much lower than the 14.7 PSI outside. So why does this article describe it as high pressure? Also the plug door would be easier, not harder, to open outward, but rather was hard to open because of the closure method (fasteners and the like).

As an aside, all three lives could have been saved if they had equipped the launch tower with a flushing hose having an explosive head to penetrate the skin wherever it was placed in order to blow in cooling and smothering N2 and suck out the O2 along with any combustion products in a matter of seconds. But then they thought “what could possibly go wrong?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.41.92.239 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, I pasted your comment here at the bottom of the page to keep things in order. Sourced info in the article states that "After the hatches were sealed, the air in the cabin was replaced with pure oxygen at 16.7 psi (115 kPa), 2 psi (14 kPa) higher than atmospheric pressure", and that "The heat of the fire fed by pure oxygen caused the pressure to rise to 29 psi (200 kPa)". The plug door was sealed by high pressure, so extreme high pressure (as present in the fire) would render it utterly incapable of opening. Also having a hose attached would have been impossible, since the idea was - you know - going to space, where there aren't any hoses. I'd suggest giving the article and its sources a thorough read-though, I believe it would answer a lot of questions you might have. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in audio recording captions

Someone made a change to the captions in the audio recording in the "The Fire" section so they are obviously inaccurate and include references to memes. 8.52.175.76 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thank you! I've reverted the vandalism on the Commons file captions. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]