|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What would you really like to know?
|
RandyH
Member Posts: 16
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted July 04, 2004 04:31 AM
  
I'd like to know if the collection of lunar samples is getting the science attention they got 30 years ago, or has the tempo of activity slowed down? Next, since another thread mentioned the quarantine trailers, what has happened to the extensive astronaut quarantine areas of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory? I have an old Life magazine with a large drawing of the Lab's layout; I'm going to guess it's all been converted to cubicles and storage years ago... but I hope not. And this is just silly, but when I see the Saturn first stage at Huntsville in its wheeled carrier, I can't help but wonder what it would do in the quarter mile... :-) ------------------
"Though I Fly Through the
Valley of Death, I Shall Fear No
Evil, For I am at 80,000 Feet and
Climbing."
(sign over the entrance to the
SR-71 operating location,
Kadena, Japan). |
KC Stoever
Member Posts: 1008
From: Denver, CO USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted July 04, 2004 12:26 PM
Captain Apollo's question about Gus Grissom and the persistent myth about the hatch can also be viewed in epidemiological terms. It's a kind of disinformation virus, resistant to vaccines, or virulent in population centers with an enthusiasm for space history. The question, which in Captain Apollo's innocence he assumed was neutral and well-meaning, instead provoked the space history CDC, the pandemic experts, hoping to isolate the outbreak before it took over this vulnerable site. I myself like to step back from the knowledge viruses themselves and ask "what purpose do they serve?" or "why are these particular information bugs so persistent?" I believe the answer--particularly when a particular lore or myth appears to exult in an astronaut's haplessness, hubris, fatal character flaw, or (heaven forfend!), the lack of the Right Stuff--lies in our own fascination with greatness, our fascination with ways in which our great men (lore has it) fail. Greatness fascinates. Failure comforts us as we, the not-so-great, read in our armchairs. We're in mythological territory, too, with men attempting to fly. Classical mythology has it that men who undertook this feat, reserved for the gods, demonstrated hubris. Flew too close to the sun and lost their wings. See the stories of Icarus. Also Phaeton, son of Apollo, who sought and failed to drive his father's sun chariot: "He could not rule his father's
car of fire,
Yet was it much so nobly
to aspire." Re: Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF, I would add that the greatest affront to the facts, however, was perpetrated not by the book, but by the movie. Re-read Wolfe's account--pages and pages of "then this happened" narrative--a model of reporting. He ~never~ suggests for a second that Grissom blew the hatch. He reports the events by switching pov throughout the narrative. Gus's pov (point of view), then the helicopter's pov, back to Gus, and finally and most wickedly the pov at Edwards. Wolfe writes: "And at Edwards . . . the True Brothers . . . well, my God, as you can imagine, they were . . . ~laughing!~ Naturally they couldn't say anything. But now--surely! it was so obvious! Grissom had just screwed the pooch!" [the ellipses are in the original.] Wolfe's POV (point of view) here has just shifted seamlessly to that of the True Brotherhood, at Edwards, still trying rather tragically to fly airplanes into the heavens. Wolfe isn't saying that Grissom blew the hatch. He is merely reporting the glee, the schadenfreude, the True Brotherhood felt, watching the whole thing on television as history left them behind on the high desert Recall that Wolfe is telling a complex story, with complex conflicts among an apparently homogeneous group of men. Conflict between the first astronauts and the X-series pilots. Conflicts between Project Mercury ground control and Project Mercury astronauts (see in particular MA-6 and MA-7), conflicts between the hardware geeks and the science geeks, between engineers and astronauts, among the Seven themselves (three-axis control stick, championed by Carpenter, or stick and rudder, Slayton's pick). Cold war conflict. All of these conflicts occurring all at the same time, with coalitions and alliances shifting with each issue. Wolfe was able to describe these conflicts pretty accurately in a way that institutional histories cannot. Re-read his account. And remember that when THE RIGHT STUFF movie was made, Yeager was Kaufmann's technical consultant. Not one Mercury astronaut.
|
R.Glueck
Member Posts: 115
From: Winterport, Maine, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted July 31, 2004 02:48 PM
I want to make sure of a clarification; Tom Wolfe's book did not, in any way, shape, or form, indicate that Gus blew the hatch. He reported the physiological measurements on Gus and Gus's own testimony about what he was doing when the hatch let go. Wolfe's writing style allows the individual to conclude what he or she will, but he never once made out that Gus blew the hatch or was at fault. The film version of "The Right Stuff" took many liberties in defaming Gus. Understand that they were trying to sell a story on film in a 90 minute venue. They didn't care what they said, so long as they got individual sequences into a continuity for a movie. There are many other incredible liberties in the film version.
Wolfe demonstrates a solid report of each of the missions, and particularly MA7. The book was about personalities, egos, and trying to get the next ride into space. The film should have told the story of Deke Slayton, but it was omitted, as was MA8. In fact, Wally was a non-person in the film!Another point: From what I've read and talked to others who knew him, you didn't "prick" or "needle" Gus Grissom. He was almost entirely business, and no new member of the corps would dare have ruffled Gus's feathers. You might get away with teasing Carpenter, Schirra, Glenn, or Gordo, but never Deke, Gus, or Al. When the "Next Nine" were admitted to the group, they mixed with their peers from test pilot school, but could definitely feel the gulf between the "Original Seven" and themselves. What would I want to know? How a great nation could throw $30 billion in the crapper after learning how to get to and from the moon, and be on a solid, stable learning curve. Terminating Apollo was the single worst technological error in our country's history. Just plain stupid, and I don't care who had cold feet after Apollo 11 beat the Russians. Stupid.
|
Wehaveliftoff
Member Posts: 684
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted August 01, 2004 12:26 AM
In the Right Stuff DVD extras, Wally explained
the cut on his hand he got when he tested the latch on deck after the splashdown, and Wally's conversation and delight with Gus afterwards,
so the DVD cleared Gus of the suspicion of the hatch incident. |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted August 16, 2004 11:30 AM
The big question"Did Gus blow the hatch" has never been addressed from the stand point of NASA's failure to adequately provide a safe and reliable flight system.
To build such a dangerous item with no fail safe atributes is typical of the attitude of NASA at the time and has continued throughout the history of NASA through Challenger and Colombia.
Their one fault is the lack of safety oversight which was just recently pointed out during the Colombia Accident Investigation.
We now know that the system on Mercury had a flaw and if it hadn't happened with Gus, it would have happened sooner or later, and later would have been disasterous. Suppose it had occurred when John Glenn or Wally Shirra were out in space. It would have been the end of the Space program as we know it.
I know that there was a major design change on the emergency hatch system before the flight of John Glenn.
I talked to one of the McDonnel Douglas engineers on Mercury and he admitted that it was a defective design.
A new fail safe system was incorporated that would only fire when the Astronaut really meant for it to happen.
If there's someone out there that took part in this modification at McDonnel Douglas, join in.
Nasa will never admit it.
NASA has always had a problem accepting responsibility. Since Gus was the Pilot, it was easy to blame him, letting NASA off the hook.
They tried to blame the Apollo 1 fire on the contractor,the Apollo 13 explosion on a switch in a fuel cell, the contractor's fault, Challenger was blamed on a faulty "o" ring and Colombia on faulty foam coming off, again saying that the contractors were at fault.
Only after a long and enlightning investigation did they admit that yes, they were wrong.
In the months preceding the flight, Gus trained on landing and knew that the ship would go deep under water but would then bob back to the surface.
Stories at the Cape which NASA could have disputed said when Gus thought the spacecraft was sinking, he blew the hatch to get out. He had also talked to Big Al on his landing and knew exactly what would happen.
There was a hell of an impact when the craft struck the water and a switch set on the borderline of activating could have easily been activated.
The fact that he didn't have a bruise on his arm eliminated the possibility of him intentionally hitting the switch.
So we should place the blame squarely on the teflon shoulders of NASA.
As far as I know, I've never seen anything where NASA completely exonerated Gus, always leaving us with doubts that it could have happened either way.If they did, maybe some one out there saw it.
|
KC Stoever
Member Posts: 1008
From: Denver, CO USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted August 17, 2004 11:20 AM
I have long believed that any intimations of blame--with regard to Gus or on any astronaut in the hot seat--were useful political and personnel tools, employed by Mission Control in the continuing struggle, or tension, between astronauts and ground control.Some may have discovered that blame, or insinuated blame, or lingering "questions" (why, for example, the refusal to exonerate Gus fully and formally) were useful tools to control, or quiet, distinctly powerful voices (those of the astronauts). Flight assignments, awarded or denied, were part of this rather punishing regime too. [This message has been edited by KC Stoever (edited August 17, 2004).] [This message has been edited by KC Stoever (edited August 17, 2004).] |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted August 17, 2004 08:20 PM
After each accident, NASA big wheels spent hours trying to find something that would take the heat off of them. Anything to get them off the hook, particulary if they could find someone to blame.
I know one such incident where I was the center of attention during the Apollo 1 Fire investigation.
I don't know if any of you recall that NASA published the report that someone left a wrench in the spacecraft, that this wrench caused the fire and they were looking for him.
They were pretty sure they had the culpret identified. His initials were S/C.
The day they found the wrench, really a 7/32th socket, it was hot news, and NASA was playing it for all it was worth.
Late that evening, I was approached by an investigator and my boss asking to see my tools. They had the socket, they were looking for a match. My initials were S/C and I did work on the spacecraft.
It just so happened that I had sockets, but they were identified with electro etching. The culpret socket was marked with a vibrator tool.
As it turned out the socket came from the Spacecraft tool box and anyone could left it inside.
Incidently, they later determined that the location of the socket was such that it had absolutely no part in the fire, contrary to published news reports issued by NASA shortly after the fire.
Just one more incident where NASA screwed up.
|
dtemple
Member Posts: 532
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted August 17, 2004 09:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Clemmons:
I don't know if any of you recall that NASA published the report that someone left a wrench in the spacecraft, that this wrench caused the fire and they were looking for him.
Your reports on the Apollo 1 fire are extremely interesting. I had heard about the socket wrench found in the spacecraft, but had not heard NASA ever tried to use it to explain the cause of the fire. The socket is mentioned in the episode on Apollo 1 in the mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon." |
spaceman1953
Member Posts: 816
From: South Bend, IN United States of America
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted August 17, 2004 10:22 PM
My "burning to ask" question has always been this: (and my sincere apologies for the feelings it will stir up):People in "the white room" who strapped in the Apollo 1 crew, the Challenger crew.....and the Columbia crew.....did they generally "stay" on the job after the accidents or did some/all leave to do something else ??? Gene Bella |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted August 18, 2004 07:45 AM
Gene, I can only speak for Apollo 1. The crews didn't change. There was a total of 44 technicians and supervisors on the spacecraft crew and we worked each craft in turn, some changing according to manpower requirements, and some left on their own initive because of changing views. Many were discouraged with the setup and tired of the flip flops within NASA and usually went on to other things, but not because of the accidents.
In fact N.A.A. wanted the crews to stay together to create a cohesive work force. We stayed together through Apollo 13 when the workforce was cut in half due to the accident.
Many came back when the flight schedule was resumed but I didn't because I was involved in other things. Frankly I was fed up with what had happened within NASA. Nothing changed, just the faces as the space program went on to have two more fatal accidents. |
Captain Apollo
Member Posts: 126
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted September 03, 2004 10:02 AM
I hate to come back to this, but I've spent some time reading the oral history interviews on the JSC website - really recommended - and Maxime Faget is of the opinion that Gus did accidentally trigger the hatch, and that he hit the switch with his elbow, not his hand. Comments? It does make me think that the argument "if he'd done it his hand would have cut/bruised like Wally's was" may not hold as much water as we think? |
taneal1
Member Posts: 194
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted September 03, 2004 05:59 PM
< The day they found the wrench, really a 7/32th socket...As it turned out the socket came from the Spacecraft tool box >The origin of the infamous ratchet drive socket was always a mystery. Thanks for clearing that up, Steve. Curiosity compels me to ask: Where was the spacecraft toolkit stored onboard Apollo 1? Additionally, the reports make no mention as to whether the hatch ratchet was in the toolkit or not following the fire. This would be a vital indication as to how much time elapsed from the report of the fire until the astronauts were overcome, unless the location of the fire prevented access to the tool kit. |
Stephen Clemmons
Member Posts: 108
From: Wilmington, NC, New Hanover
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted September 05, 2004 11:32 PM
The socket wrench they are talking about came from S/C tool box that contained all the tools used by the ground crew inside the spacecraft.
The tools were never intended to fly. The box was always near the entrance, usually monitored by a the same person that monitored the ingress/egress log. During Apollo I, that could have been anyone, later it was monitored by an inspector.
As to whether Grissom hit the switch with his hand or elbow, that's hard to say, knowing that each switch in a spacecraft usually had a particular position, where the astronaut didn't have to reach to far.
I'm sure that it was pretty close in case it was needed real quick.
That story was spread around the Cape and no matter what Grisson said, he couldn't overcome the rumors. He couldn't even convince the Investigation Board in Washington.
But from all that we knew About Grissom, it's hard to believe he was scared as they tried to say.
As to the torqe wrench used on the hatch, I assume that it was in the hatch. I never saw that side of the hatch because it fell inside after it was opened and by the time I got around to looking at it, many weeks later at the PIB,it wasn't in the hatch at that time.
I believe the standard procedure was for the torque wrench to remain in place until just before launch time, at which time it would be stowed in a locker. As I said earlier, that was a long time ago.
Hope that answers a few questions.
|
taneal1
Member Posts: 194
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted September 06, 2004 10:50 AM
< As to the torqe wrench used on the hatch, I assume that it was in the hatch...I believe the standard procedure was for the torque wrench to remain in place until just before launch time, at which time it would be stowed in a locker. >
Thanks, Steve. There was a "s/c toolbox" used by the ground crew as well as the toolbox used by the astros inside the s/c. That clears that one up.The SOP of keeping the torque wrench in the hatch receptacle sounds like a good idea to me. That's worth following up. Very odd that the final location of this tool is not mentioned in the official reports. Thanks, Tom |
edoc45
New Member Posts: 4
From: Plano, Tx
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted October 18, 2004 04:30 PM
I recently reread Cernan's book.I would like to know,on A-10, when Snoopy went into its gyrations due to being in the wrong guidance mode ( pngs instead of ags) why would Cernan claim they were in danger of crashing on the moon? It is my understanding that they were not under way at that point but they were about to launch the ascent stage in abort mode, but in fact the ascent stage had not yet lit. If this is so and the problem was one of attitude, how could they have crashed on the moon? Or were they, in fact under way with the ascent engine lit? [This message has been edited by edoc45 (edited October 18, 2004).] |
FFrench
Member Posts: 2816
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted October 18, 2004 04:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by edoc45:
I recently reread Cernan's book.I would like to know,on A-10, when Snoopy went into its gyrations due to being in the wrong guidance mode ( pngs instead of ags) why would Cernan claim they were in danger of crashing on the moon? .]
My understanding is that it was to do with the direction the rocket would have been pointing in when it fired. If it had slowed their orbit rather than set them on a rendezvous with the CSM, they would have been shot on an inescapable arc down to the lunar surface. "If you make a few-feet-per-second maneuver," Stafford once told interviewer William Vantine, "you want to make it in the right direction or else you'll be going the wrong way in a hurry." FF |
spaceman
Member Posts: 699
From: Walsall, West Midlands, UK
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted October 18, 2004 05:11 PM
I like this thread and I particularly like the replies of the more knowledgeable few. Don't be put off by asking the unanswerable, however the questions may always remain so.
As we all know photos fade in direct sunlight. Would the family photo that Charlie Duke left on the moon now be bleached white, does photographic film stand up to the bombardment from solar rays or the highs and lows of the lunar surface temperatures. Is it one of the few things that has not survived Apollo, unlike much of the hardware, boot prints etc.What else may now have been lost forever, what of the flags etc. Do the stars and stripes remain in full colour or will the flags now be a white or grey colour??
Nick.
|
dtemple
Member Posts: 532
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted October 18, 2004 05:17 PM
I once read that the flags on the moon would be bleached out by now. Perhaps the one from Apollo 11 might still have one side as good as new since it may have fallen over completely when the LM ascent stage fired. |
BLACKARROW
unregistered
|
posted October 18, 2004 05:24 PM
In reply to "Spaceman"'s question about Charlie Duke's family photo, I had the opportunity to ask Charlie Duke about this last weekend. He said that the colours would have bleached out very quickly, in fact the picture was already wrinkling in the heat when he placed it on the Moon. The picture now exists only in his Hasselblad photo, and of course in his memory. |
edoc45
New Member Posts: 4
From: Plano, Tx
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted October 19, 2004 09:14 AM
A few years ago, I was talking with a former astronaut at a medical convention and he inferred that in case of an IU failure on a Sat-V in flight, that the astronauts had some capability to control or fly the Sat-V.Does anyone know if that is true and just what the capability was to control the Sat V , other than to abort? |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1247
From: Syracuse, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted January 25, 2005 02:45 AM
I believe Tom Stafford "flew" his Saturn into orbit on Apollo 10. |
Captain Apollo
Member Posts: 126
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted March 21, 2005 05:55 PM
In the TV series From the Earth to the Moon, on Apollo 16 John Young (I think) loses his wedding ring and during the EVA after the landing, finds it again as it floats towards the open hatch.I might have got that wrong - a while since I saw it - but is the scene based on fact? Never read it anywhere. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1245
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted March 21, 2005 06:32 PM
I believe the ring incident was artistic license.. never happened. |
j-space
Member Posts: 41
From: U.S.A
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted March 21, 2005 06:35 PM
One thing that I REALLY want to know. I don't think that this has been answered already or not. Who was the other person to choose between for the Selection of the Mercury 7? Carpenter OR ????? |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1245
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted March 21, 2005 06:44 PM
Capt. Apollo..I was reading the previous page , about the curt responses at the beginning..I'm glad you stayed on. Even though most of us have never met too many of the guys discussed in these threads, we would still defend them like family members..( whether its right or not, I have way more astronaut pictures in my house than family photos )anyways keep asking the tough questions.. as an afterthought as well, someone mentions that the golf balls Al hit were range balls, I don't believe that for a second..the most important golf shots Al Shepard would ever hit in his life were RANGE balls.. no respectable golfer would do that!! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 20534
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted March 21, 2005 07:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by John K. Rochester:
I believe the ring incident was artistic license.. never happened.
It did indeed - but not to John Young. From the JSC Oral History interview with Ken Mattingly: quote:
Well, prior to opening the—well, somewhere, I don’t know where in the mission, I lost my wedding ring. It came off, and I couldn’t find it. Normally I found I could find things after a long period of time, they’d collect on the air filters, but it never showed up. I had given up and said, “Well, guess I lost it.” So we open the hatch, Charlie’s handing me all the trash and I’m throwing that out. We put this thing up on top of the hatch, and I opened the little box and it was little harder than it had within in the water tank, and Charlie would kind of hold my legs and use me like a pole and send me there so I could open this thing. John told us the time was up, and I went to close it, and I couldn’t get it closed because there was a little rubber seal in there that had expanded in the vacuum. There wasn’t any way I was going to get it. So we finally, trying to protect these little bugs or whatever they were, I gave them to John. I said, “John, see if you can sit on this or do something to close it.” He wrapped tape around it or something and supposed to protect it. So I started to go back to the service module when Charlie said, “Look at that.” And there was my wedding ring floating out the door. I grabbed it, and we put it in the pocket. We had the chances of a gazillion to one. So I said, “That’s pretty cool stuff, Charlie.”
|
dss65
Member Posts: 688
From: Sandpoint, ID, USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted March 21, 2005 09:08 PM
Interesting. That's a bit different than the way it's described in Charlie Duke's book, "Moonwalker", which was a bit different than the way Duke described it at the banquet in Burbank last year. Any way you look at it, it's clear that it happened, and it's a GREAT story.------------------
Don |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1245
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted March 22, 2005 07:59 AM
Ooops.......!! I screwed the pooch on that one, Eh? |
firstonmars
Member Posts: 15
From:
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted March 22, 2005 02:10 PM
regarding gus grissom, he couldn't have blown the hatch because when they tried later, it was impossible for them to hit the hatch accidentally. There's another reason why he didn't do it but i forgot for the time being | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 1999-2011 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
