|
Author
|
Topic: Astronaut John Bull (1934-2008)
|
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-18-2008 06:44 PM
  
. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 08-18-2008 08:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FFrench:
Ah, okay, so in Collins' words, not anything Deke wrote - thanks for the clarification...
But it WAS Deke's system. And Haise's subsequent assignments prove my claim that Haise was the #1 member of his class in Deke's esteem.  |
Michael Cassutt
Member Posts: 358
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 08-18-2008 09:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
But it WAS Deke's system. And Haise's subsequent assignments prove my claim that Haise was the #1 member of his class in Deke's esteem.
Of course, Collins was talking about the ratings of 30 or so candidates for selection in the 1966 astronaut group. (The board used a scoring system.) He wasn't talking about Slayton's personal evaluation of the candidates, and certainly not about his judgment of their skills circa 1968.Besides, this isn't a subject where the word "prove" is appropriate. While Deke spoke highly of Haise, and gave him great responsibilities, including the first flight assignment, he was equally enthusiastic about Mitchell, Worden, Mattingly, Roosa and, yes, Bull. Their early support assignments to Block II missions suggest that... but they don't "prove" anything. Deke did indeed ask the members of the 1996 group to do a peer rating, but the results have, as far as I know, never been revealed. The only astronaut I ever spoke to about this particular process had Mitchell as his personal #1. You could just as easily make the case that Deke thought Worden was #1, since he was the first member of his class to be assigned as CMP on a lunar crew -- a position that up until then had required prior spaceflight experience. Michael Cassutt, co-author of "DEKE!" and WE HAVE CAPTURE |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 08-28-2008 12:01 PM
NASA still hasn't changed his status on it's Astronaut Biography site from "Former" to "Deceased". That usually happens within a couple of days of the event. Does anyone at the JSC office that updates these pages even know that he passed away? |
cosmos-walter
Member Posts: 691
From: Salzburg, Austria
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 08-31-2008 06:11 PM
. |
Henk Boshuijer
Member Posts: 450
From: Netherlands
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 09-12-2008 10:30 AM
I have sent a message to the curator of the NASA biography pages (to change the pages of John Bull) three weeks ago but there was no reply and no change in the status of John Bull.I can imagine that this could cause some painful situations... Is there another way that NASA people can be reached to change Bull's status? Henk Boshuijer
|
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 11-24-2008 05:28 PM
3 1/2 months later, Bull's official biography STILL doesn't reflect his passing away! What's so difficult about updating his profile status from "Former" to "Deceased", especially since it's usually done within a few days of an Astronaut's passing?It isn't rocket science! |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 11-24-2008 11:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
It isn't rocket science!
No, but with lack of money and manpower, things tend to go a lot slower than they could/should. Chris. |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-25-2008 12:23 AM
After years of annoyance I contacted the webmaster at JSC last year and finally got them to change Elliot See's name on his official astronaut biography from "Elliott" to "Elliot." A small victory. But of course most of the older biographies are incomplete and really need updating.Colin |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 11-25-2008 09:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
No, but with lack of money and manpower, things tend to go a lot slower than they could/should.
No doubt, but the website, including the list of former/deceased Astronauts, has been updated a couple of times since Bull's passing. |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 11-25-2008 01:03 PM
.
Aerospace Legacy Foundation |
Tom
Member Posts: 1597
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-25-2008 02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
Re the original crew of Apollo 1, for our book "In the Shadow of the Moon" Francis French and I received personal confirmation from Harriet Eisele and backup crewmembers Wally Schirra and Walt Cunningham that the original Apollo 1 crew was Grissom, White and Eisele.
Colin... I find it very interesting that the original Apollo 1 crew was Grissom, White and Eisele.That would make Eisele a "pilot" as opposed to "senior pilot". Does that mean that Cunningham went from senior pilot to pilot when Eisele was moved to the back-up crew? |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-26-2008 02:34 AM
Hi Tom,Buried somewhere in the collectSPACE archives is a fairly lengthy discussion on this very topic. Let me see if I can unearth it rather than starting afresh, as I seem to recall there were some good points raised. Colin Added P.S: I've found that information in "Space Explorers and Workers" from January 2005 under the title "Ed White." But I'd forgotten that it was you with whom I was discussing the topic at the time. Nothing more since then apart from Walt Cunningham reiterating that Donn's place on Apollo 1 was definitely taken by Roger Chaffee - not Ed White. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 11-26-2008 08:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Does that mean that Cunningham went from senior pilot to pilot when Eisele was moved to the back-up crew?
Keep in mind that the original Apollo 1 backup crew consisted of McDivitt, Scott and Schweikart. Eisele's move probably didn't result in a shift of Cunningham's position simply because he (Cunningham) likely hadn't been assigned to a crew at the time.Is there any evidence that Slayton originally intended to assign a crew of Schirra/Chaffee/Cunningham? Or was Chaffee supposed to have been on McDivitt's crew before replacing Eisele? (McDivitt, Scott, Chaffee?). |
Tom
Member Posts: 1597
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-26-2008 12:30 PM
Colin, thanks again for the research involved. I find that subject very interesting. Have a great Thanksgiving!Tom |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-26-2008 01:32 PM
You're very welcome, Tom. It is indeed an interesting subject. Thank you also for your Thanksgiving wishes; unfortunately we don't celebrate it here in Australia (those danged pilgrim fathers somehow ended up on the wrong continent!) but I know what a joyous occasion it is in the U.S. and Thanksgiving is certainly one celebration of family you have that I envy a great deal.Colin |
Tom
Member Posts: 1597
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-27-2008 10:56 AM
So I guess it's fair to say that in late 1965, the flight crew assignments for the first few Apollo flights were as follows...Apollo 1:
Grissom - White - Eisele
Back-up (and Apollo 3 prime):
McDivitt - Scott - Schweickart Apollo 2:
Schirra - Cunningham - Chaffee
Back-up (and Apollo 4 prime):
Borman - Bassett - Anders With that said, I have a question regarding Deke Slayton's crew assignment procedure. Throughout the Gemini program and from Apollo 7 through 17, it was pretty much given that a back-up crew could expect to skip 2 missions and be assigned as the prime crew of the third. Anyone know why in the very early days of Apollo (prior to the Apollo 1 fire) he (would have) altered that by having the back-up crew skip just one flight before assigning them as a prime crew? |
randy
Member Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-28-2008 05:02 PM
. |
Michael Cassutt
Member Posts: 358
From: Studio City CA USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 11-28-2008 05:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tom:
Anyone know why in the very early days of Apollo (prior to the Apollo 1 fire) he (would have) altered that by having the back-up crew skip just one flight before assigning them as a prime crew?
Yes. The Gemini "skip two" pattern came into use because of the requirement to give a prime crew six months of mission-specific training at a time when Gemini flights were scheduled to be launched every couple of months.Slayton assumed that the first Block II manned Apollo mission (which you call Apollo 3) wouldn't take place until 9 months to a year after Apollo 1/AS-204. So it was entirely possible for the 204 backup crew to "skip one" mission and still be ready for it. Michael Cassutt |
Tom
Member Posts: 1597
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-28-2008 11:23 PM
That's for explaining that Michael. Now it makes sense. |
Henk Boshuijer
Member Posts: 450
From: Netherlands
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 12-02-2008 01:07 PM
John Bull's biography has finally been updated. |
NovaRob
Member Posts: 242
From: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Registered: Nov 2008
|
posted 12-19-2008 12:33 PM
. |
advertisement