posted 01-26-2006 11:39 AM               

Was recently working with a researcher on an MA-7 question, basically about orientation. How does the pilot experience up and down, for example, or sideways, in a zero G environment? In efforts to view the earth through his window, would Carpenter, the researcher asked, "opt for this 'inverted' view or [would] he yaw and pitch the nose down for a more pointed down type upright pilot view?"

To get to the answer We both looked at the transcripts. Haven't punted question to Carpenter yet. Researcher found one reference to orientation in the third pass over Kano, more than three hours into the flight (all the boldface text is from the bluebook report on MA-7):

P I've noticed that every time I turn over to the right everything seems vertical, but I am upside down. . . .
I could very easily come in from another planet, and feel that I am on my--on my back, and that earth is up above me, but that's sorta the way you feel when you come out of split S, or out of an Immelmann.

I for my part found an earlier reference (there are several), in the first pass over Australia, as Carpenter is preparing to view the flares for the Woomera capcom, an observational task requiring some radical maneuvers. Carpenter in his voice reporting says:

P All right. My--I am at [capsule elapse] 01 19 02. Have several times been completely disoriented.fn1 There, I have Cassiopeia directly in the window and am yawing around for the sunrise--photographs. The sky is quite light in the east. (emphasis mine; NASA editors also thought this needed explaining, thus the footnote.)

[fn 1 at the bottom of the page reads as follows:]

1. Astronaut Carpenter stated that the disorientation was with respect to the earth, and this occurred only when no visual reference was available. However, he remained oriented with respect to the spacecraft. See footnote 4.

[Footnote 4 reads:]

4. In paper 7 [Carpenter's postflight report in the bluebook] Astronaut Carpenter is quoted as follows: "Times when the gyros were caged and nothing was visible out the window, I had no idea where the earth was in relation to the spacecraft. However, it did not seem important to me. I knew at all times that I had only to wait and the earth would again appear in the window."

Two things. First, researcher and I concluded that the pilot (Carpenter in this case) likely opted for any position, inverted or otherwise, with respect to earth, or Cassiopeia, or any other navigational reference, requiring the least maneuvering. Any thoughts?

Second, regarding Carpenter's use of the term disorientation here, it was Tom Mallon's view, shared with me a few years back, that this technical term may have been misunderstood or misconstrued. NASA editors evidently thought so too, hence the footnotes.

And OT, on a long ago thread, one Cser asked about a leak in the urinal during MA-7. I found the text yesterday, paging through the transcripts. See capsule elapse 03 49 40:

. . . I drank an awful lot of water and I'm still thirsty. As a matter of fact, I think there--there is a leak in the urinal I'm sure.

posted 01-26-2006 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Second, regarding Carpenter's use of the term disorientation here, it was Tom Mallon's view, shared with me a few years back, that this technical term may have been misunderstood or misconstrued. NASA editors evidently thought so too, hence the footnotes.

---

Thanks, Kris, for that fascinating piece of research. And I bet you are right about the misunderstanding of that word - something Carpenter's post-flight detractors would have jumped on as "evidence." A shame, as from what I have seen, the program lost a lot of its openness after that. Astronauts would not admit to any spacesickness, describe anything that was not positive, under fear that they'd be looked on less favorably for a second flight. We probably lost a lot of early learning opportunities because of it.

posted 01-26-2006 06:07 PM               

As someone who has been misunderstood on countless occasions by judges, cops and women I can tell you that using precisely the perfect word can sometimes harsh your vibe.

"Disorientation" is exactly the word an individual with a better-than-average grasp of the English language would use to describe the situation your Old Man was in. In point of fact, he WAS disoriented. However, he was NOT confused. It was a case of him having the right Ha-Ha but the wrong Ho-Ho. Catch my drift?

The distinction is subtle and, from what I've read, subtlety was not a valued quality at NASA. Kinda like "nuance" in the White House during the last election.

Your Old Man may well have fallen victim to a manifestation of Ye Olde right brain/left brain brouhaha.

Sometimes people ain't buyin' what you're supplyin'.

posted 01-26-2006 07:02 PM               

So many missed anecdotes, and in a puny five-hour flight. I could have added to the litany of sensory miseries of that flight by mentioning the leaking urinal. Poor guy--crumbled nougat floating through the cabin, p*ss dribbling down his leg.

posted 01-26-2006 07:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Poor guy--crumbled nougat floating through the cabin, p*ss dribbling down his leg.
But what a view, huh?

---

Sounds like just another Saturday night.

posted 01-28-2006 07:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Long post. Sorry.

---

Please, Kris, don't ever apologize for a "long post". We're always lucky to receive the education you have to offer.

posted 01-30-2006 08:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Sounds like just another Saturday night.

---

John

posted 01-31-2006 11:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Did you ever determine if the leakage in the urine disposal of your Old Man's ship interfered with the control system?

How's the Dynamic Pioneer doing these days? And who on God's Green Earth thought that moniker up?

---

Have been traveling. Just now picking up the thread again. . .

Can't imagine the urine leak was anything more than a nuisance. And in zero g it probably didn't actually run down his leg but just sort of floated around inside his space suit. Fun stuff.

And the Dynamic Pioneer is in fine fettle. Thank you for asking. The moniker--and I'm guessing--may date to the 1980s and perhaps even to wife no. 2.

I didn't write it. It sure doesn't sound like anything the old man would draft.

Kris

posted 01-31-2006 05:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
The moniker--and I'm guessing--may date to the 1980s and perhaps even to wife no. 2.

---

Someone complained I mention my failed marriages too much, so I can't let you in on any of the names originated by MY second wife.

The words "dynamic" and "pioneer" didn't come into play, however, so your Old Man is three jumps up and still strokin' in the Title Department.

posted 02-06-2006 02:42 PM               

Yeah, I saw that, Duke, over on another thread, and was sorry to see it, as I enjoy your shtick with the wives, which tends to enliven the earnest tone (I plead guilty) that prevails here. C'est la vie.

The Dynamic Pioneer weighed in today with a reaction to the above (see boldface text below). Note the mild annoyance in his first sentence below, which of course I understand:

These prolonged discussions about the meaning of the word "disoriented" are a little tiresome for me. It is not the dire situation assumed by some . . . . That may be because it is used with the understanding that the qualifier "visual" is implied.

Visual disorientation can occur at night under water (with an empty visual field and subjective weightlessness), but there it's possible to find "down" by noting the feel of a tool in your hand. By a process of elimination, you know where the surface is. Other cues exist if you know what they are [and this knowledge often comes with training.--KCS]

Without reference to instruments, visual disorientation can't be avoided during maneuvers in space when both an empty visual field and weightlessness exist (classical "Up And Down" are meaningless).

posted 02-07-2006 05:58 AM               

He didn't use it in the regard he had virtigo, he used it in reference to his spacecraft. He used it to explain that without instruments or visual reference, his spacecraft was not oriented ("disoriented") in reference to a position to earth.

I hope he didn't get the wrong impression reading this thread.

posted 02-07-2006 07:16 AM               

Y'know, I wonder if any Astronauts ever rode that bus.

Real hard-core partiers knew the better bars were in Central Square.

posted 02-07-2006 07:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dss65:
I haven't experienced underwater at night, but just stir up the bottom of a muddy lakebed while you're in your scuba gear for a second or two and you'll learn all you ever need to know about visual disorientation.

---

Try the St. Lawrence River. Terrible visibility, horrendous current and muskellunge, muskellunge, muskellunge.

posted 02-07-2006 10:34 AM               

Eighty-year-old performance perfectionists like Carpenter--perfectionists who are sticklers about the precise use of a specialized language, probably have an aversion to at least two things:

1. being misunderstood (e.g., the confused versus disoriented business), especially when they are being ultra-clear.

2. being criticized for a virtuoso performance (my words, and my interpretation, not his)

It was very clear to me that the cSers on this thread knew precisely what the Dynamic Pioneer meant, in 1962, with the word disorientation. And I will walk him through the different posts, over the phone, just to make certain he understands this.

Moreover, cSers are clearly sympathetic to Tom Mallon's suggestion that the word in the MA-7 transcript may have been deliberately misconstrued by unspecified others at NASA, only to ossify over time into a false lore.

But as the entire topic is a bear to the Dynamic Pioneer, for reasons we can understand, he declares it tiresome, and his friends here feel bad. For which I'm sorry.

I posted his comments because it might give you cSers insight into why it took Carpenter--that performance perfectionist whom I know and love as my dad--41 years to answer questions about his flight. Being a man of deeds, not words, Carpenter's view was that his flight always spoke for itself. Why join the fray of words, which anyone can enter, and anyone can say anything? He took some convincing, by someone who believes in the fray, and in the power of words and substantiated assertions of fact.

In 2006, three years after his book was published, I think he's glad he did tell his story, however imperfectly and however belatedly.

posted 02-07-2006 10:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
In 2006, three years after his book was published, I think he's glad he did tell his story, however imperfectly and however belatedly.

---

As are we.

posted 02-07-2006 08:36 PM               

I hope I'm not getting pompous here. Feel free to slap me down.

My own opinion, given freely and at great length elsewhere, is that we'd be on Mars and thinking about landing on Europa, Titan etc. if the program had been pitched as what your Old Man (among others) saw it for: humankind's last step down from the trees.

Sometimes people forget there's a difference between society and civilization. When considering the injustice of how the Dynamic Pioneer was trashed for looking past his window and not through it, consider what wise men have known for centuries before Galileo was forced to his knees: "A man who gazes toward the stars is at the mercy of dog poop on the sidewalk."

posted 02-08-2006 01:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
I hope I'm not getting pompous here. Feel free to slap me down.

---

I respect your take on space history, Duke. You're much more widely read than I, and are more knowledgeable, along with many here on cS, about science and technology. Moreover, I admire your writing, which is first-rate and brilliantly funny.

So what follows is by no means a slapdown but rather an interpetive and factual quibble. I appeal to your logic and reason.

Yes, Carpenter was a champion of science and exploration at NASA. Yes, he had the first science mission. Yes, his flight has that certain je ne sais quoi that often attends history's martyrs.

But, no, he wasn't Wolfe's poet. He's an engineer in his soul and a consummate flying professional. The mission came first. Sightseeing was not an option.

So to argue, as you do, that Carpenter's difficulties aboard Aurora 7 sprang more from a wondering temperament than from hardware malfunctions--malfunctions still only dimly grasped in 2006--is to argue from a false premise.

In this instance, this logical fallacy prevents us from understanding historical events.

Worse, the "temperament" argument obscures the overriding role played by NASA politics (Hardball, anyone? Anyone?) in the evisceration of Carpenter's reputation and in the eventual decline of real science at NASA.

posted 02-08-2006 02:41 PM               

I think I went a bit overboard pressing my point.

To me, the bit with the auto/manual control systems etc were the actual problem with Aurora 7. However, the Goose Pile afterward came from what I think were people mistaking an attitude problem for an attitude problem.

posted 02-08-2006 03:05 PM               

And your crabby old bag 'o' guts . . . line!

posted 02-08-2006 04:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Sightseeing was not an option.

---

That would have made a perfect book title!!