posted 02-23-2011 03:21 PM               

Basically all he did was ride inside a hollowed out cannonball. He didn't control the spacecraft; he didn't rendezvous and/or dock with another spacecraft; he didn't perform an EVA; in short all he did was know when to eject from the spacecraft after it entered the atmosphere.

I may be wrong but I thought that I read that only the ground had the ability to control the spacecraft. But even if he did have control at best he did very little.

And unless there were political reasons to keep him from another mission (like Glenn) why wasn't he assigned to another mission? And, of course, there are still the rumours that he panicked during the training flight in 1968 that caused his death.

I also find it interesting that his backup (Titov) was suited up and riding with him to the pad for the launch. Why? Were the Russians afraid that Gagarin would panic and not be able to support the launch? Perhaps there was a good reason, but in 50 years of manned launches the U.S. never had a backup crewmember suited up and ride to the pad with the primary crew.

So, from what I've read, Gagarin didn't accomplish much more than Enos (who actually orbited more times than Gagarin).

posted 02-23-2011 05:05 PM               

Yuri Gagarin was younger than the M-G-A test pilot astronauts, so unfortunately never really got a chance to show us if he had the makings of a GREAT cosmonaut.

The main reason he never flew again was because he was PREVENTED from flying by his Kremlin masters - they needed him alive for their own propaganda purposes.

Unfortunately this lead to much frustration on Gagarin's part after 1961 and he let himself slip - drinking heavily etc - but when he was eventually allowed to train for a space mission later in the decade he showed he was up to the job.

posted 02-23-2011 05:16 PM               

You mention that his frustration led to a lot of drinking. Lots of people get frustrated with their jobs and/or lives but don't resort to heavy drinking.

So frankly, not only is his cosmonaut abilities questionable, so is his ability to handle events in life that didn't go the way he wanted.

posted 02-24-2011 01:00 AM               

A greater knowledge and understanding of the Russian space program and and of Gagarin's flight would have answered some of your questions before you asked them.

• Who knew what the effect of space flight would be on the human body and mind?

• So what control of the capsule did Alan Shepard have in his suborbital flight?

• Could the Mercury astronauts alter the orbit of their capsules?

• Who made the first space flight? The first spacewalk? The first woman in space?

Whatever the reason, Yuri Gagarin deserves his place in history and does not deserve unjustified criticism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
I also find it interesting that his backup (Titov) was suited up and riding with him to the pad for the launch.

---

posted 02-25-2011 04:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hinkler:
It has been suggested that Gagarin was chosen for political reasons.

---

As for the drinking, heavy or not, you should read the current issue of Air & Space now on the newsstands or online in an article by frequent poster Mike Cassutt: Star City at 50. It's a fascinating look at life at what is basically an isolated, drab facility that since Gagarin has trained the most space travelers in history. Now fallen on hard times since the collapse of the USSR, it's trying hard to adapt to more western, open ways.

posted 02-25-2011 04:35 PM               

The ground had the ability to control the spacecraft, but Gagarin had a manual override by punching in a set on numbers (1-4-5 or 1-2-5) depending on which researcher you talk with.

posted 02-25-2011 08:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
So frankly, not only is his cosmonaut abilities questionable, so is his ability to handle events in life that didn't go the way he wanted.

---

posted 03-01-2011 02:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Titov rode along suited-up with Gararin just as Nikolayev rode on the bus with Titov. Pavel Popovich rode suited-up with Andrian Nikolayev. That's the way they did things.

---

On a point of detail, Valery Bykovsky was back-up to Nikolayev, and rode with him. Popovich didn't have any back-up assignments prior to Vostok IV.

This 'tradition' endured until Vostok VI when Irina Solovyeva was suited up for her role as Tereshkova's back-up. She is the only person to make such ride to the pad, suited and ready to go, who didn't get to go into space, eventually.

posted 03-01-2011 03:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by hinkler:
So what control of the capsule did Alan Shepard have in his suborbital flight? Could the Mercury astronauts alter the orbit of their capsules?

---

The thread's initiator has a point but went around it the wrong way.

posted 03-01-2011 03:55 PM               

The retro rockets were fired on Shepard's and Grissom's sub-orbital flights but had no effect on their ballistic trajectory.

Yes, the other Mercury Orbital flights did use retro rockets to return to earth but they were unable to change their orbital trajectories in flight.

"Unlike Mercury, which had been able to change only its orientation while in flight, Gemini needed to the capability to move forward, backward and sideways in its orbital path, and even change orbits to rendezvous with other spacecraft. It also required the first onboard computers to calculate complicated rendezvous maneuvers."

Do you really think the apes went through Astronaut/Cosmonaut selection and training and were aware of the fact there was a chance they might not return from their space flight? No one knew what the exact effect of space flight would be on the human body.

Gagarin was given the number code to take control of the space craft if necessary.

posted 03-03-2011 02:17 AM               

Yuri Gagarin, like the other 19 in his selection group was a military officer and a skilled fighter pilot at the time of his selection, recommended by his superiors for inclusion into this program. In addition, he graduated from Orenberg Higher Air Force Pilots School.

Following a thorough and grueling medical and psychological screening, he was included into the group given high-G centrifuge training, placed in an isolation chamber for days, and spun in a 3-axis trainer. His classroom schooling included rocketry, spacecraft systems, celestial mechanics, geophysics, astronomy, space and aviation medicine, and photography. There was also simulator and parachute training.

All of his group completed similar training, and obviously, he would have not made the accelerated training group if he was not proficient.

In terms of comparing the first group of cosmonauts and the first group of astronauts, it is remarkable how similar the training and requirements were. The major differences were mainly in language and the specific systems training. The astronauts had more jet flight hours under their belts, and the cosmonauts more parachute and medical training.

posted 03-03-2011 10:05 AM               

Both are cases of performing outside of their training courses in unusual circumstances. Gemini 8 did it without help from the ground too. I am sure there are many more examples but these two jump out to me.

posted 03-03-2011 12:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tonyq:
On a point of detail, Valery Bykovsky was back-up to Nikolayev, and rode with him. Popovich didn't have any back-up assignments prior to Vostok IV.

---

posted 03-03-2011 01:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Both are cases of performing outside of their training courses in unusual circumstances... That is greatness in my book.

---

Had something happened to either Armstrong or Scott pre-flight and Conrad or Gordon flown Gemini 8 instead, would either have increased the risk of loss of vehicle/loss of crew?

posted 03-03-2011 02:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If your answer is no, does that make Mattingly, Conrad and Gordon great, too?

---

posted 03-03-2011 09:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dss65:
I've got to say, randyc, that you've rattled everyone's cages! You started a very spirited and interesting string -- which I suspect is exactly what you intended to do.

---

posted 03-03-2011 10:15 PM               

I fully realized that my comments regarding one of the most famous and honored men in the history of spaceflight would be controversial. And I probably should have focused on commenting on his demonstrated space-piloting skills and not the other points (why was the backup cosmonaut ready to take over and his 'heavy drinking').

I believe that an individual's greatness in their profession should be judged on their DEMONSTRATED skills not, as Doug stated, what they would have, could have, or should have demonstrated. Sure he had the codes to take control of his spacecraft, but he didn't. Sure he may have demonstrated that he was a great space-pilot had he flown another mission, but he didn't.

Once again I think he was an extremely brave person, and he may have demonstrated great space-piloting skills during training, but in space he was simply a passenger.

As others have pointed out, astronauts such as Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Pete Conrad DEMONSTRATED greatness by actually piloting their spacecraft AND also overcoming adversity. There are other astronauts and cosmonauts that have also demonstrated greatness... I'm simply using Armstrong, Lovell and Conrad as examples. Frankly, even though Alan Shepard did control his Mercury spacecraft (he tested the different attitude control systems) I probably wouldn't consider him a great astronaut if he didn't command Apollo 14, which required him to 'fly' his spacecraft.

posted 03-03-2011 10:57 PM               

The crews of Gemini 8 and Apollo 13 (to use Doug's examples) didn't choose to have an in-flight emergency. By yours and Doug's reasoning, had their spacecraft performed as they should have, then you would no longer consider either crew great -- or at least you'd find they were less great than others who were victim to happenstance.

By Doug's measure, Jack Swigert is greater than Ken Mattingly because Apollo 16 resulted in a successful moon landing. The crew of Gemini 11 failed to achieve a level of greatness paramount to the Gemini 8 crew because their spacecraft's thrusters worked as designed.

You fail Yuri Gagarin due to happenstance as well. Had he only been so fortunate to have flown after the greatest challenge was seen as sending a man into orbit and returning him home alive, then he might have had a chance to achieve greatness in your eyes.

The trouble with ranking all astronauts' and cosmonauts' greatness in such a way is that the measuring stick has changed over the course of five decades. At the time Gagarin flew, there was no greater accomplishment than simply surviving the flight. Suggesting that he also needed to pilot the spacecraft is paramount to requiring he land on Mars -- it just wasn't the priority of his day.

Gagarin was for many years deprived a chance to challenge later spaceflight milestones because he was viewed politically as too big to fail. He did pursue another chance though, until he tragically did fail, or rather happenstance dictated his jet to fail and take his life with it.

posted 03-03-2011 11:27 PM               

Even if those situations hadn't happened, Armstrong and Lovell STILL piloted their spacecraft (on multiple missions) and spent far more than one orbit in space (as a passenger). The fact that they had to overcome adversity simply ADDED to their legacies.

It doesn't matter WHY Gagarin was grounded... the fact is he WAS grounded and he never PROVED his space piloting skills.

posted 03-04-2011 12:11 AM               

"DEMONSTRATED greatness by actually piloting their spacecraft AND also overcoming adversity"

I respectfully disagree.

Gagarin was chosen on various criteria as one of 6 from the group of 20, then further chosen as one of 3 to be considered for the first flight. He made the flight when no one knew what the outcome would be or whether he would survive. The objectives of the Mercury Program (as I understand it) were specific:

To orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth

To investigate man's ability to function in space

To recover both man and spacecraft safely.

I would expect that the objectives of Gagarin's flight were similar or even identical.

Glenn, Grissom and Shepard were chosen as the 3 considered for the first flight. So as far as I am concerned Gagarin ranks with these 3 as far as demonstrated abilities during training goes.

posted 03-04-2011 05:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
Armstrong and Lovell STILL piloted their spacecraft (on multiple missions) and spent far more than one orbit in space (as a passenger).

---

It's like faulting Lewis and Clark for not using a automobile to drive west.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter WHY Gagarin was grounded...

---

quote:

---

...we as space enthusiasts should look at the facts and not let sentimental 'hero-worship' cloud our vision.

---

posted 03-04-2011 05:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
...then the label becomes so 'watered down' that it's almost meaningless.

---

Astronauts chosen today for the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame, for example, are not chosen for their "greatness." They are considered for what they did in space, but also what contributions they made on the ground, both inside and outside of NASA.

posted 03-04-2011 11:22 AM               

John Smith needs a new, complex heart surgery to save his life. He hears that Doctors Armstrong and Lovell are GREAT doctors who have considerable hands-on experience performing this surgery successfully. But he's also heard that Doctor Gagarin is a GREAT doctor as well.

He asks about Doctor Gagarin's experience and is told that he was the best doctor in the heart surgery simulators. He's also told that Doctor Gagarin was the first human to assist a robot the first time this new surgical procedure was done. John asks what does 'assist' mean. He's told that had the robot had a problem Doctor Gagarin COULD have taken over. John asks why Doctor Gagarin is considered a great doctor and is told that he was the first doctor trained to do this new procedure and the first to 'participate' as well.

Which doctor should John select? Which doctor would you select? And which doctors SHOULD BE considered great?

posted 03-04-2011 11:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
...even when presented with facts there are people who just won't accept them.

---

posted 03-04-2011 01:55 PM               

Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where Michael Palin pays John Cleese to have an argument. It went something like this:

Palin: "Is this the room for an argument?"

Cleese: "No"

Palin: "But I thought it says so on the door?"

Cleese: "No it doesn't"

Palin: "Yes it does!"

Etc. etc.

posted 03-04-2011 02:38 PM               

And, to turn around your comment, Dom, I can say that no matter how convincing an argument I provide Robert and Hinkler won't change their opinions.

I also take offense to Dom's comment that this discussion is funny and the use of the Monty Python skit to imply that my views and postings, or at least my resistance to modifying my view, are comical. My intitial post was to generate serious debate on a historic figure in the history of manned spaceflight. Historians often research famous individuals decades, and sometimes centuries after their passing to learn more about them and, sometimes, to modify the history books as well. This thread is no different.

Suffice it to say that the definition of greatness is subjective: you may think someone is great and I don't and vis a versa.

That being said, I firmly believe that while some praise for Gagarin is warranted (he was brave and a pioneer for human spaceflight) he didn't prove greatness.

posted 03-04-2011 03:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
My initial post was to generate serious debate on a historic figure in the history of manned spaceflight.

---

posted 03-04-2011 03:34 PM               

To suggest otherwise when you did not bother to research FACTS and rely on supposition that is just plain wrong (Backup suited argument/suggestion) shows why people disagree with you.

posted 03-04-2011 04:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
That being said, I firmly believe that while some praise for Gagarin is warranted...

---

Someone once remarked that history made sure that Neil Armstrong was the perfect person to be the first man on the Moon.

posted 03-04-2011 04:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dom:
Let's just all agree that Yuri Gagarin turned out to be the PERFECT person to represent humanity on its first trip into space...

---

There has to be a middle ground.

Happenstance dictated that Gagarin was not the perfect person to be first in space, if for no other reason than where he was born. Say what you will about other nation's political systems — actually, strike that, don't — but all things being equal, a Soviet wasn't the perfect person to be first in space.

Just consider, had Gagarin flown on behalf of a more open society, then information about him and his flight would have flowed more freely to the public and discussions like this one would likely never occur. At least part of Randy's position is based on a demonstrated lack of familiarity about Gagarin's life and the space program he represented.

At least part of Randy's (and many, many others') lack of awareness can be blamed squarely on the USSR's policies restricting the free distribution of information.

posted 03-04-2011 05:37 PM               

The facts are that Gagarin was a passenger. Show me the facts that said he controlled the spacecraft. Show me the facts that he demonstrated the ability to maneuever the spacecraft. Show me the facts that he did anything more than a passenger in a remote control spacecraft would do.

By the way, Robert and others, I probably know more about the U.S. space program than most members of this forum. I closely followed the Apollo program since 1967 (not just read about it in books) and because I've collected space covers and space memorabilia since 1969 I've learned and know quite a bit about the U.S. Space Program.

In fact I've worked in the space program for over 30 years. Hardware that I've designed has flown on three shuttle missions and was used to successfully deploy spacecraft. I was the Chief Engineer of the Space Station Airlock during it's design phase (the two chamber Airlock attached to the ISS was initially designed by my team). I was also the MB-7 (Mission Build 7) Shuttle Integration Manager responsible for the integration of the entire MB-7 mission's payloads (Airlock and SPDM-DEXTRE). And I've been a technical advisor on space systems to the U.S. Government as well as several domestic and foreign companies such as Loral, Aerospatiale, Mitsubishi Heavy Industies and Alitalia (now Alenia).

Although those credentials doesn't guarantee that one has knowledge about the history of the U.S. Space Program I can assure you that if you knew me you would know that I'm extremely knowledgeable on the subject. So don't criticize my knowledge of the space program.

The fact that I don't know as much about the Soviet space program and details about their 'suiting policies' is by choice. Although they were the first in many cases their space program became somewhat insignificant by comparison to the U.S. after Leonov's spacewalk, so I wasn't interested in learning about their program. Of course now it is significant because the U.S. is relying on the Russians to transport it's astronauts to the ISS.

posted 03-04-2011 06:10 PM               

You can try and spin this any way you like, but it does not change the FACT that you did not base your opinions on FACT.

Give me ONE good reason (sorry, fact) to suggest that I should give up my opinion that Gagarin was a great cosmonaut. All you have offered is supposition and innuendo based on a poor knowledge of the Russian program.

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
My initial post was to generate serious debate on a historic figure in the history of manned spaceflight. Historians often research famous individuals decades, and sometimes centuries after their passing to learn more about them and, sometimes, to modify the history books as well. This thread is no different.

---

If you were considered an expert on the Russian space program you may have had some credibility.

How many cosmonauts or people actually involved in the Russian space program have you discussed your opinions with? At a guess, absolutely none.