|
Author
|
Topic: Alan Bean and the shuttle.
|
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-11-2005 05:44 PM
   
In 1978 Alan bean was still an astronaut.Why it did not fly on a STS mission ? |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-11-2005 05:50 PM
I don't recall where I heard this... but I believe that I heard him state somewhere......and again this is based on my fragile 43 year old, don't get enough sleep memory... so I apologize if I get it wrong here or there... ...that in his opinion the new pilots coming up were as well qualified, if not more qualified then he. He also felt it was time for him to do what he was uniquely qualified to do and that was paint his impressions of visiting another clestial body. After all, there were many qualified to fly the shuttle and only he was qualified to paint the Moon first hand. ------------------
Kind Regards Douglas Henry Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!
http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/ |
John Youskauskas
Member Posts: 126
From:
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 02-15-2005 03:05 PM
Douglas, As I recall, Alan was relating this take on the subject to us at dinner in Burbank...my wife and I were seated with you and had a very memorable evening. It takes one hell of a pilot to step aside and let the new guys get their shot at a dream assignment like flying the first shuttle flights. Bean had great talent for art even at that time. I only wish I had such a backup plan for my flying career. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-18-2005 09:23 AM
It was a combination of things--he did want to paint and he didn't wnt to wait another 3 or 4 years to fly. It's a shame that the delays in the shuttle program forced out good astronauts like Bean and Fred Haise. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3446
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-18-2005 10:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
It's a shame that the delays in the shuttle program forced out good astronauts like Bean and Fred Haise.
For Haise, it wasn't so much the delays as what the mission was about. He's said that if he was given STS-1, he would have waited. But when STS-3 got changed from a Skylab rescue to doing essentially doing thermal testing, it wasn't all that interesting anymore. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-18-2005 12:06 PM
That is true--Haise said that when I met him last year. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3446
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-18-2005 12:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
That is true--Haise said that when I met him last year.
Never doubt Lawn Guylanders. 
Think about the other Apollo-era (and I'm including Skylab in this) astronauts who did stick around but never flew. Joe Allen was lucky to fly twice. Ed Gibson was sked to be a Capcom on STS-1 but resigned (and wasn't it him that resigned in 1977 but came back in 1980?) Joe Kerwin was very tentatively tapped for STS-13, what became Mission 41C, but eventually never flew on Shuttle, and he was listed as an active astronaut at least as late as 1986. Terry Hart, one of the first in the class of 1978 to resign, made an interesting comment. When they were selected, they were three years away from flying... and when STS-1 finally flew, they _still_ were three years away from flying. I'm in agreement that NASA has too large an astronaut pool for the flight rate that it did/has. Even when they were flying an average of every other month, with seven astronauts (assuming no PSs, and that the MSs had their duties), that's 42 astronauts that fly a year - if everyone flies once. Given 100 astronauts, people should fly every other year - but that's not how things have worked out. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-19-2005 10:11 AM
Thinks the poor Bruce Mc Candless,selected in 1966 with group 5 had wait for 18 years (!!!) to fly.In my opinion in mid-late 60s NASA selected too many astronauts,too many also if the program were continued untill Apollo 20,too many also for AAP program or others two or three Skylab missions.5 scientist in 1965,19 (!) guys in 1966,others 11 scientist in 1967,7 guys from MOL in 1969 (And still more the astronauts of Group 1,2 and 3 )!!! This is crazy for me! From 1965 others two groups of 5-9 astronauts were enough.A relatively small astronaut corp with the motto : "fly all ,fly many times".
[This message has been edited by carmelo (edited February 19, 2005).] |
trajan
Member Posts: 111
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 02-19-2005 04:05 PM
I agree wholeheartedly, Carmelo. I have never understood why NASA selected so many guys in the mid-late '60's. Look at the early Apollo missions - Cunningham, Eisele, Anders, Schweickart only flew once. Then, the later Apollo missions - Swigert, Haise, Roosa, Mitchell, Worden, Irwin, Duke, Evans, Schmitt all only flew once. This was over a period of five years; surely it would have made more sense (and be cheaper) to fly a smaller number of astronauts on more missions per capita?It also would surely have eased the almost two decades long pain for guys like Lind, McCandless, Musgrave, England and Henize before making their first flights |
icarkie
Member Posts: 618
From: BURTON ON TRENT /England
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 02-20-2005 02:26 AM
I agree with both of you Carmelo and Trajan. You only have to look at how many active astronauts they are at the moment, how long will any of the 2004 group have to wait to go into space.
As my heroes I still liked to have seen Bean and Haise have a crack at the early Shuttle filghts,Dick Gordon told me the other year that he might have waited if the Shuttle was on time but as Fra Mauro said about the delays in the program it a shame.Have a good weekend.
Ian |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-20-2005 09:03 AM
But why so many astronauts ? train an astronaut is much expansive (and in 60s it was more expansive,thinks only at 1-2 spacesuits on measure).And all this money and all this years only for one single flight? the groups 1,2,3 and the scientist of group 4 were enough untill Apollo 20,and four or five AAP missions,making fly everybody at least three times.Today,i am afraid, the guys of 2004 class will have to wait untill Constellation program (10 years)..if will be a Constellation program (Remember Bush father's moon program,X33,OSP,ecc). |
Genedig65
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-10-2005 07:45 PM
According to the book "Deke", Slayton was told to get "Manned Up"; meaning hire alot of astros. Obviously NASA had big plans in the middle 1960s, remember the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge happened as a result of NASA's advanced plannning that never came to fruition. Had these plans gone through, there would have more launch pads there today instead of wildlife. I think that NASA has too many astronauts too. Training would probably easier with seasoned crews. Even Deke admitted to this. Remember though that US astros are representatives of the good ol' US of A and as such politics surely must come into play. I'm willing to be that there is pressure from Congress critters to make sure that their AsCan their home states make into the corps. As for choosing flight crews...well we all read the books... any man (or woman nowadays!) could fly any mission right? Gene |
J_Geenty
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-11-2005 02:47 AM
While NASA certainly did have too many astronauts in relation to how many missions they actually flew, consider how many missions they thought they were going to fly. As Gemini finished NASA was expecting to fly at least two Block I Apollo flights, several Block II test flights and about half a dozen CSM/LM rendeavous tests for lunar landings, followed by probably four or five initial landing missions. Add to that four early Apollo-Applications flights, followed by a whole raft of extended lunar landings and an open ended run of Orbital Workshops. This was the atmosphere that NASA recruited the 1966 and 1967 guys in. The only guys who were recruited with zero chance of flying any time soon were the 1969 ex-MOL guys. However NASA had no choice, they were essentially told to take them. Besides, they did do superb work on support crews for Apollo/Skylab/ASTP. The unlikely but possible prospect of Skylab-B also raised hopes of flights for these men. I agree that NASA ended up overmanned in flight crew terms, but everyone was needed for support crews and NASA was only responding to what it thought its flight crew needs were. A quick thought on the current Shuttle astronauts too. If we just take the CDR/PLT pool of astronauts, NASA is not quite as overmanned as some claim. The 2004 Class have been told they will not fly the Shuttle, so they do not count. The Shuttle will stop flying in 2010, probably around STS-135 to STS-140. Now, bringing back a few of the management astronauts like Ashby, Altman and Wilcutt and throwing them into the pool, it still seems that every member of the 2000 class will fly once, most members of the 1998 class will fly twice and some of the 1996 class will fly three times. They were recruited too soon in many cases (2000 class especially) but they will all be needed. |
J_Geenty
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-11-2005 02:49 AM
Sorry about the spelling errors... ;-) |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-11-2005 06:19 PM
Project Apollo:from Apollo 1 to apollo 6 test missions for CM module Block I and II,LEM,Saturn IB and Saturn V ,in earth and lunar orbit.From Apollo 7 to Apollo 10 moon landing missions.AALP: five or four advanced apollo missions on the moon.AAP:in earth orbit.Four or five missions.From 1967 to 1975 20 missions at the most.in our timeline from 1968 to 1975 we had 15 missions.Some astronauts flying many times.Therefore only more 5 missions for too many astronauts. |
J_Geenty
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-12-2005 02:45 AM
The last selection that NASA wanted was made in August 1967 and it was only while this group was being selected that it was realised what the 1968 budget cuts were going to do to the Apollo follow-up programmes. In Deke! p172, it is related that while Deke didn't think he was going to get all the proposed flights, they had to recruit as if they were going to. They were expecting additional lunar landings, three different S-IVB "wet" workshops and three different S-V "dry" workshops. There would also be four flights of the Apollo Telescope Mount. A 1966 report specified seven flights of Apollo CSMs for Lunar Survey flights alone! Half a dozen extended Lunar flights, beyond early Apollo. It was also planned that manned operations would continue on an upward curve throughout the 1975-1980 period. When Earth resource flights are added to the mix we are talking about forty manned Apollo flights beyond the first lunar landing, starting in 1968! This is why Deke was drifitng experienced astronauts like Ed White towards AAP. While it didn't enjoy the same prestige as Apollo mainstream, it was going to need a lot of hardworking guys. The selection of the 1967 class can be attacked. However, the process was already underway as the cuts were coming in and NASA never gave up hope of reversing the cutbacks and getting AAP up to a reasonable level. Equally, the pressure from the scientific community to recruit more scientists was tough to ignore. If you want to attack NASA astronaut levels, you have to do it from the viewpoint of Apollo/AAP plans in 1966/1967. Throw in the expected 10% attrition rate and then see how many astronauts they thought they would need. It is not clear cut that they simply recruited too many guys. Also, keep in mind that some guys from the 1962/1963 classes would not have flown more than once or twice even if the flights were thrown at them. Borman left after Apollo 8 because he didn't want to train anymore. Eisele's performance dropped off to such a degree he was asked to leave, he basically got bored with the training. Anders only wanted to fly again if it was as LMP and Deke wanted him to fly as CMP. McDivitt prefered to get into management, Collins turned down Command of Apollo 17! Even guys like Pete Conrad talked constantly of quiting the astronaut business. The idea that NASA could fly the same guys over and over again, drive them through the training process again and again is laughable. Some would have liked to fly more, but on their terms and timescales. Against this backdrop, and the 1966 Apollo/AAP plans, taking on the "Original 19" is totally understandable and justified. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 12:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by J_Geenty:
They were expecting additional lunar landings, three different S-IVB "wet" workshops and three different S-V "dry" workshops. There would also be four flights of the Apollo Telescope Mount. A 1966 report specified seven flights of Apollo CSMs for Lunar Survey flights alone! Half a dozen extended Lunar flights, beyond early Apollo.
Excuse me,which are your bibliography and resources for all these missions? in "Apollo,lost and forgotten missions" is nothing of this. |
J_Geenty
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:20 PM
Skylab: America's Space Station (Springer-Praxis Books in Astronomy & Space Sciences S.) - David ShaylerIts all pretty much in there. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:29 PM
Ok,thanks. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:31 PM
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/rtr-ap.html |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:41 PM
http://history.nasa.gov/EP-107/ch2.htm [This message has been edited by carmelo (edited April 12, 2005).] |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:43 PM
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollox.htm |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:45 PM
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/orbkshop.htm |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 04:51 PM
Where are the FOUR flights of Apollo telescope mount,the THREE different S-IVB "wet" workshop,and the THREE different S-V "dry" workshop,and the SEVEN flights of CSMs for lunar survey ? |
R.Glueck
Member Posts: 115
From: Winterport, Maine, USA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 04-12-2005 06:02 PM
Unspoken, but probably true..test pilots were a commodity that thinned itself by accidents and attrition. Al Shepard told the National Science Teachers in Boston, back in the early 90's that he was still startled that they had all those Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions with only three deaths during tests. He said it was practically unthinkable in test piloting to get away without many, many, more casulties. I think the post-lunar plans would have employed all those astronauts in training, but people needed to be on hand to fill slots left open by ...dead astronauts. Shepard point of reference was, of course, the Challenger 51L mission. He was shocked, saddened, bothered that slack mission rules had cultivated such a disaser, but, death is part and parcel in test flight. The shuttle was and still is, a vehicle in development. This is why I am unimpressed with the current President's hoopla about going back to the moon and onto Mars with such a limited budget and plenty of lip-service. Spacecraft are so damn complex that a new design will require boilerplates, testing new materials, unmanned tests, manned tests, tests to see if it can do a detailed and specific job in the most hostile of environments at unbelieveable speeds. I don't think it can be done on the margin while one spacecraft is being both improved upon and phased out simultaneously.
|
J_Geenty
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-13-2005 03:46 AM
carmelo, if you look the references are out there. I've told you the book that lays these things out in detail, but if that isn't enough, try this;Go to the March 23rd entry http://www.astronautix.com/chrono/19661.htm Look at the decline of the number of expected flights here and remember that the Dec 1966 number is already a reduction on earlier estimates. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/orbkshop.htm Also, I would suggest you look at p224, para 2 in Shayler's "Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions". Details on proposed manned lunar survey flights. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 04-14-2005 05:30 PM
Yes,you have right.completely. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, carmelo wrote:
> Ciao,I'm a italian "space enthusiast".I like read you.You have a your
> website?No web site at the moment, I'm afraid. > ...three different S-IVB "wet" workshops , three different S-V
> "dry" workshops. ,four flights of the Apollo Telescope Mount, seven flights
> of Apollo CSMs for Lunar Survey flights Half a dozen extended Lunar
> flights, beyond early Apollo ??? is true ? Yes, until summer 1967, NASA had very ambitious plans for what was going
to happen after the first Moon landings. Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net
|
advertisement