|
Author
|
Topic: Six Mercury flights and seven astronauts
|
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 08-31-2007 08:03 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Even if he was at the right attitude for retrofire and fired right on time, he still would have landed long anyway from the under strength retro rockets.
I've always read about Carpenter's retros being not as powerful as they should have been. But I've never heard a satisfactory explanation as to how we know this. What sort of measurement or telemetry was available during the event that measured his three retros? Was there anything at all, really? Those retros were simple solid rockets, the type that either light up and burn to depletion, or don't light up at all. I'm not aware of solids burning at X percent lower than specifications. So what is the proof that Carpenter's retros were deficient somwhows in the thrust or specific impulse department? |
KC Stoever
Member Posts: 1012
From: Denver, CO USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-31-2007 04:47 PM
I think it's good to be skeptical about what you've ~heard~ or stuff that you read that is unsourced or ill documented. But if you have a postflight analysis dated June 15, 1962, with so much at stake (lives of astronauts, national prestige, national security), and there's a consensus engineering decision and then that consensus gets published and all, I think it's ok simply to accept some things as givens.You can read the NASA account of the flight of Aurora 7 online now. The underthrusting retrorockets contributed only about 60 miles to the overshoot, according to the postflight analysis at NASA referenced in n. 95 and submitted on June 15, 1962. Recall too that flying on manual, Carpenter was required "to push the button to ignite the retrorockets." He did so on on Shepard's call of "Mark! Fire One." But it took 3 seconds for the first one to fire. The three-second delay added another 15 miles to the overshoot. "This New Ocean" states that there was a "thrust decrement... about three percent below nominal." I don't know how the rocket scientists figure all that out. But I myself trust the NASA report cited in "This New Ocean." Of course, as others note upthread, the intermittently malfunctioning pitch horizon scanner contributed mightily to the overshoot, to the tune of about 175 miles. You'll forgive me for the following additional verbiage. But you're talking about the overshoot: The drama of Carpenter taking over manual control at retrofire, fer gawdsake, is almost too much to appreciate. I am always struck -- when re-reading the transcripts or "This New Ocean" -- by this diabolical mechanical betrayal at a most inopportune time. Retrofire is conducted on autopilot. Trusty, wonderful autopilot. That's great. Autopilot. Switching to autopilot now. You're Scott Carpenter and you do that and, whoops, all of a sudden your capsule is canted 25 degrees to the right! Heart rate? 80 bpm. And retrofire is approaching. Getting to zero degree yaw, on manual, with no visual reference? Priceless. It is not often noted, although NASA does in 9-point type for all to see, that "the error in yaw was essentially corrected by the end of the retrofire event." Results of the Second United States Manned Orbital Space Flight, p. 67. |
KC Stoever
Member Posts: 1012
From: Denver, CO USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-31-2007 05:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by R.Glueck:
I'm not saying that Scott's attention to the frost and environment didn't throw of his timing for re-entry, but certainly the malfunctioning thruster didn't help.
This is the nut of the controversy surrounding the flight of Aurora 7. And when you re-read the whole of the bluebook report, you can see the controversy even there, with different POVs all fleshed out right there in the different papers. Flight Crew Operations even editorialized about it in paper no. 6.In the end, are we explorers, human and curious, alert to rare opportunities to solve mysteries? If that's what we value, then Carpenter is our exemplar and champion and martyr.. If, however, we are not quite so enamored of the "great adventure" and are focused (and properly so) on "critical operational activities" (Results of the Second United States Manned Orbital Space Flight, p. 67), then somehow it doesn't even matter that MA-7 was a science flight. Inflight experments dictated by higher-ups become, to some, a private joke and the subject of grumbling. The pilot's observational duties are thought to have been dreamed up by dilettantes. And so on. In the end, with a mysterious overshoot related in no way to a last-minute sighting of fireflies, organizational and personality-based rifts like the ones already in place at NASA in 1962 will give rise to competing narratives and what-ifs and heroes and villains and bogeymen in a virtually fact-free environment. It's too meta for me.
|
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2053
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 06-13-2013 08:26 PM
Just reinvigorating this post from several years ago, I was wondering if anyone has since solved the question posed of who painted the words "Freedom 7 II" on the side of the unflown Mercury spacecraft now on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center? |
Headshot
Member Posts: 927
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-14-2013 08:24 AM
Getting back to the original intent of this thread, with a slight variation.Had Deke Slayton flown MA-7, would Carpenter have flown MA-8 and Schirra MA-9, leaving Cooper odd man out unless NASA flew MA-10? Or would Schirra have flown MA-8, Cooper MA-9 leaving Carpenter as Tail-End Charlie? Also, we know there was another Mercury Capsule, 15B, but was there an additional Atlas booster assigned to Mercury as well? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 44172
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-14-2013 08:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
...was there an additional Atlas booster assigned to Mercury as well?
Yes, at least it has been reported that Atlas no. 144-D had been assigned. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1658
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 06-14-2013 09:31 AM
It's been 20 years since Deke passed on... |
Headshot
Member Posts: 927
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-14-2013 09:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Yes, at least it has been reported that Atlas no. 144-D had been assigned.
I am curious as to the source of your info about Atlas 144-D. I wonder if there is any way to determine to what mission NASA re-assigned the Atlas? Lunar (Ranger), planetary (Mariner or Discovery series), Gemini Agena launch vehicle etc.? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 44172
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-14-2013 10:01 AM
I've seen it noted in several places. For example, "Into That Silent Sea" by Burgess and French notes 144-D as tentatively assigned on page 285. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 927
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-14-2013 10:08 AM
Thanks Robert. |
PeterO
Member Posts: 408
From: North Carolina
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 06-14-2013 10:34 AM
Atlas 144D is not listed in the list of Atlas launches at Jonathan's Space Home Page. This may mean that it stayed with USAF and was not used as a launch vehicle.EDIT: Now I realize Jon's list shows the GATV boosters by 4-digit serial numbers, not the USAF designation, so 144D would not show as such. |
mach3valkyrie
Member Posts: 719
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-14-2013 01:12 PM
From what information I've gathered over the years, it appears each Mercury astronaut would have gotten a flight. Shepard wanted to fly MA-10 (a purported 3 day mission?) because he knew the hardware was available and he had only logged a 15 minute flight. Can't blame a guy for tryin'!Shepard was going to fly the first Gemini with Tom Stafford had he not been stricken with inner ear problems. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 06-15-2013 09:00 AM
I find it very hard to believe that the decision to add a MA-10 flight would have been driven by the desire to make sure each Mercury astronaut got to fly. If Slayton had flown MA-7, my guess is that Carpenter would have flown MA-8 and Schirra would have finished the program on MA-9. Cooper would have been the only un-flown astronaut at the end of Project Mercury. At that point I think he either would have returned to active Air Force duty or set his sights on an early Gemini flight assignment. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 927
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-18-2013 05:12 PM
... or perhaps Carpenter's hypothetical MA-8 flight might have gone the way his real MA-7 flight did (using too much attitude gas, etc) thus causing the flight to end before 6 orbits. Then Wally Schirra's MA-9 flight would have been a repeat 6-orbit mission and Cooper would have flown clean-up on MA-10, a 22-orbit mission.The mind boggles at the possibilities. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2475
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 06-19-2013 01:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
... or perhaps Carpenter's hypothetical MA-8 flight might have gone the way his real MA-7 flight did (using too much attitude gas, etc) thus causing the flight to end before 6 orbits.
Why, with all the true facts available, is this myth still being banded about. Yes, Carpenter did use a lot of fuel following the requirements of the flight plan but this was recognised early in the flight and corrected. And yes, he did make a mistake preparing for re-entry by using two attitude control systems. However, despite all this, if one examines the flight records in detail, Glenn ran out of fuel before Carpenter during re-entry.
|
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1343
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 07-19-2013 02:37 PM
I just want to add capsule's numbers 17 and 19 were also not used. As far as the paint job goes; the capsule were traditional painted on the launch pad. Since #15 never got that far, I also wonder who and when it was painted. |
RichieB16
Member Posts: 590
From: Oregon
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 03-15-2015 11:23 AM
What would have been the ramifications had Deke Slayton not been found to have any heart abnormalities during training?I know Slayton was training to fly MA-7 with Schirra as his backup. When Slayton got bumped, they put Carpenter in his place... with Schirra as backup. So, here is my question: who would have flown MA-8, MA-9 and would there have been an MA-10 had Slayton flown MA-7? I know Carpenter had backed up MA-6, and Schirra would have backed up MA-7. So, I assume Carpenter would have flown MA-8 and Schirra MA-9. That would leave Cooper to fly MA-10. Do you think MA-10 would have still been canceled with an unflown active Mercury astronaut? Editor's note: Threads merged. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1055
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-15-2015 04:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by RichieB16:
Do you think MA-10 would have still been canceled with an unflown active Mercury astronaut?
Yes, and Cooper would be assigned to command Gemini 3 (with Stafford or Borman as second pilot). |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2053
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-15-2015 06:46 PM
Not necessarily; don't forget that Gus Grissom realised he would probably not get a second Mercury flight and had switched his attention early on to the development of the Gemini spacecraft and its systems. He worked hard with the engineers and technicians at McDonnell and I believe he would have been rewarded with the first, shakedown flight. Just my opinion, but he had all the experience with the Gemini spacecraft, while Cooper had devoted all his energies and attention to his MA-9 flight. |
RichieB16
Member Posts: 590
From: Oregon
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 03-15-2015 07:32 PM
Except, he wasn't originally given Gemini 3. Al Shepard was, Grissom didn't get the assignment until after Shepard was grounded.Personally, I don't think Cooper would have gotten the Gemini 3 assignment solely because he hadn't make a Mercury flight. I think it would have been given to an experienced astronaut and then Cooper given a later flight (possible command of Gemini 4). |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-15-2015 08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by RichieB16:
I think it would have been given to an experienced astronaut and then Cooper given a later flight (possible command of Gemini 4).
I'm inclined to agree with this. It doesn't really make any sense that Grissom would have led off Gemini whether Cooper flew or not, because as we know Shepard was always ahead of Grissom to fly the first Gemini flight. So I'm not really sure why Cooper flying or not would have had an impact on whether Shepard or Grissom commanded Gemini 3.I also would lean towards Shepard being assigned the first Gemini flight even if Cooper had not flown on Mercury. Cooper's superb in-flight performance on MA-9 was what helped quiet the objections surrounding him even flying — if he never had the chance to do that, and show what he could do, what makes one think that NASA would have assigned him the first test flight of Gemini? Also, a fantastic post in here regarding Carpenter's performance on Aurora 7. The misconception that he fouled up the entire flight by daydreaming and not paying attention (largely perpetuated by Chris Kraft) just doesn't hold water, and in fact just the opposite is true — that he saved a malfunctioning spacecraft under extremely difficult conditions. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1055
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-16-2015 10:50 AM
Why not a Grissom-Cooper Gemini-3? |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-16-2015 01:13 PM
I'm sure they would have made a great team. But how do you explain your rationale that Cooper not flying would somehow catapult Grissom ahead of Shepard on the depth chart? The two aren't related.I'm baffled as to why we are discussing Grissom here. He was never, ever ahead of Shepard in line for being originally assigned Gemini 3, and Gordon Cooper not flying in Mercury wouldn't have affected that. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-16-2015 01:25 PM
I don't think Grissom/Cooper is that far fetched. If it were originally Shepard/Cooper having Grissom simply replace Shepard after the latter's grounding would make sense. In the scenario of Cooper not having flown a Mercury flight, I think it's safe to assume he would have been next in line before any of the Group 2 astronauts. I don't see him being replaced as GT-3 pilot simply because Shepard is grounded. If Cooper had not flown during Mercury, I see three possible scenarios: - He flies as Pilot on GT-3 (regardless of who is selected/replaced as Command Pilot);
- He flies as Command Pilot of GT-4;
- He leaves NASA at the conclusion of Project Mercury or hangs around for a while without getting a flight (either not likely unless he had reason to believe he would not get a Gemini flight because of some in management's attitude about him, but one cannot rule out that possibility. Especially since someone other than Slayton would have been in charge of assigning crews under the scenario).
|
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-16-2015 01:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
I don't think Grissom/Cooper is that far fetched. If it were originally Shepard/Cooper having Grissom simply replace Shepard after the latter's grounding would make sense.
Certainly, but the point that was brought up in this thread, unless I'm misunderstanding, is that Grissom somehow would have been assigned Gemini 3 before Shepard and flown either ahead of or with Cooper. That makes no sense at all. Shepard was always going to command Gemini 3 until he was grounded. That may or may not have been with Gordon Cooper, had he not flown on Mercury, but it certainly wouldn't have originally been slated Grissom/Cooper. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1055
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-16-2015 02:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by calcheyup:
I'm sure they would have made a great team. But how do you explain your rationale that Cooper not flying would somehow catapult Grissom ahead of Shepard on the depth chart?
Back then, the original Gemini 3 crew was Shepard-Stafford. Is possible a crew Shepard-Cooper, if Gordo stayed without seat in Mercury project. Obviously when Shepard was grounded, the commander seat would go to Grissom. This if NASA wanted a veteran on Gemini 3. In my opinion, if Slayton had flown, is logical that the last of original seven astronauts (Gordon Cooper) without a Mercury mission would be commander in the first Gemini flight. The rotation on Gemini should have been: - Gordon Cooper + a new nine rookie
- Alan Shepard (if not grounded) with another rookie
- Gus Grissom + a rookie.
|
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-16-2015 06:10 PM
Okay, obviously I misunderstood, that you were taking into account that Shepard had been grounded already with a Grissom-Cooper Gemini 3 crew. Other posts in this thread seemed to indicate that Grissom would have been the first choice for Gemini before knowledge of Shepard's problem grounded him.As for Cooper flying Gemini 3 after not flying in Mercury, I've already covered why I don't think that would have happened. But - we'll never know! |
RichieB16
Member Posts: 590
From: Oregon
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 03-16-2015 07:15 PM
I don't think Cooper would have flown as the pilot on a Gemini mission with another Mercury astronaut commander. My rational for this is simply that they were already assigning unflown New 9 astronauts as commanders. Jim McDivitt was given the CDR spot on Gemini 4. It seems to me that seniority alone would have given Cooper a CDR spot well before any of the New 9 guys. I think the original Grissom/Young Gemini 3 crew makes sense (since Shepard was grounded and NASA opted to replace the whole crew instead of just Shepard). I think the most logical landing spot for Cooper would be as commander of Gemini 4. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-17-2015 07:31 AM
This opens up a lot of other subjects of speculation. What Gemini mission would Deke have commanded? And where would Carpenter, having flown a successful Mercury-Atlas 8 mission, have fit in? I'm thinking Slayton commands GT-5; Carpenter backs up Cooper on GT-4 then commands GT-7. The ultimate line-up: - Grissom GT-3
- Cooper GT-4
- Slayton GT-5
- Schirra GT-6
- Carpenter GT-7
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2475
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-17-2015 11:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
And where would Carpenter, having flown a successful Mercury-Atlas 8 mission, have fit in?
That also assumes Carpenter didn't have the accident that removed his flight status.
|
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-17-2015 03:01 PM
One COULD assume had Carpenter flown MA-8 and been heavily involved in Gemini he would not have wound up in the chain of events that led to his wrist-injuring accident.  |
Tom
Member Posts: 1619
From: New York
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-17-2015 04:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
The ultimate line-up
As long as we're speculating, who do you see as pilots on these flights? |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-17-2015 06:03 PM
Strictly speculative. Since someone other than Deke would be selecting crews, who knows what system would emerge and what personal preferences/biases would come into play? But here goes: - GT-3: Grissom/McDivitt
- GT-4: Cooper/Stafford
- GT-5: Slayton/Borman
- GT-6: Schirra/Conrad
- GT-7: Carpenter/See
- GT-8: Armstrong/Lovell
- GT-9: McDivitt/White
- GT-10: Stafford/Young
- GT-11: Borman/Scott
- GT-12: Conrad/Bassett
There obviously are many possible combinations which realistically could have been expected. I put McDivitt flying early and first rather than being held out until the second half of the program as rookie Commander. And See is a real question mark. I put him with Carpenter on GT-7 instead of figuring out how the "not being up to doing an EVA" dilemma would have evolved. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1055
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-17-2015 07:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by RichieB16:
I don't think Cooper would have flown as the pilot on a Gemini mission with another Mercury astronaut commander.
Why? Gemini 4 had two of same new nine group, commander and pilot. Same for Gemini 8.If Gordon Cooper had not fly in Mercury he would be a rookie, as all the new nine.
Consider that at that early stage some precedences in the rotation had not been firmly established. Seniority work in the way that Cooper not would have flown with one of new nine as commander and he as pilot; but a flown Mercury astronaut would have higher seniority on a rookie Gordo. And the Gemini 3 test mission was enough important for two Mercury astronauts.
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
Carpenter GT-7
Carpenter was perfect for Gemini 7 mission. I can see he commander on Apollo 8, and then on first Skylab mission. Or maybe a moon landing... who said. Shift his mission with Slayton, and fly on Mercury 8, all would be changed. quote:
Since someone other than Deke would be selecting crews
My 2 cents on Shepard. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 44172
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-17-2015 07:31 PM
Had Slayton not been grounded when he was, I see no reason crew selection would have ever fallen to any astronaut (let alone perhaps the creation of a chief astronaut position). |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-17-2015 07:56 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that NASA was planning on naming a Navy Admiral to oversee the Astronaut Office around the time Slayton became available. |
RichieB16
Member Posts: 590
From: Oregon
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 03-17-2015 08:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by carmelo:
Why? Gemini 4 had two of same new nine group, commander and pilot.
My reasoning has more to do with experience in the program than anything else. It seems to me that they wanted an flight experienced commander on the first Gemini flight (which is why Grissom would fly, being the most senior active flown astronaut). If I knew that Gemini 4 was going to have two unflown astronauts, it makes sense to me to give them command of that mission to someone with three more years experience in the program (being Cooper selected in 1959 verses a New Nine guy from 1962). I'd rather put a New Nine rookie with three years in the program in the right hand seat with Gus and then a rookie with six years experience in the program in the left hand seat on Gemini 4. That's just my opinion though. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1055
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-17-2015 09:25 PM
Well, but in our hypothetical case the Gemini 4 commander seat was probably for Slayton. And is probable that, with different circumstances we have another Mercury veteran in line for a Gemini mission: Scott Carpenter.As pilot of Gemini-3 is probable that Cooper could have another Gemini mission as commander in 1966. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1556
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 05-05-2020 05:37 AM
Had Deke Slayton flown Mercury-Atlas 7 (MA-7), who would have flown MA-8 and MA-9? It seems the most logical answer would be Scott Carpenter on MA-8 and Wally Schirra on MA-9. Was there ever any documentation or other historical evidence of what the original plan was? And presumably in that scenario, Gordon Cooper would have been the only original Mercury Astronaut to not fly a Mercury mission. He would either have waited until Gemini to fly, or gone back to active duty in the USAF at the completion of Project Mercury. Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Colin Anderton
Member Posts: 178
From: Great Britain
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-06-2020 07:46 AM
Going back to earlier in this thread, a Mercury-Atlas 10 flight was still a possibility as of 22 May 1963. Listen to President Kennedy during his press conference that day.But even during coverage of Cooper's flight a week earlier, commentators stated that they felt they were covering the last flight in the programme. |
advertisement