Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Staying in the spacecraft after splashdown (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Staying in the spacecraft after splashdown
LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-23-2011 12:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
After splashdown, most of the Mercury and Gemini crews exited their spacecraft and were then hoisted up to a Navy helicopter and flown to a nearby recovery ship. There were a few exceptions.

The astronauts onboard MA-8 (Schirra), MA-9 (Cooper), Gemini 6A (Schirra-Stafford) and Gemini 9A (Stafford-Cernan) remained inside their spacecraft as it was hoisted onboard the recovery ship. The hatches were then opened on deck.

Was this just crew preference, or were there other reasons why the astronauts on those flights remained inside their spacecraft during recovery?

Unlike Apollo, the Skylab crews remained inside the Command Module after splashdown - most likely because those missions were long-duration flights.

On ASTP, toxic fumes entered the spacecraft just prior to splashdown. Did the crew remain inside the Command Module after splashdown on that flight and under those conditions? That must have been rather unpleasant. Wouldn't a helicopter recovery have been preferable in that situation?

Colin E. Anderton
Member

Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 09-23-2011 02:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Colin E. Anderton   Click Here to Email Colin E. Anderton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It was crew preference; in fact, the medical teams would have preferred Borman and Lovell to stay on board Gemini 7 following that record-breaking 14-day flight, but the crew - understandably - were eager to get out ASAP!

From memory, I'm pretty sure the ASTP crew were - like Skylab before them - lifted aboard the carrier before exiting.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-23-2011 03:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
GT-8 was not crew preference, they were compelled to the secondary recovery area which did not have the benefit of Carrier based helo support - in that instance it was probably safer to go with in-situ crew recovery.

ea757grrl
Member

Posts: 555
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 09-23-2011 02:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ea757grrl   Click Here to Email ea757grrl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do seem to recall ASTP was recovered with the astronauts still inside the CM. As for Gemini 9A, the spacecraft landed so close to the recovery ship that it may have actually gone faster with the astronauts still in the spacecraft!

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-23-2011 04:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Things got a little hectic inside the ASTP CM after splashdown:

Following a normal but hard splashdown, the command module flipped over, leaving the three men hanging upside down in their couches from harnesses. Brand, who was coughing the most because he was closest to the [349] steam duct opening, saw that Slayton was feeling nauseous and reminded Stafford to get their oxygen masks. The commander recalled:

For some reason, I was more tolerant to [the bad atmosphere], and I just thought get those damn masks. I said don't fall down into the tunnel. I came loose and . . . had to crawl . . . and bend over to get the masks. . . . l knew that I had a toxic hypoxia . . . and I started to grunt-breathe to make sure I got pressure in my lungs to keep my head clear. I looked over at Vance and he was just hanging in his straps. He was unconscious.52

After Stafford secured the oxygen mask over Brand's face and held it there, he began to come around. Once the entire crew was breathing pure oxygen, Brand actuated the uprighting system. When the command module was upright in the water, Stafford opened the vent valve, and with the in-rush of air the remaining fumes disappeared.

source: NASA SP-4209: The Partnership: A History of The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 09-24-2011 02:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Stafford's audio account of that (in an interview recorded as part of the research for the NASA book) was a bit more dramatic. I had a chance to listen to the recording at UHCL near JSC (where the JSC NASA archives are kept) for my own book research. The funny thing about Stafford being the master of understatement was he said he knew they were in "deep yogurt".

Apparently when Stafford stuck the mask on Brand's face, Brand was combative when he came around and he clocked Stafford with one of his flailing hands, knocked the mask off and passed out again. It took Stafford a couple tries to get the mask firmly on to the point where Brand came to full consciousness.

Also, when they got onboard the carrier, they were still not exactly in great shape as Stafford remembers that Brand pretty much went right to a gurney and passed out once they got below deck and Deke passed out while he was shaving. Inhaling thruster exhaust is NOT FUN!

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-24-2011 07:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here is a photo of the ASTP crew at the recovery ceremony onboard the USS New Orleans. They probably would have preferred to be down in sick bay at that point.

The crew spent two weeks in hospital when they arrived in Honolulu.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1017
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 09-24-2011 08:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That less-than spectacular ending really wasn't known by the media or the public for awhile.

Skylon
Member

Posts: 140
From:
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 09-24-2011 09:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Skylon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
They probably would have preferred to be down in sick bay at that point.
They actually felt okay - initially. The crew didn't think it was a big deal, and nobody even knew until they mentioned it as the only rough part of the mission during the ceremony.

At which point they halted everything and hauled them down to sickbay. Not long after they started to feel miserable.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-24-2011 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If Navy frogmen are trained to rescue a disabled or unconscious crewman, and considering what the crew had gone through after splashdown, was it the right call to remain onboard the Command Module instead of opting for a recovery by helicopter?

Would a helicopter recovery have gotten the crew to sick bay faster?

Skylon
Member

Posts: 140
From:
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 09-24-2011 10:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Skylon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The frogmen didn't know. Slayton recalled he was the first to see a frogman through the CSM hatch and Slayton gave him a "thumbs up" - everything okay - so the frogmen had zero indication anything was wrong.

The crew figured once they had the hatch open and were breathing fresh air they were okay (they knew the stuff was toxic, but maybe were not aware of the side-effects of what they'd inhaled). Nobody had any clue about what happened until the crew mentioned it at the ceremony on the carrier.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-24-2011 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think a lot of mistakes were made that day.

Rusty B
Member

Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 09-26-2011 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rusty B   Click Here to Email Rusty B     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John Glenn also stayed in his spacecraft until it was lifted onto a ship. He landed some distance from the primary recovery ship (the aircraft carrier) and a destroyer pulled the spacecraft from the water.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-26-2011 04:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for adding MA-6 to the list.

This description of NASA photo number S66-18613 says that Armstrong and Scott were still onboard the Gemini 8 spacecraft when it was hoisted onto the deck of the USS Mason.

Go4Launch
Member

Posts: 400
From: Bethesda, MD
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 09-26-2011 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Go4Launch   Click Here to Email Go4Launch     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to the Gemini VIII Mission Report:

"The crew completed their postflight checks without difficulty but were quite uncomfortable due to the sea condition. Subsequent to attachment of the flotation collar, the hatches were opened and the crew became more comfortable as they awaited pickup by the destroyer, the U.S.S. Leonard F. Mason. Approximately 3 hours after landing, the U.S.S. Mason came alongside and attached a line to the spacecraft. The crew egressed from the left hatch with some difficulty due to the fairly severe bobbing caused by swells of 12 to l5 feet."

"The flight crew egressed from the spacecraft and boarded the retrieval ship by means of a Jacob's ladder."

NovaRob
Member

Posts: 54
From: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Registered: Nov 2008

posted 09-26-2011 07:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NovaRob   Click Here to Email NovaRob     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dave Scott (the astronaut) told me during a signing that they indeed boarded via a Jacob's Ladder, and it was rather difficult.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-26-2011 07:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If the Gemini 8 photo description is incorrect, then the list so far goes something like this:
  • MA-6 (Glenn)
  • MA-8 (Schirra)
  • MA-9 (Cooper)
  • Gemini 6A (Schirra-Stafford)
  • Gemini 9A (Stafford-Cernan)
  • Skylab 2 (Conrad-Kerwin-Weitz)
  • Skylab 3 (Bean-Garriott-Lousma)
  • Skylab 4 (Carr-Gibson-Pogue)
  • ASTP (Stafford-Slayton-Brand)

ejectr
Member

Posts: 1488
From: Brimfield, MA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 09-26-2011 07:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ejectr   Click Here to Email ejectr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by NovaRob:
Dave Scott (the astronaut) told me during a signing that they indeed boarded via a Jacob's Ladder, and it was rather difficult.

It is difficult with regular shoes or "boon dockers" (Navy term for ankle high boots) on, never mind a pressure suit and boots of that nature.

You have to step on the rungs from the side so it doesn't go out from under you because it is hanging from an attachment above your head. Like climbing a ladder facing the side of the rungs instead of being face on to them.

Rusty B
Member

Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 09-27-2011 09:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rusty B   Click Here to Email Rusty B     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For Project Mercury, after the MR-4 sinking, it almost appears to have been a policy (verbal? unwritten?) for the pilot to stay in his spacecraft until it was aboard the recovery ship.

The only exception was MA-7, but Carpenter really didn't have a choice, being hours from recovery with the landing overshoot.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-28-2011 09:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How did Carpenter exit his MA-7 spacecraft to wait for rescue? Did he blow the hatch or climb out the top?

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 09-28-2011 10:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
How did Carpenter exit his MA-7 spacecraft to wait for rescue? Did he blow the hatch or climb out the top?
He squeezed out of the top round the instrument panel.

Incidentally, Carpenter was never 'lost'. Immediately after retrofire the Californian tracking station was reporting the possibility of an overshoot. Initially this was not believed. However, as further radar data was received the extra miles were confirmed, as was the fact that a successful re-entry had been achieved. A minute before Carpenter hit the water he was able to acknowledge a message from Mercury Control that he was some 200 miles long and that recovery would take about an hour.

This makes nonsense of Tom Wolfe's statement that "Long after radio communications should have been resumed - nothing. It looked as if Carpenter had consumed all his fuel up there playing around - and burned up."

Re-entry was achieved using the remaining automatic fuel to stabilise the capsule. This lasted until the capsule was passing through 50,000 feet and it was at this time the oscillations started. The only worrying moments he had during re-entry were when he spotted some green coloured flame coming from the section of the capsule where the parachutes were housed. Thinking that this might indicate that this burning away, he amused himself by quoting one of astronaut Jose Jiminez's favourite lines - "Ooooh! I hope not."

Eventually, with the capsule swinging through an arc of 270 degrees, Carpenter released the drogue chute at 25,000 feet to stabilise his descent. It is worth noting that Glenn had the same problem but chose to deploy his drogue chute even earlier - at 30,000 feet. Carpenter's main chute followed at 10,000 feet, dumping Aurora 7 into the ocean, "Just like sitting down in a chair." It completely submerged, but soon bobbed to the surface listing at an angle of 60 degrees.

Rather than wait inside Aurora 7, Carpenter squeezed his way through the narrow eighteen inch gap in the neck of the capsule releasing the life-raft as he went. This inflated in the water upside down, so it had to be righted before Carpenter could make himself comfortable for his long wait for recovery.

Meanwhile, the recovery forces had not been idle. Using the radar tracking data, a SA-16 Air Rescue plane was launched to the predicted point of splash-down some eight minutes before this occurred. A possible radar contact was made by the searching aircraft about two minutes before splash-down though this was not reported for a further six minutes. Twelve minutes later these contacts were confirmed.

Thirty nine minutes after the capsule hit the water a visual sighting was made and a minute later Carpenter was seen to be sitting in the life-raft beside the capsule. Within an hour a pararescue team was dropped, the first indication that Carpenter had that this had happened being when the first of the two man team grabbed the life-raft and said, "Hello!"

With the flotation collar attached and a hole cut in the left leg of his spacesuit to drain out the water, there was a two hour wait before Carpenter was in a helicopter and starting on a seventy one minute flight to the carrier Intrepid. Recovery of Aurora 7 took a little longer. Over three and a half hours elapsed before the destroyer Farragut arrived on the scene to keep an eye on things whilst waiting for the arrival of the USS John R. Pierce. It was this latter vessel that took the capsule onboard six hours and eleven minutes after it hit the water.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 09-29-2011 05:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And Carpenter could have been taken out of the ocean a bit earlier than that as the Air Force from what I understand had an Albatross amphibious search and rescue aircraft in the area to conduct the search for Aurora 7. So it could have landed near his capsule and pulled him onboard.

Apparently the Navy nixed that idea though as there was a pecking order to who should recover to the astronauts and the Navy was tasked with the primary responsibility.

It all turned out well in the end though, even if the myths about Carpenter and his Aurora 7 flight continue to this day.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 09-30-2011 05:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ea757grrl:
As for Gemini 9A, the spacecraft landed so close to the recovery ship that it may have actually gone faster with the astronauts still in the spacecraft!

The Gemini 9A splashdown was just 0.7 km from the target landing site. I think that is the record for a manned US spacecraft.

music_space
Member

Posts: 1050
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 10-01-2011 01:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for music_space   Click Here to Email music_space     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
The Gemini 9A splashdown was just 0.7 km from the target landing site. I think that is the record for a manned US spacecraft.
Well, 0.7 km wouldn't hack it for the Shuttle!

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 10-01-2011 08:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Shuttle didn't splashdown.

Neil Aldrin
Member

Posts: 83
From:
Registered: Feb 2010

posted 10-01-2011 08:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Neil Aldrin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:

It all turned out well in the end though, even if the myths about Carpenter and his Aurora 7 flight continue to this day.

Did this whole episode with Carpenter consuming excess fuel and the overshoot of the splashdown tend to tarnish his reputation as an astronaut? I remember seeing an interview with Chris Kraft in which he still seems ticked-off at Carpenter.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 10-01-2011 11:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Aldrin:
Did this whole episode with Carpenter consuming excess fuel and the overshoot of the splashdown tend to tarnish his reputation as an astronaut? I remember seeing an interview with Chris Kraft in which he still seems ticked-off at Carpenter.

Carpenter consumed more fuel than the flight plan dictated in the early stages and, with some justification, blamed the mission planners for overloading his work schedule. This was something he recognised in his first orbit. As he started the third, this useage was under control. Even though there was double useage at retro-fire, if you examine the flight records you'll see that both the Mercury three orbit flights ran out at roughly the same time.

Kraft just didn't like Carpenter, nor I suspect his association with Glenn who was the astronauts' spokesman when it came to disagreements with mission planners. After the flight of Aurora 7, its pilot was an easy target for Kraft to use to deflect the adverse comments made by the press. See the quote by Tom Wolfe to get a flavour of this and how wrong both he and the media were.

With regard to closest landing - do you mean to the recovery carrier or to the target point. Gemini 9 landed some 603 metres from the TP with Apollo 17 a close second at 644 metres away. However, Apollo 16 might just hold the record for at the time of the flight the landing was claimed to be ".. within 500 metres ..". Official numbers at the time were not released so I stand to be corrected on this.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 10-01-2011 02:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The recovery data in NASA SP-4203 states that the Gemini 9A spacecraft landed 0.704 km (0.38 nm) from the target point.

The recovery data in NASA SP-4029 states that Apollo 16 landed 3.0 nm from the target point and 2.7 nm from the recovery ship. It says that Apollo 17 landed 1.0 nm from the target point and 3.5 nm from the recovery ship.

Those numbers don't agree with yours.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2211
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 10-01-2011 02:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In Carpenter's case, it wasn't just mission usage that consumed fuel. His automatic guidance system had an intermittent problem where the needles would drift and the spacecraft would start to hunt for its new center point. As such, the thrusters in automatic mode were puffing a bit more than they should. But it wasn't constant use and the drift initially was rather subtle, but it was there. The problem really became apparent on the final orbit when he was orienting for retrofire as he noticed the craft was not lining up as it should. So he had to eyeball it and fire manually.

That is a very dangerous thing as if Scott didn't notice the problem or did a manual alignment, then Aurora 7 could have been off axis and the retrofire burn might not have slowed the spacecraft down enough to reenter. And since Mercury capsule retropacks only contain three solid fuel retrograde rockets, once they are fired, if the new orbit path doesn't bring it back the astronaut is not able to do much else (remember the original 1964 version of the Martin Caidin novel "Marooned"?). The Soviets had that problem on an unmanned Soyuz test as instead of doing a retrofire, the engines put the craft into a higher orbit and stranded it there (until they self destructed it).

Another little quirk of the Mercury system is the automatic thrusters (which could be operated manually with the "Fly by wire" switch) and the manual thrusters could both be fired by the same stick movement if the switches were actuated a certain way. So both sets of thrusters would fire at once. Carpenter got caught out by that once (I believe Shepherd or Grissom did as well and possibly Glenn) and noticed extreme fuel usage in combination with some rather fast roll rates. That was a poor design of the Mercury system as one would figure that having one system active would lockout the other. I believe they corrected it for a later mission (and this is why test pilots flew those first missions, to find out what DOESN'T work in addition to what does).

For Sigma 7, NASA went with more drifting flight in orbit where once the craft was aligned right, all the thrusters were turned off and the ship was allowed to just float along rather than continuously keeping itself oriented blunt end forward. In an emergency, Wally could always reactivate the systems and realign as needed, but drifting flight was pretty much a piece of cake with the law of physics dictating what the craft would do. The long duration Gemini flights did about the same thing.

So Carpenter landed a little long, but at least he landed. Lack of fuel during reentry itself wasn't quite as critical as the blunt design of the capsule and the aero-flap at the front would help ensure it flipped around to the proper attitude if it was coming back front first and had no fuel to correct.

As for a tarnished reputation, I believe Carpenter could have flown a future mission if he really wanted to, but he really didn't nominate himself for a Gemini flight as his interests were more oriented to the Navy's Sealab experiments at that time as he was more interested in the research aspects of how similar sea and space environments are to one another. When he broke his wrist in 1965 and it fused the rotation joint (meaning he couldn't rotate it from palm in to palm down, like what is needed for grabbing a throttle quadrant), that meant he couldn't fly high performance aircraft (or spacecraft) anymore. So by 1967 he retired from NASA.

And you can read more about this in his autobiography (writted with his daughter Kris Stoever) called "For Spacious Skies". It provides an excellent account of his flight.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 10-01-2011 03:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
Those numbers don't agree with yours.
The numbers I quoted, with the exception of Apollo 16, were those given by JSC in the 70's when I wrote them. It goes to show the problem with statistics about space flight. There are so many 'official' sources that it is hard to determine which are correct and which are not. At the time of writing mine in 1975 I stand by them as being the most accurate that were available.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 10-01-2011 04:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree - the data can be inconsistent at times.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 10-02-2011 12:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Docking problems with the Salyut 5 space station in 1976 forced the Soyuz 23 crew to make an unscheduled landing on a frozen lake at night during a snowstorm. The Soyuz capsule broke through the ice, and the two cosmonauts had to spend a cold night inside their spacecraft before being rescued the next morning.

This was the first - and I believe only - splashdown in the Soviet manned space flight program. This videocosmos article goes into more details.

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 10-02-2011 01:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Further to Jay's summary of Carpenter's problems, the reasons for the overshoot are well documented. Briefly, they are as follows:

The countdown given by Shepard reached zero. Nothing happened. At this point everyone was expecting the automatic sequencer to fire the three retro-rockets. Carpenter hit the manual override button. And again – nothing happened. There was a two second delay before the rockets actually fired producing in the cabin a puff of acrid smoke probably caused by a short circuit in the firing mechanism. This delay contributed some 15 to 20 miles to the overshoot on landing. When the rockets fired in their ripple pattern they did not produce the kick that Carpenter was expecting. This loss of the expected thrust added another 60 miles. The remaining 170 or so miles came as a result of a misalignment during retrofire. Not in the vital pitch angle but in yaw. When the rockets fired the capsule was slanted about 25 degrees off to the right. As retrofire progressed Carpenter gradually brought this back to zero, but because the rockets did not fire in an absolutely straight line down the flight path they lost effectiveness. All three elements added up to 250 miles over the expected landing point.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 946
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 10-06-2011 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As a side note I know the Mercury retro rockets were fired in a ripple pattern, were they also fired that way in Gemini? The same rockets were used - three for Mercury, four for Gemini.

robertsconley
Member

Posts: 55
From: meadville,pa,usa
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 10-07-2011 03:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for robertsconley   Click Here to Email robertsconley     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
As a side note I know the Mercury retro rockets were fired in a ripple pattern, were they also fired that way in Gemini?
The second one fired at 5.5 seconds after the first; third one 11 seconds; fourth one 16.5 seconds.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 12-01-2011 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Fifteen Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean:
  • Mercury 3, 4, 6*, 7
  • Gemini 3, 4, 5, 7, 6A*, 9A*, 10, 11, 12
  • Apollo 7, 9
Sixteen Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights splashed down in the Pacific Ocean:
  • Mercury 8*, 9*
  • Gemini 8
  • Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
  • Skylab 2*, 3*, 4*
  • ASTP*
Six of those Apollo flights landed south of the Equator.

* Crews that stayed in the spacecraft after splashdown.

music_space
Member

Posts: 1050
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 12-01-2011 12:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for music_space   Click Here to Email music_space     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, every mission except Mercury 7 and Gemini 8 could have splashed down in a much smaller body of water, say Lake Okeechobee near KSC. What a sight that would have been!

The local yatching club could have coordinated the recovery!

moorouge
Member

Posts: 1490
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 12-01-2011 03:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
Six of those Apollo flights landed south of the Equator.
The six landing south of the Equator, listing from north to south were 16 (which landed only just south of the Equator), 10, 12, 17, 13 and 14 (which landed about 27 degrees south).

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 01-24-2012 12:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty B:
John Glenn also stayed in his spacecraft until it was lifted onto a ship.
Here is some great raw footage of the MA-6 recovery and views of Glenn onboard both the USS Noa and the USS Randolph.

There certainly wasn't much room on the Noa for the Mercury spacecraft. Was it transferred to the Randolph?

LM-12
Member

Posts: 809
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 06-26-2013 07:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This Ohio State University webpage has some interesting photos of John Glenn on the USS Noa. Glenn can be seen emerging from Friendship 7, with assistance, and standing next to his spacecraft on the deck. He can also be seen packing up his spacesuit.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement