posted 06-29-2015 02:51 PM
What exactly is happening between about 2:35 and 3:00 in this video of the Mercury-Atlas 3 flight (i.e. prior to what appears to be a drogue chute opening)?
Also the capsule landed very close to the shore. What would have happened if it hadn't landed in the water but on land? Where exactly did the helicopter place the capsule after extracting it from the ocean?
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1488 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 06-29-2015 06:06 PM
The escape tower was jettisoned.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 06-29-2015 07:44 PM
But look closely — smoke/vapor seems to be coming from the capsule.
David C Member
Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
posted 06-29-2015 07:53 PM
Kinda looks like the retro pack fired as well.
Headshot Member
Posts: 891 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 06-30-2015 06:54 AM
That was my impression also.
randy Member
Posts: 2231 From: West Jordan, Utah USA Registered: Dec 1999
posted 06-30-2015 08:35 AM
Yup, it's the retros firing. Another thing I noticed was the round porthole on the side of the spacecraft. When was that changed to the square one above the pilots head, as on the rest of the flights?
Headshot Member
Posts: 891 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 06-30-2015 10:17 AM
Shepard's Freedom 7 had the porthole, Grissom's Liberty Bell 7 and all subsequent Mercury capsules had rectangular windows.
Headshot Member
Posts: 891 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 06-30-2015 04:27 PM
There is one small addendum to my post above.
The Mercury capsule, with the porthole, used for the aborted MA-3 flight (4/25/61) was refurbished and successfully flown on the MA-4 unmanned orbital flight (9/13/61). The Mercury capsule used on the MA-5 orbital flight (11/29/61), with Enos the chimp, had a rectangular window.
posted 06-30-2015 08:06 PM
It looks to me more like the small posigrade thrusters firing than the retro rockets. Or maybe even the peroxide attitude thrusters. The retros would have really punched the capsule off in some direction pretty hard.
If the capsule had come down on land, I don't know if the landing bag would have cushioned it enough to allow a reflight on MA-4.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 06-30-2015 08:28 PM
Did this capsule even have a landing bag?
posted 06-30-2015 09:05 PM
I'll correct myself here. It did not have a landing bag.
According to Wikipedia, Mercury capsule number 8 was the last of the old models with small port windows, no landing bag, and a heavy locking mechanism on the hatch.
Strange, because MR-1A (capsule number 2) had a landing bag. It had flown in Dec. 1960.
Lou Chinal Member
Posts: 1332 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
posted 07-01-2015 07:52 AM
Production numbers 1 to 8 had two small porthole windows. Nine to 20 had the big window over the pilot's head. Numbers 2 and 7 had the heavy locking hatch. No, there was no landing bag on number 8. Yes, number 8 was used on MA-3 and MA-4.
Paul78zephyr Member
Posts: 678 From: Hudson, MA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 07-02-2015 06:43 PM
So...
If it doesnt have a landing bag and it doesn't land in the water what happens?
Headshot Member
Posts: 891 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 07-03-2015 08:19 AM
The capsule's occupant, a mechanical "astronaut," has a rough landing experience.
The MA-3 and -4 missions were to test the Mercury design, and systems, in orbit. Capsule #8 was not intended for human occupancy.
Lou Chinal Member
Posts: 1332 From: Staten Island, NY Registered: Jun 2007
posted 07-03-2015 04:47 PM
Paul, if I recall, it was set up so the posigrade rockets would fire if the escape tower fired. I'm also going to give you a number from way back when — 40 Gs. I seem to remember the early tests and that's the figure McDonnell came up with.
So I say it was the posigrade rockets and a hard but survivable landing.
posted 06-29-2015 02:51 PM
advertisement