|
Author
|
Topic: Terminology: 'On orbit' and 'to space'
|
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-12-2018 08:48 AM
  
For reasons that I can't adequately explain, I have a visceral dislike for two spaceflight-related expressions which I frequently hear:"On orbit" — I've never understood this. Just as an aircraft is "in flight," a spacecraft is "in orbital flight" or just "in orbit." A bird is "in flight" but if it lands on a branch, it is "on the branch." To say "on orbit" seems to imply that an orbit is a single specific fixed location, instead of a constantly moving abstract set of variables like "flight." I know we sometimes refer to an "orbital path" but of course it's not a "path", any more than a "flight path" is a path — and although an aircraft can be "on a flight" it is never "on flight." "To space" — This expression is always used by Howard on "The Big Bang Theory" and I can't remember hearing it beforehand. I certainly hear it being used quite often now, possibly because of the influence of the show. Again, it implies that space is a specific place, a single location, like a country ("I'm going to France") or a planet ("the spacecraft is going to Mars"). It seems unnecessary to point out that space is basically everywhere, in every direction, beyond the Earth's atmosphere (above 100 kilometres), so it is "into space" not "to space." |
randy
Member Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-12-2018 10:09 AM
I've wondered about "on orbit" as well. I too would be interested in what others have to say about it. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-12-2018 12:38 PM
Robinson Meyer with The Atlantic examined the question of "on orbit" versus "in orbit" in 2014. Richard Spencer with NASA's History Office told Meyer: It appears from reading the returns, that "in orbit" is used to describe the placing of a satellite or object to its specific location. "On Orbit" typically is used to refer to where an action, experiment, or operation is taking place. In other words, the space shuttle is described as being "in orbit," while the experiments conducted on the shuttle are referred to as being conducted "on orbit." |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-12-2018 12:40 PM
Is it is possible that a word is missing and that "on orbit" should be taken to mean "on an orbit," in which case it makes sense. |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-12-2018 02:07 PM
"On orbit" seems to be pretty universally used by NASA employees. I've always viewed it as "insider speak," just the same as sailor and aviator talk. Those are the guys that actually do it, so I have no problem with it at all. It's the evolution of linguistic use by actual participants. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that language should be a free for all. I'm happy to cut actual operators some slack. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 07-12-2018 06:04 PM
I once asked Dick Gordon about the derivation of the term "on orbit" and he had no clue how the term originated. |
pupnik
Member Posts: 114
From: Maryland
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 07-13-2018 07:34 AM
"On orbit" probably originates from the military term "on station" used by aircraft and ships to describe when they're in their designated operations area, as opposed to when they are in transit. For instance, during Vietnam, ships measured their days "on station" off the coast of Vietnam where they were operational, opposed to days where they were going to California, Japan, etc. So "on orbit" would have been the operational phase of a spaceflight where hardware is being tested and science is being done. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-13-2018 08:26 PM
The term "on station" rather makes my point. A ship steams across the ocean, then reaches a specific area where it is "on station." A spacecraft in orbit is not at a specific point, it keeps circling the Earth. I suspect that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts did not use the term "on orbit." It sounds like something shuttle astronauts introduced. It may simply be a generational thing, introduced for no better reason than to be different. No takers for "to space"? |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-13-2018 09:37 PM
Having grown up with "in orbit", I've always wondered about this term too. However, while I'm grateful for this discussion, I'm not sure I understand "on orbit" any better now that I did before. It seems like a little bit of insider speak.
|
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-13-2018 10:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I suspect that Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts did not use the term "on orbit."
John Young used to use it, and I doubt he had a petty need to be different. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-13-2018 11:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
A ship steams across the ocean, then reaches a specific area where it is "on station."
A ship can be "On Station" and yet be moving (with regard to On Orbit). I must admit, I have wondered about this myself from time to time, I was under the impression that it evolved from military interaction over the years. As for "On Station," I thought this evolved as the ISS was evolving and constructed, to differentiate tasks between on the shuttle and on the ISS. The term "to space," I have no idea. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-14-2018 08:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by David C:
John Young used to use it, and I doubt he had a petty need to be different.
I'm tempted to ask (as per my previous point) whether you mean John Young the Gemini and Apollo astronaut, or John Young the shuttle astronaut? The latter was surrounded by, and regularly interacting with, a younger generation of astronauts. As you say, he had no petty need to be different and if other shuttle astronauts were saying "on orbit" I could understand the term creeping into his day-to-day terminology. Like so many other linguistic changes, "on orbit" seems to be change for change's sake, with no obvious reason or justification. Mel (MCroft04) has pointed out that Dick Gordon had no idea where it came from. Dick was, of course, a Gemini and Apollo astronaut. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-14-2018 11:36 AM
Frank Borman wasn't surrounded by a younger generation of astronauts — he left the program in 1970. Yet, from his NASA Oral History: And I hope the Space Station works out well and that we do find things on orbit that we can do that will help, you know, people here on Earth... But that said, I do think the phrase "on orbit" is a space shuttle-era coinage, because it was the orbiter (and Skylab before it) that opened up Earth orbit as a place to do work, rather than just test spaceflight techniques and technologies.The space shuttle served as a platform to build a space station on orbit, to perform science on orbit and to deploy satellites and robotic probes on orbit. As for "to space," Sally Ride's 1986 book written with Susan Okie was titled "To Space and Back." John Glenn's 1998 flight aboard Discovery was largely hailed (including by NASA) as his "return to space." And there are numerous uses of the phrase in the oral histories. For example, Charlie Precourt: We have to learn to take our hardware to space... From Jeanette Epps: It just made me realize that going to space is cool... From Joe Allen: He presented President Reagan with a set of spurs that had been carried to space. And from Rhea Seddon: If you take it to space and you flip the switch... |
David C
Member Posts: 1014
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 07-14-2018 05:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...if other shuttle astronauts were saying "on orbit"
So far I've found no public use of "on orbit" prior to STS-1. It was in use during STS-1 and so presumably prior to Columbia's launch as well. It may well be vehicle related, and as you say the reason for its origin, whenever that was, is not obvious. However your suggestion that it was just introduced for the sake of it seems unlikely to me. Also, the idea that it was introduced by the TFNGs seems highly unlikely to me. Do you think they as rookies, desperate to fly copied the likes of John Young and Joe Engle or is the other way round really more plausible? As to the actual origin? Still a mystery. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-14-2018 06:07 PM
Would a reasonable interpretation be that a vehicle is "in orbit," while the people on that vehicle would be "on orbit"?The former would be a reference to the vehicle's multi-positionality and vector, while the latter would refer to the crew's location in (relative) space... Just my gloss. Could be wrong. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-14-2018 06:22 PM
There appears to be a growing consensus that the use of "on orbit" broadly equates to the shuttle era. Robert makes a fair point that it was in the Skylab and shuttle era that Earth orbital operations became the norm. (Did Skylab astronauts say "on orbit"?)But NASA publications seem to suggest that a spacecraft sent into orbit is on orbit when it has reached the desired orbital parameters. That makes little sense to me. Modern launches, while not quite reaching 100% success, are generally very reliable. It would be reasonable to expect a satellite to reach the desired parameters, except in the small minority of launches when things go wrong. In other words, you should be entitled to expect that your satellite is in the correct operational orbit, unless the launch people have to break the news that something has gone wrong (which you would probably have noticed on the live TV feed!) Putting it another way, in most cases saying "on orbit" instead of "in orbit" would be tautologous. I can't help thinking that someone, possibly an engineer in Mission Control in the 1970s or early 1980s thought it would be "cool" to change "in orbit" to "on orbit." |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-14-2018 06:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...As for "to space"...
In Sally Ride's case, it was a book title. It should be snappy. "To Space and Back" sounds snappier than "Into Space and Back." It's just an issue of style.In John Glenn's case, I certainly remember the expression "return to space" but I think it was intended to mean rather more than just another flight. It had an indefinable element that linked two eras. As for your other examples, for the reasons set out in my first post, I think they are just wrong. It is certainly possible to be a great astronaut without necessarily being an expert in linguistic style! (In a conversation with Joe Allen, I would be asking about Apollo 15; STS-5; and STS-51A, not his linguistic style, but I can't help noticing that his book has a chapter entitled: "Entering Space: The Launch Into Orbit." No problems there!) |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-14-2018 07:43 PM
Most, if not all shuttle checklists for that phase of flight that I have seen are titled "On Orbit Checklist." It's fairly certain that the change came during the shuttle era and was used more formally that just office lingo. Has anyone ever seen a shuttle checklist titled differently? And on the other hand, are there any Skylab or ASTP checklists out there titled "On Orbit"? |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-14-2018 08:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
But NASA publications seem to suggest that a spacecraft sent into orbit is "on orbit" when it has reached the desired orbital parameters.
If your house is located, as an example, at #? Park Lane, then your specific address is #? Park Lane. Your local is on Park Lane. You can be anywhere along Park Lane and still be on Park Lane.To me, on orbit generalises that you are orbiting where you are meant to be without specifying an exact position. You can be any location along your path and still be on orbit. If your orbit changes, or is expected to change, then you would need to specify what stage or which orbit you were on. You could be in Earth orbit, or in lunar orbit, but if the orbital trajectory or plane was expected to change, then you do not have stability. Once orbit is stabilized, then you would be on orbit. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-14-2018 11:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...for the reasons set out in my first post
Following your own reasoning then...If I am standing inside my house and then I go to leave those confines, then I can say I am going to the outside. It doesn't matter if I can be more specific as to where I am going once I have reached the outside, the outside is still my destination. As such, if everywhere below 100 kilometers is not space, and everywhere above that altitude is space, then if I launch for a point beyond 100 kilometers, then I am going to space. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-15-2018 05:49 PM
I would never say "I am going to the outside." I, and everyone else, would say: "I am going outside."I don't agree with your reasoning about launching to "a point beyond 100 kilometers." For a start, if it really is (essentially) a fixed point, such as L2, then you might say "I'm flying Orion to L2" just as you might say: "I'm flying to Paris." We wouldn't say "The Vikings were launched TO SPACE TO MARS." We would say: "The Vikings were launched INTO SPACE TO MARS." (First is the general, all-embracing infinity of space; then the specific destination IN space.) |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-15-2018 09:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
That makes little sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me and I have used it all my career. It isn't necessarily astronaut related (they didn't coin the term, it was the ground pounders) and in fact, it doesn't have to be related to manned space.It has nothing to do with the success of the launch and reaching the desired parameters. On orbit is the same as on station for the military. The vehicle is now performing its mission. It refers to a phase of the flight, it is not ascent or descent. The vehicle is configured for long term orbital operations. The spacecraft has finished most of ascent maneuvers, deployed arrays, antennas, radiators, jettisoned covers, etc. "Once the spacecraft is on orbit, it can start sending data." quote:
space is basically everywhere, in every direction...
Space is a destination. No different than going to sea. The expression is not about the final or actual destination but the experience one will have on their endeavor. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-16-2018 10:43 AM
No, "space" is not a destination. It is that near-vacuum which extends from (arbitrarily) 100 kilometers to (essentially) infinity, through which our space probes must necessarily pass in order to reach their destinations. As I said before, we don't send probes "to space." We send them to Mars, or Jupiter, to Ceres, etc. (And, yes, I know that many probes take, and in the case of the Voyagers continue to take, measurements of deep space particle, densities, etc., but that is a by-product of the mission, not the actual purpose of the mission).As for "on orbit" I think you've made an excellent case for saying that a spacecraft which has reached its desired location is "on station." In fact, didn't Pete Conrad say something like: "Skylab 2 is on station and ready for the work ahead"? [On Edit: I was probably thinking about Gene Cernan, on Apollo 17's arrival IN lunar orbit, announcing: "America is on station for the challenge ahead" but it makes the point equally well.] |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-16-2018 10:57 AM
Space is a destination, especially when it comes to suborbital tourism.Passengers who will fly aboard Blue Origin's New Shepard and Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo will fly to space. The only purpose of their flights is to visit space, experience spaceflight and return as space travelers. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-16-2018 12:02 PM
Hah! Nice try, Robert, but I suspect that people flying on SpaceShipTwo would say that terra firma is their start-point AND their destination, but that the experiences of weightlessness; the view of the Earth's curvature; and crossing the 100K marker are the joint purposes of the flight. But it would be a good idea to check this with someone who has paid a deposit to fly on SS2, and since I know such a person, I will try to track him down. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-16-2018 12:23 PM
Well, placing aside that I was the marketing director for a space tourism company, I came very close to purchasing a full fare ticket on Virgin Galactic a few years ago (and would have done so if not for a professional conflict with their flight contract). So speaking for myself, my reason for doing so was to fly to space. Earth would be where I would return after I reached my destination: space. |
YankeeClipper
Member Posts: 617
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted 07-16-2018 03:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Is it possible that a word is missing and that "on orbit" should be taken to mean "on an orbit," in which case it makes sense.
Yes and no - sometimes language can work either way regardless.For example, the following makes sense: The GATV was inserted in or into a nominal 161-nautical mile circular orbit, the spacecraft in or into a nominal 86 by 147-nautical mile elliptical orbit. During the space shuttle era, the orbiter could abort (in) to (an) orbit (ATO), where orbit is a noun. The expression would also work if orbit is a verb.On orbit could be suggestive of a task being performed or an event occurring on (an) orbit or on orbit number x. On orbit can also work hyphenated, as in On-orbit operations the next frontier for space, experts say. English can be a difficult and frustrating language to learn as it can often be quirky and unconventional. For example, airline passengers watch in-flight entertainment (IFE) while onboard. Aircraft can be on hold in a holding pattern and then set up on (final) approach, on glide path. Naval ships put to sea - perhaps this nautical expression gave rise to the astronautical equivalent of launching to space. Spaceflight is a relatively young field and has borrowed terminology from nautical and aeronautical lexicons to help form its own for sailors on this new ocean. Linguistic conventions drift over time and can change and evolve between different population groups, especially specialist technical groups. Often there is a specific meaning intended or conveyed by the use of a certain preposition, but sometimes it is historical convention or just personal or idiomatic preference. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 07-17-2018 04:31 AM
Just to stoke the fires a little, last night on the BBC News there was a section that was headed "Race into Space," Wouldn't "Race to Space" have made more sense and been more correct? |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-17-2018 08:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
No, "space" is not a destination.
Yes, it is. I proved it with the "going to sea" analogy. "Sea" is just as ambiguous. quote:
As I said before, we don't send probes "to space."
Ah, yes we do. I have worked on many spacecraft that have gone to space. I have sent memorabilia to space and back.As a kid, I wanted to go to space. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-17-2018 09:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
"space" is not a destination. It is that near-vacuum which extends from (arbitrarily) 100 kilometers to (essentially) infinity, through which our space probes must necessarily pass in order to reach their destinations.
Space is defined as "The physical universe beyond the earth's atmosphere. The near-vacuum extending between the planets and stars, containing small amounts of gas and dust." It has also been the destination of the majority of spacecraft ever launched, or the medium through which spacecraft have traversed. Satellites are designed to function in space and their intended destination is space. Spacecraft that re-enter Earth's atmosphere at the end of mission are said to be returning from space. We seem to be hung up on the semantics of a language that has a reputation of having differing meanings between cultures and countries. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto Let's call the whole thing off. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-18-2018 04:55 PM
Definition of "space"? Agreed.The "destination of the majority of spacecraft ever launched"? No, to the nth power. "...or the medium through which spacecraft have traversed." Yes. (Some might query "medium" but the statement is essentially correct.) To paraphrase what I have said before, NASA didn't send Mariner 9 or the Voyagers "to space." They were sent to Mars and to the outer planets. I would have thought that to be self evident. Jim Behling, if you contributed to the success of actual spacecraft, then you have my genuine admiration for your efforts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your use of linguistics. I very much doubt, as a boy, that you yearned to go "to space." I don't doubt you yearned to go "into space" or "to the Moon" or "to Mars." So did I. In my passion for everything space related, since 1961, I don't remember ever hearing the expression "to space" until a few years ago. The term "to space" is a modern abomination. I agree with Oly's final comment that we seem to be hung up on semantics. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-18-2018 07:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I very much doubt, as a boy, that you yearned to go "to space."
I did. And it was a very common usage. |
ManInSpace
Member Posts: 114
From: Brooklin, Ontario Canada
Registered: Feb 2018
|
posted 07-18-2018 08:04 PM
As a kid/teenager (now 60) who grew up with Gemini and Apollo, I can honestly say that "go to space" was a phrase that I often used and heard when talking with friends who shared my passion for the programme. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-18-2018 09:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Definition of "space"? Agreed. The "destination of the majority of spacecraft ever launched"? No, to the nth power. "...or the medium through which spacecraft have traversed." Yes. (Some might query "medium" but the statement is essentially correct.)
Interesting reply, I am curious then, where do you feel that the "majority" of launched spacecraft were destined to go? I submit that they were either sent to space, into space, toward space or through space. Space was either their intended place of operation (in, or on orbit) or the medium, zone or area that they traversed to get to their destination. There are dangers while traveling through space, so to travel through something, it must be something. We could say travel across space, but this could mean "to be on top of," or also could mean a void. However, to be a void would intimate that there is nothing there, as was once thought and commonly referred to. Today physicists believe that space is not empty. Engineers design spacecraft with protection from space, including shielding, so something must be there. Spacecraft photograph space, it turns out that wherever a camera is pointed in space, with enough resolution, something is there. So, we are hung up on whether we go to space or into space, and we use an arbitrary boundary to decide when we get there. Perhaps we are at space, in space or part of space? We could form a committee to work this dilemma out, but first would need to decide if the computer we use to take notes will be set to English – English, or American–English. I could offer to read the notes, but crikey -struth, fair dinkum mate, I doubt the poms or yanks would understand me Aussie accent and me writing looks shocking when I write flat out like a lizard drinking. I would have problems with a Pommy accent because they all sound different in different parts of the island, and the yanks have more accents than a horse has flies. Now we have a Canadian participating in the debate, and I will be okay understanding them if they don't use French. quote:
For reasons that I can't adequately explain, I have a visceral dislike for two spaceflight-related expressions which I frequently hear...
But you get what they mean. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 07-19-2018 09:18 AM
As has been stated by others, as a boy in the 60's I wanted to "go to space," not go into space. I never heard anyone using the term go into space. The astronauts went to space, rockets went into space. Space was a place. Just like I would have never said I want to go into the moon, I never wanted to into space, I wanted to go to space. When we took a vacation, I wanted to go to the ocean. When we got there I wanted to go into the ocean. |
oly
Member Posts: 905
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 07-19-2018 09:23 AM
United Launch Alliance (ULA) videos and press information logo had the slogan "America's ride to space". This has since been modified to "America's [Proven, Trusted, Reliable] ride to space". |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-19-2018 03:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
I never heard anyone using the term go into space.
Well, as boys growing up in the 1960s, we must have lived on different planets. I wanted to fly into space, not to space, and I never, ever, heard anyone (including American astronauts on TV) talking about going "to space."You say "astronauts went to space, rockets went into space." Did the astronauts not travel inside those rockets which went into space? The Moon is a specific destination with a hard surface to visit. You go into space and through the near-vacuum of space to get to the solid surface of the Moon. It is very difficult to prove a negative, but I will add this: the first time I remember hearing the expression "to space" was in an episode of "The Big Bang Theory." I noticed it because it sounded just plain wrong and it grated on me. If I had heard it in previous years, I am certain it would have jumped out and grated on me. I can't say nobody ever said it in the "Golden Age" of spaceflight, but I don't believe, based on my own memory of those days, that it was a common expression. I believe it is a modern invention, and I don't consider that it makes sense because space is so self-evidently not a specific "place" you go to, and so self-evidently is an infinite near-vacuum through which we, or our probes, must pass in order to reach our solid destinations (or through which we choose to fly on suborbital hops to experience microgravity and to see the Earth below). If you disagree with me, that's fine. Let's just agree to disagree. It's not the end of the world. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-19-2018 05:08 PM
Into Orbit. That is enough for me  |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-19-2018 06:18 PM
I have neither the patience nor the skill to check that citation, but on the off-chance the reference to "seven astronauts" points to "We Seven," I note that the inside flap of the dust-cover contains the following: We ride with Shepard, Glenn, Grissom, and Carpenter on their historic journeys into space. And at page 292 John Glenn wrote: The launch itself was the first of four hurdles that I had to jump to get properly into space. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-19-2018 09:11 PM
I always understood they were one and the same books... for US consumption and an Australia/UK version. |
advertisement