posted 01-21-2005 02:25 AM               

Chris Kraft called him everything but a child of God in his book, but what did his peers think of him in the Mercury 7 peer rating?

Was he active after his flight or just walk around like the living dead?

posted 01-21-2005 09:53 PM               

I don't recall reading about the "swindle" allegation against Al Shepard that was mentioned in "Light This Candle".

I was just wondering about SC's personal and professional reputation among his peers. Most other astros make bland statements about his being a "great guy", although Walt Cunningham's description of Carpenter and his fencing coach in the astronaut gym was genuinely funny.

posted 01-22-2005 01:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
And is this Colin the guy who wrote about the dead astronauts?

---

One and the same ...

posted 01-22-2005 01:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Are his fiction books as good?

---

Very different kinds of books - but I enjoyed reading them too.

FF

posted 01-22-2005 07:39 AM               

I always wondered why he got a command if he was so "weak". Neil Armstrong thought highly of him.

Was Al Shepard a stinker or just hyper-competent and impatient with those who were not? I read he actually became close with Glenn despite some clashes.

posted 01-23-2005 04:29 PM               

Instead of being recognised for his many contributions to NASA, See's life and reputation is now forever tarnished by the posthumous words of a handful of his one-time colleagues. I wonder how many of them would be game enough to walk up to Marilyn See or their three children and say to their faces - instad of in print - that Elliot was a poor and indecisive pilot.

posted 01-23-2005 06:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
It was only after he died and was no longer around to defend himself that some of his peers decided that he was a poor pilot and said so in print.

---

quote:

---

I know what Deke said in his book about See's flying ability, but after all he was the one who could have left See on Gemini 8 with Armstrong after they had backed-up Gemini 5, but instead gave him command of Gemini 9.

---

posted 01-23-2005 06:38 PM               

Given Mr. Cassut's statement about Deke Slayton going foggy at the end of his life, I hope the comments about See reflect his condition rather than posthumous criticism. Deke held Frank Borman, Neil Armstrong and Jim McDivitt in high regard, and Elliot See was the next in that group to command a mission.

I think that more accurately reflects Mr. See's reputation at NASA.

Gene Cernan had a few negative comments about See (as well as Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, Walt Cunningham and others) but he strikes me as someone who doesn't have much use for people who can't help his career, so it wasn't surprising to have him give the company line.

posted 01-24-2005 02:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Apparently Scott Carpenter was offered a chance to "bid on" a Gemini flight by Deke Slayton.

---

posted 01-24-2005 02:49 PM               

His comments on Walt Cunningham - allegedly the least-liked among all the astronauts - closely parallels group opinion. Buzz Aldrin's intellect and skills were respected but he was thought of as something of a head case.

posted 01-24-2005 04:18 PM               

Sorry Colin but that statement does not ring true. Firstly the weather was not that bad for an instrument approach, if he had flown the standard missed approach as Stafford did it would be no big deal. The weather was "extremely bad" for unplanned visual circling approach, the weather was totally unsuitable in fact. Flying an unplanned/unbriefed circling approach in unsuitable weather at high speed and below minima (he was climbing when he hit the building) is not a poor judgement, its total madness. I still am bemused as to why Bassett did not get involved when there was still space and time to recover the situation.

posted 01-24-2005 04:54 PM               

Deke Slayton said he was "old womanish" and flew too conservatively, not like an idiot. In a split second he made a fatal mistake. The conditions in St. Louis were bad, getting worse and Mr. See simply made the wrong decision. Since he isn't here to explain himself it's very unfair to call his actions madness, especially given the T-38's reputation at low speed.

Elliot See had to have a high-level skill set in order to be selected fot the astronaut corps.

Charlie Basset didn't take control because NASA rules prevented it. If every back seater intervened during a perceived crisis there would be craters from hell to breakfast.

posted 01-24-2005 05:24 PM               

I'm sorry but your post just confirms what I said. The conditions were getting worse, exactly don't go visual. The T38 does not fly well slow, exactly it cannot manover in the space available. It may come as a suprise to some but instrument flying is not about split second decisions but not rushing into things.

Your comment about Bassett is just astounding he would rather die than take control! I've been a professional pilot all my working life and I seriously doubt any sane person would sit there in silence while someone tried to fly an aeroplane into the ground/ mountain/ building or any other hard object. Further to that your NASA rule about back seaters just cannot be true, I know of at least one occation where a astronaut (Anders) has gone on record as saying he took control of a T-38 from another (unnamed) astronaut.

I salute any person who risks life by strapping on a rocket, this incident is not about that, its about an air accident. I'm not saying See was not skilled, I'm saying his judgement on this occasion was so poor it cost him his life.

posted 01-24-2005 06:39 PM               

You must be aware of other instances where a solid pilot made a similar error.

Wouldn't the regs for a T-38 and 757 be different? My point being you can't really compare the situations.

posted 01-24-2005 06:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
My information is simply that he was eligible for a Gemini flight. Al Shepard and Gus Grissom were locks for the first flights, so he would have flown later. A guess would be a long-duration mission because he was by far the most physically fit of the Mercury astronasuts.

---

posted 01-24-2005 07:05 PM               

When it comes to instrument flying an aeroplane is pretty much an areoplane unless you abuse it. Tom Stafford went flying the same day and is still around to tell the story, simply by flying the missed approach. The accident report found the cause to be pilot error.

It is nothing to do with regulations an aeroplanes minima catagory is a function of it's reference (approach)speed it does not matter if it is a fast jet, an airliner ar a piper seneca the deal is the same, the slower the aeroplane the worse the weather can be for a circling approach. The T-38 is fast on the approach therefore the weather would have to be pretty good to fly this type of approach.

I'm not trying to speak badly of a dead man, I'm only trying to perhaps illustrate why his reputation is such.

Anyway why don't we agree to disagree as I get the idea my point is getting lost. Anyhow thats my last word on it.

posted 01-24-2005 08:21 PM               

One of these days they'll send my bags to Cleveland and me to Hawaii by mistake.

The reference to Colin Burgess was simply to cite his book as the source on the NASA regulations. I'm sure everybody thought it was great.

I'd hate to have you think I was being argumentative. Maybe a little (over) protective but please don't dream I meant to be disrespectful or rude. I'd be mortified if you thought so.

We're up to our rear ends in snow here.....we need all the friends we can get.

posted 01-25-2005 04:00 AM               

Likewise I apologise if I was a little blunt, diplomacy is not one of my strong points.

Like you I love Colin's book, I was just trying to illustrate perhaps why poor Elliott has this reputation. Neil Armstrong indeed thought the world of Eliott and his ability and thats a pretty good endorsment.

Like most people I don't know much about Eliott as other than Colin's book very little has been written about him. The accident on the other hand has been written about many times. I've already illustrated why I think Eliott failed to get the job done that morning.

One interesting point a lot of astronauts seemed to bad mouth See after the event, but I can't recall any speaking badly of Bassett. While Eliott may have been in command Charlie was there too with a set of flight controls in front of him, so I would maintain he has to be partly responsible. The make two pilot aeroplanes so that they can catch each others mistakes.

Hope you defrost soon. Sorry also about the thread creep, did somone mention Scott Carpener.

posted 01-25-2005 10:41 AM               

I think Charlie Basset doesn't come in for criticism because he was back-seat and things happened in a split instant. Once the airplane was committed (I think and I'll accept your judgement as a pilot) there was nothing else to do. One of them hit afterburners - it's unclear which - just before the plane struck. So my opinion is Basset was viewed as a victim.

One wing of the plane hit the building. Could they have avoided a crash if their jet had a few more feet of altitude?

It's really useless to speculate. This was the sad end of two good men.

Back to the topic, SC was still on flight status and would have been allowed to "bid on" a Gemini flight. He opted to go on leave to the Navy for deep-sea research because of the long interregnum between Mercury and Gemini.

I'm given to understand he was on the PR grind - once being ordered to open a supermarket in St. Louis - instead of training for a mission.

SC was a man of many parts. Apparently he felt he could do more with his ocean research during this period. An accident in 64 caused him to be unable to rotate his hand "palm up" and thus ineligable for flight.

posted 01-25-2005 10:49 AM               

Further, SC was adept in using a periscope device and was a skilled navigator.

Given these assumptions, Mr. Carpenter would have been closer to the top than bottom of the selection.

posted 01-25-2005 03:50 PM               

It seems to me that he will be at the AHOF induction in late April at KSC, and will be at the big autograph thing in New York City area in August.

He is a most wonderful person to chat with.

posted 01-25-2005 04:38 PM               

I can't think of a better way to spend time than listening to one of the few genuine heroes of our time.

A little birdie just suggested Mr. Carpenter was very near the top in his selection group and that Gordo was # 18.

This is no reflection on the great job he did as an astronaut; he was clearly qualified and did tremendous jobs on his flights. He was a hot-shot pilot but so laid-back some stuffed shirts pegged him as lazy.

This is an example of why I seldom trust The Suits.

By theway, I can't get over how friendly everybody is here. We all share a common interest, but people have a great reservoir of good will toward newbies who need to know everything NOW.

posted 01-25-2005 04:43 PM               

The accident demonstrates to me the different personalities and experience of the two pilots - Stafford elected to follow procedure and abort vertically, whereas See decided to drop below the cloud cover for a better look at the conditions. It was rightly pointed out that the role of the back-seat pilot was to observe and maintain radio contact, and when I asked Jeannie Bassett about this some time ago she confirmed that Charlie would not have argued with Elliot about his initial decision - that was a distraction to the pilot, and not his job. However, we will never know what went on in that cockpit.

Walt Cunningham actually discusses the role and tasks of the rear-seat NASA pilot in his book, and how he was flying with Elliot See one day when he had to exercise some initiative contrary to procedure (if that's the right word). On that occasion Elliot was using too much flap and going too slow, and Cunningham says he finally had to casually suggest a little less flap.

I don't profess to be a pilot, but I did have a couple of people with military jet piloting experience read through the manuscript, and they were able to offer valuable insights into the many problems that occurred that day in St. Louis - and they were not just in the cockpit, or with the weather.

There is also some (but not conclusive) coronial evidence to suggest that Charlie Bassett may have initiated his ejection, but it was a fraction of a second too late.

posted 01-25-2005 05:15 PM               

Even in the heat of the debate we are all friends on cS, you are of course totally correct when you state the debate is worth little with the loss of two good men.

Colin

Hope I did not sound to argumentitive in my post, I am not a skilled writer by any stretch of the imagination. I was just trying to put forward an alternative viewpoint to the events that day. I think if you polled a group of instrument qualified pilots nearly all would say they would follow Tom Staffords actions, which is why perhaps poor Eliott has had such a hard time from the other astronauts.

One thing that did strike me reading your post regarding the role of Bassett. I came up through the flying world in a different era than that of the 60's. Over the last 15-25 years there has been a far greater culture of "if your not happy speak up" that I imagine was not around before given certain well known air accidents. It may well have been that a different mindset was prevaling in the 60's hence the reluctance for back seaters ro speak up.

Please don't think any of my posts are critical of your book, I really think it was not only a wonderful book but a very important one. These men gave so much it is great that there stories have been told at last.

Best Regards
Dave

posted 01-25-2005 05:34 PM               

Oh no, I never thought that you were in any way levelling any criticism, and in fact I'm delighted that people are now out there discussing Elliot See and others without simply accepting the mean-spirited words of some of his peers. That's what I like about people like Jim McDivitt - when you ask him about those astronauts who are no longer with us he always says that they and their memories should be left in peace, and it's not up to him to discuss them.

You make an excellent point about the way things might have been back in the 60s cockpit as opposed to now. I flew as cabin staff for Qantas for 30 years, and can tell you that back when I started in the early 1970s the word of the captain was law, even if he was the biggest no-hoper in the world, and no one would ever dare question any decision he made if they valued their job. By the time I left, things were far more relaxed, and open talk was definitely encouraged and recommended on the flight deck. I believe there was more than one instance where a captain has flown his aircraft into the ground simply because the rest of the flight deck crew were petrified to question what he was doing - even to the point of killing everyone on board. I believe some Asian carriers still have difficulty with their flight crews in getting them to query decisions.

posted 01-25-2005 06:36 PM               

While we have you on the line, Mr. Burgess - and I'm very flattered you've looked at and commented on my posts - I've heard that Ed White and Elliot See were at the bottom of the Gemini peer rating.

Did any astronaut move dramatically up or down after a flight? No need to give a before/after rank (unless you r-e-a-l-l-y feel like it!).

posted 01-25-2005 06:55 PM               

And to Carmelo our Sicilian paisan: I'm here in Syracuse NY (Home of the Dome) wishing I was warm and snow-free in Syracuse Sicily, home of Archimedes the mathemetician. You'll cry "Mama Mia!" when you try this stuff even though it comes from Naples.

posted 01-25-2005 07:20 PM               

I'm afraid to say the discussion of specific names or places on the peer rating lists has gone as far as it should.

posted 01-25-2005 07:45 PM               

Here's the sauce: toss two cut-up links of sweet Italian sausage, about half a pound. That's 350 - 500 grams for you metric individuals. into a crock pot (slow cooker) set on "low". Pour in enough dry red wine to cover the sausage and let bubble for a couple hours. Add crushed tomatoes and some
tomato paste, a little sugar, some salt. Add oregano, basil, chopped garlic and onions according to local custom. Now here's the secret ingredient: WALNUTS! Yep,you read it correctly. Dump in a small handful of walnut halves and let things percolate on low overnight.

Next day whip up a steamin' pot 'o' pasta, serve and bask in the accolades of your fellow diners. You'll be rewarded by a crescendo of happy burps and belches that would please the Sultan's head chef.

posted 01-25-2005 09:55 PM               

BTW If anybody speaks to an astronaut who attended MIT, ask him how many Smoots are on the Mass. Ave. Bridge. You'll be amused by the answer.