posted 03-09-2006 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katabatic:
The shot of Glenn and his spacecraft is also interesting in that you can see his bandaged right hand--from hitting the plunger to blow the hatch.

---

Good eye. Isn't that the evidence (or lack of) that should have cleared Gus from the theory of blowing the hatch early in Liberty Bell 7?

[This message has been edited by SCE to AUX (edited March 09, 2006).]

[This message has been edited by SCE to AUX (edited March 09, 2006).]

posted 03-09-2006 03:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SCE to AUX:
I'm looking for a Carpenter post-flight press conference. It may be on the set. It was Scott alone in his post-recovery flight suit. The memorable quote from it was something like...
"Some are reporting that it was a tired and confused astronaut up there, if my opinion is worth anything, it is not true. I will admit to being distracted". I saw a clip and was hoping Mark included it. Stil looking!

[This message has been edited by SCE to AUX (edited March 09, 2006).]

---

I'd like to see that press conference too. I think those remarks were uttered at a small presser on Grand Turk. But maybe not. The formal press conference was held in a huge press tent in Florida, with Carpenter seated behind a dais.

I was struck on reading the transcript and hearing the audio--on the first pass, approaching Australia--Carpenter checks his fuel and he has unaccountably dropped from 99/98 percent at capsule elapse 00 24 16 to 75/100 at 00 48 38.

IIRC, the order is auto/manual. I think so. If so, that means the ASCS had burned through 25 percent of the auto fuel before reaching Australia on the first pass! By Canton first pass (after Australia on approach to Hawaii), the figure is 74/85--Carpenter used manual fuel for the radical maneuvers designed to help him view the flares--the ground-flare visibility experiment.

posted 03-09-2006 03:47 PM            

I jsut found the clip. replace the word distracted with "pre-occupied", my bad! Much different.I will try to digitize and send to you.

posted 03-09-2006 04:32 PM               

Had a pretty good explanation of the pitch horizon scanner malfunction in FSS and the ill-designed control stick. But still feel I failed my expository duties. You can tell from the audio that the man is preternaturally focused on his duties.

The NASA bluebook report explains the PHS malfunction best, and the NASA history THIS NEW OCEAN relies basically on that.

What's interesting is that at the Carpenter press conference and therefore in the newspaper reporting that followed, NASA and its astronaut were then unable to adequately explain the fuel usage AND the mysterious overshoot.

The posflight inspection hadn't been conducted yet. And only postflight inspection would reveal the role played by an intermittently malfunctioning ASCS.

I quote from Paper 1. "Spacecraft and Launch-Vehicle performance." By John H. Boynton and E. M. Fields

The performance of the Mercury spacecraft and Atlas launch vehicle for the orbital flight of Astronaut M. Scott Carpenter was excellent in nearly every respect. All primary mission objectives were achieved. The single mission-critical malfunction which occurred involved a failure in the spacecraft pitch horizon scanner, a component of the automatic control system. This anomaly was adequately compensated for by the pilot in subsequent inflight operations so that the success of the mission was not compromised." (p. 1)

It's so clear, yet so technical that MEGO (my eyes glaze over) sets in for nearly everyone, even those really interested in spaceflight issues.

Kraft framing it as a "disoriented" astronaut, meanwhile, became a better and easier story to tell, one that benefited him politically.

Speaking of partisan political operatives, (e.g, Karl Rove), these clever guys have this simple fact of propaganda all figured out! You don't really need any facts to win a fight. All you need is a good story and trust that lazy journalists will repeat it, lovingly, forcing facts to fit the tale.

What the heck is a pitch horizon scanner anyway? I dunno, pal. But I do know how to spell "disoriented"!

'twas ever thus.

[This message has been edited by KC Stoever (edited March 09, 2006).]

posted 03-09-2006 07:55 PM               

Wasn't his name Mr. Mooney, as in "Moon"ey? Hey, another conspiracy theory! It all fits!

posted 03-09-2006 08:14 PM               

That's an 11-year-old Karl Rove, deep cover, after his failed 1960 campaign for Nixon in the Salt Lake City suburbs.

posted 03-09-2006 11:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce:
Duke,

Wasn't his name Mr. Mooney, as in "Moon"ey? Hey, another conspiracy theory! It all fits!

Best,
Bruce

---

Yeah. The guy was a Mason. Or was he on Perry Mason?

posted 03-09-2006 11:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Put your glasses on, guys.

That's an 11-year-old Karl Rove, deep cover, after his failed 1960 campaign for Nixon in the Salt Lake City suburbs.

---

posted 03-10-2006 12:37 AM               

That said, Kris's statement:

"It's so clear, yet so technical that MEGO (my eyes glaze over) sets in for nearly everyone, even those really interested in spaceflight issues.

Kraft framing it as a "disoriented" astronaut, meanwhile, became a better and easier story to tell, one that benefited him politically."

is simply wrong. Engineering and design errors and failures were not events that caused NASA's eyes to glaze over. If blowing a landing zoning was strictly a single design failure, then the engineers in the program from the Mercury 7 through MCC would have highlighted and beaten the point to death. Technical problems in a largely untested system was and is the easiest story to tell. The oral statements, biographies or autobiographies of Shepard, Slayton, Cooper, Schirra, Max Faget and others - not to mention the Flight Director -- have all also noted other issues. Suggesting that Faget suffered from MEGO on this issue is absurd. Further, Kraft was no idiot or political hack. But for the system that he and others developed, we would never have reached the Moon and many more lives would have been lost.

"This New Ocean" provides some additional information. The retelling of MA-7's flight attributes fuel loss during the first two orbits to "on six occasions Carpenter accidentially actuated the sensitive-to-the-touch, high-trust attitude control jets, which brought about 'double authority control,'...." Six? The passage then notes that cap com repeatedly reminded Carpenter to conserve fuel (which Kranz confirms in "Failure"). The book, as well as the pilot himself in the mission report, notes that Carpenter fell behind in his checklist on the third orbit due to his efforts to verify his hypothesis about the fireflies. TNO further notes that 10 minutes of duel fuel loss then occurred because Carpenter "forgot" to switch off the manual system. None of this is insignificant because MA-7 was a test flight. As Gene Kranz wrote: "A crewman distracted and behind in the flight plan is a risk to the mission and himself."

posted 03-10-2006 06:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
Actually the guy looks like my 8th grade teacher.

---

posted 03-10-2006 06:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:

That said,

---

Hoo boy. Whenever I see that I know what's coming.

Carpenter isn't the only Astronaut to make an error during a mission or even the first. I'm given to understand Shepard made the same mistake of activating both control systems on his flight. Either Gene Cernan or Tom Stafford mis-set a switch on Apollo 10 and came within seconds of crashing onto the Moon. And during ASTP, the Astronauts were in real danger from the failure to set the environmental controls properly during landing. So what? They all recovered in time.

And please note Ms. Stoever's information is first-hand from a man not much noted as a fibber. Have you spoken directly to Chris Kraft or others involved or is it simply a rehash of the same tired gossip repeated so often it's become accepted as fact?

Also note that Gene Kranz doesn't support Kraft on this. He directly contradicts Kraft about incidents noted in "The Man Failed". To paraphrase, Mr. Kranz says the test Carpenter was supposed to have done wrong was impossible - i.e.nobody could have done it - and CARPENTER WASN'T THE ASTRONAUT. So if Kraft is factually wrong here while he's building his case against the DP, where else is he factually wrong? Get what I'm angling at here?

Carpenter was handed a flight plan that was being modified within three weeks of his mission. The Mercury craft was so small that bumping that switch was easy enough to do, and it was as much (if not more) of a ground failure. There was an entire team - under the direction of Chris Kraft, no less - who were supposed to monitor attitude fuel consumption. He and his team weren't bolted into a tiny ship and blasted into orbit. (Plus, that suit HAD to chafe. And the man couldn't scratch an itch if he had one.) They were free to stand up, walk around to stretch their legs, drink soda pop, have a smoke etc. They didn't have to constantly monitor systems, report conditions and perform experiments either. Remember, this was early flight; nobody really knew much about what to expect. That's why NASA used test pilots, right????

And, frankly, it would be a LOT easier for NASA to 86 a flight controller than an Astronaut. Didn't Mr. Kraft come under a certain amount of heat for witholding the landing bag information from John Glenn? I understand the Astronauts weren't pleased with that. What better way to deflect criticism than dump ground failure into the Astronaut's lap?

Why put it all onto a very busy Astronaut rushing to complete an ambitious and often-modified flight plan? No reason except covering one's butt - Mr. Kraft's, in this case, for HIS failure to monitor the fuel situation more closely - or just plain pack mentality and smooching up. After all, Kraft was a power at NASA. And that aura came about by the fortuitous fact - for Kraft - that Carpenter DECLINED a Gemini mission after the bluster following Aurora 7 and went on leave to work on Sealab. Ask yourself: would the Navy put a boob in charge of that project?

And, please keep in mind the memo in 1964, two years after Mr. kraft's remark. It referred to the DP and his status as a "fully functional" Astronaut. Fully functional Astronauts fly, yes?

All "factual" reports on the mission are completely neutral. Did Carpenter turn Aurora around to look at the fireflies and do ground observation while he was low on fuel? Yeah...he thought it was important, in a very early phase of spaceflight, to determine if his ship was falling apart (and would the ships his friends would fly in the future as well). maybe not the best idea under the circumstances, as admitted. But again, it wasn't even the first in-flight errorduring a mission and nobody seems to have gotten the ax for any of them.

Further, if you actually read the mission description, observation outside the ship was an important objective. In other words, IT WAS HIS JOB. You can argue that, given the circumstances, it wasn't a great idea and Carpenter even admits that. But again IT WAS HIS JOB and, in the scheme of things, not a huge error compared to some others made during flights.

If Mr. Kraft wants to paper over HIS error of not monitoring fuel consumption more closely by blaming the Astronaut, that's fine and a time-honored tradition. I don't really expect any of the facts to make the slightest difference to you, though. I get the feeling sometimes you pursue argument for its own sake.

For me, it's not disagreement as much as exasperation with flagrantly insulting statements palmed off as "the truth". For the life of me I can't see the point of deliberate abrasiveness, so maybe you could explain the evident satisfaction you gain from it. Do it slowly, though, because I'm a stupid man and just can't seem to grasp the concept.

It's difficult to see someone as a martyr to the truth, putting his head in the lion's mouth, when what's going on isn't any more or less than contrariness.

posted 03-10-2006 07:15 AM               

Everyone to his own view and opinion. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

Been there, done that.....especially here.

My personal opinion doesn't favor the one posted by Mr. Walsh, but.........it won't change his mind to argue.

posted 03-10-2006 08:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SCE to AUX:

Good eye. Isn't that the evidence (or lack of) that should have cleared Gus from the theory of blowing the hatch early in Liberty Bell 7?

---

Wally Schirra deliberately set off the hatch to demonstrate this very point. I think Gordon Cooper did as well. We all know the DP went up the flue to get out, a wise idea given the fact he was bobbing in the drink.

posted 03-10-2006 09:13 AM               

Yeah. What ejectr said.

Upthread, that was a great catch, seeing Glenn's bandaged hand!! I didn't see that detail either. I think the astronauts all cited this injury, which Wally sustained too, as proof that Gus hadn't blown the hatch by mistake.

posted 03-10-2006 09:57 AM               

Duke writes, "Also note that Gene Kranz doesn't support Kraft on this." Actually, with respect to aspects of the MA-7 mission, Kranz does support Kraft. While he corrects certain details from "Flight," the four or five pages devoted to the second orbital mission do express concern over the problems with a distracted pilot. While Kranz is far more diplomatic and attributes learning errors to both sides, there is no reasonable way to read that small portion of the book and have the impression that Kranz is refuting Kraft. Indeed, given the anecdote that he includes regarding Llewellyn, Kranz may be expressing his own views on events.

Duke also argues that it was Carpenter's job to determine the source of the fireflies. There are any number of ways to disagree with that. Perhaps the simplest is looking at Wally Schirra's statement in the oral history project at p. 15, where he states that the pilot allowed himself to get distracted by the fireflies. If Schirra puts its outside of the job description, it seems that it should stay there. As to whether or not it was a "huge error," I am not in a position to answer that. An argument can be made, however, that a test pilot in a test vehicle with a crammed flight plan, should not deviate from the preretro checklist as he is approaching re-entry. Deke Slayton seems to have viewed it as an error (but then again, he probably lacked first hand knowledge and is repeating tired gossip).

Duke, in his usual friendly way, continues: "If Mr. Kraft wants to paper over HIS error of not monitoring fuel consumption more closely by blaming the Astronaut, that's fine and a time-honored tradition. I don't really expect any of the facts to make the slightest difference to you, though." This is simply drivel. Mercury Control provided repeated comments about fuel consumption and the pilot acknowledged the fuel consumption concern. Kranz's comment, since no one seems to want to give Chris Kraft any credibility, is that MCC should have been more forceful in raising the concern, not that the issue was not raised.

As to the Webb memo, I do not interpret it the way you wish to. As noted the other day, it seems more concerned with a desire to end the politcal campaigning of R. Carpenter (which, I agree with Kris, is an offensive attack on First Amendment rights), rather than anything to do with S. Carpenter's status. And no, fully functional astronauts do not necessarily fly.

posted 03-10-2006 12:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SCE to AUX:
I think I now understand why the DP is reluctant to launch a website! I was wondering when this was gonna start. I can sense the uncomfortable aura, but for me CLASS IS IN SESSION!

---

John, meet WAWALSH.

Of course, Robert wouldn't allow any trolls on this site. But Walsh is as close as one gets to being my pet troll. He's harmless, if ineducable, I'm afraid.

Kris

posted 03-10-2006 12:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
He's ineducable, I'm afraid.

---

Luckily I am not and I think you know where my tenet is regarding the above.

"So back to the fun posts.....just ignore it and it will go away." Indeed!

posted 03-10-2006 02:03 PM               

My Grandmother always told me "If you argue with an @$*~&^, people listening in can't tell which is which."

To quote Al Shepard in FTETTM, "What's the matter?!? Didn't you get enough attention as a child?!?"

posted 03-10-2006 02:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:
Little time and less resources at work, so I will keep this reasonably short.

---

posted 03-10-2006 02:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
You shoulda stopped there, then. Nothing was reasonable after that.

---

I don't see any trolls here. I do see people passionate about space history debating a topic that has varying degrees of personal importance to them.

Its been said before but bears repeating: everyone is entitled to their opinion and, in turn, everyone is allowed to agree or disagree with that opinion. But please, try to focus your responses on the points of the opinion itself, not the person making them.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress...

posted 03-10-2006 04:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
A naive question:Why Carpenter was don't liked to Chris Kraft? which was the real (or the probable) reason?

---

posted 03-10-2006 05:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:
What is this called, a crash helmet?

---

posted 03-10-2006 06:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
My theory is that he wanted to flex and picked a target .

---

posted 03-10-2006 06:21 PM               

On one hand you have an attorney who bases his opinions simply on what he has read.

On the other hand you have the daughter of an astronaut who helped write his autobiography and the astronaut himself.

Who is more believable or who has more credibility? Are you really going to find out more about a subject by reading about it?

In my humble opinion, the astronaut and his family win hands down.

Kris Stoever and Scott Carpenter have my full support.

posted 03-10-2006 07:13 PM               

Thanks everyone, even to my Chia pet--not a pet troll--as Robert pointed out.

Was volunteering for the Friday p.m. shift at Denver nature and science museum for the new and totally awesome Body Worlds2. Ya gotta see it, if it comes in to a town near you.

Hope Carpenter's moon rock ends up there, btw--so many, many school kids pile through there.

posted 03-10-2006 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
Now there are true friends for you....purposely sustaining an injury to prove a point that a buddy did it right.

Kris...I thought I remember hearing that your Dad had a fishing line in the water while waiting it out in his raft. Do you know if that true?

---

I love this detail from Carpenter's sojourn in his life raft, waiting for recovery forces. He did not have a fishing line in the water, but, speaking of pets, he did have a very friendly large black fish--fish experts might weigh in here--lingering near the raft. Had Carpenter been out there waiting for a coupla days for rescue, he certainly could and would have grabbed hold of the creature and chowed down.

posted 03-10-2006 08:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
That fish was probably thinking...."hmmm...yellow rubber boat with silver coated human floating next to bell shaped hot cork spewing smelly green colored stuff in my clean water.....
The boys are never going to believe this.'

---

LOL... I knew a fish expert would weigh in as predicted!

posted 03-10-2006 09:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WAWalsh:

[snip] I am always happy to learn new information. If any of the statements attributed above to Schirra, Slayton, Kranz, TNO, etc. are incorrect (in that they do not represent tht individual's opinion), taken out of context or were subsequently retracted, please let me know.

---

I am always happy to learn new information. Seriously, Walsh, this is a wholly unsubstantiated assertion of fact. You say it. It's untrue. Those of us who are truly happy to learn (1) ask answerable questions. Those happy to learn (2) read transcripts and listen to audio and absorb technical explanations. Those happy to learn (3) don't impute motives to others who do the hard work of 1 and 2 and also several other intellectual type things I haven't listed but could think of in a couple of minutes.

All you do, Walsh, is repeat old stuff. You never seem to absorb information or ask any new questions.

So, unless you have something serious to ask, you'll forgive me for ignoring you.

posted 03-10-2006 09:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
But why? a strenght test?

---

posted 03-10-2006 10:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
Didn't Mr. Kraft come under a certain amount of heat for witholding the landing bag information from John Glenn? I understand the Astronauts weren't pleased with that.

---

Duke... at the risk of opening this up again, I am curious about this sequence of events. please note, By asking I am in no way taking sides on this quagmire

I was under the impression that Kraft was under pressure from "higher-ups" to leave the retro pack on during re-entry (against his better judgement) and that was the compelling factor in not informing Glenn of their intentions. I believe this non-communication upset Kraft as well and as a result the Flight Controller position was subsequently created as a "final word"?

posted 03-10-2006 11:09 PM               

quote:

---

I believe this non-communication upset Kraft as well and as a result the Flight Controller position was subsequently created as a "final word"?

---

Curiously, this reasonably well known event offer another example of differing recordings of how events transpired. "Deke" indicates that it was Kraft who went quickly to the contingency of keeping the pack in place. Both Krantz and Kraft, in their respective autobiographies, have Kraft confident that the deploy signal is a false one, but Williams making the decision.