|
Author
|
Topic: Deke Slayton as Apollo-Soyuz commander
|
carmelo
Member Posts: 1047
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 03-08-2019 09:59 AM
   
I think that if the things had gone better, both McCandless and Lind would have flown on AAP.
Maybe if Apollo continued until Apollo 20, Lind would have had the job of LMP on 20, and McCandless the job of CMP on Skylab 4 (considering that Carr and Pogue would have had Apollo 19). |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-08-2019 04:58 PM
I've wondered why Don Lind got a backup instead of prime crew position on Skylab. Not only did he meet the pilot qualifications but he was also a bona fide scientist. They could've had a two-fer with him on Skylab 3. Nothing against Jack Lousma but he was 6 years younger than Lind and thus was looking at a potentially longer career. He was in better position to wait for the Shuttle for his first flight than Lind was. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 03-08-2019 06:27 PM
It appears that some Skylab seats went to those who might have flown on Apollos 19 and 20. Logic and what not be fair didn't always play into it. In my humble opinion, I didn't think it was fair that Stafford got a fourth flight while others stood on the sidelines. Of course, many, including the bosses at NASA, disagreed. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2019 07:28 PM
I also wonder why Don Lind and Bruce McCandless took so long to fly a shuttle mission. They should have been the mission specialists on STS-5 in my opinion. |
David C
Member Posts: 1015
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-09-2019 08:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
...should have been the mission specialists on STS-5
Well no. Bruce had landed one of the most exciting jobs of the entire shuttle era — testing the MMU. I think he was very happy with that. Admittedly STS-5 was planned as the first shuttle EVA, but that mission would have taken him away from the MMU for a period with some risk of losing it. Just my take. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 03-09-2019 09:34 PM
I think he could've done both. Although to be sure first test of the MMU was a plum assignment and a project he had been working on and instrumental with for years. |
ashot
Member Posts: 27
From:
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 03-10-2019 01:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Delta7:
I also wonder why Don Lind and Bruce McCandless took so long to fly a shuttle mission. They should have been the mission specialists on STS-5 in my opinion.
"The Astronaut Maker" states that McCandless "was a possible candidate for pilot on STS-7, but with his work on the Manned Maneuvering Unit was also an intriguing candidate for that test flight..." This probably means that Abbey ranked him somehow lower than MOL astronauts as a shuttle pilot, but still considered him as a prime candidate for MMU test flight.
|
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 03-10-2019 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by David C:
...high performance aircraft are capable of sustaining high g for long periods at low altitudes, should one have a requirement to do so.
Aircraft cannot sustain high g's for "long periods," which is minutes like the ride to orbit.And "the" top three cardiologists in the country would have more knowledge than those at Johnsville. Johnsville guys only dealt with healthy hearts and not ones with abnormalities. |
David C
Member Posts: 1015
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-10-2019 07:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Aircraft cannot sustain high g's for "long periods," which is minutes like the ride to orbit.
The problem is we're not exactly comparing like with like because the direction of acceleration relative to the human body is different in each case. I guess we can go back and forth on this for a while as to what would constitute equivalent "high 'g' and long periods." The direction of 'g' application in the airplane case is considerably more demanding.For the benefit of other readers, a typical Mercury-Atlas launch acceleration history can be seen here. As you know the launch vehicle average accelerations on each stage are considerably lower than the oft-quoted peak values. There are plenty of aircraft capable of sustaining load factors in this region for what I will call long periods. Not all high performance jets can sustain these figures, and most that can don't have the gas to do so for long. Acrobatic piston airplanes, are easily capable of sustaining 6g or more for periods in excess of two minutes — if you use the correct techniques. I stress that this is maintaining 'g' not altitude. In my opinion this puts a strain on the heart comparable to the Mercury-Atlas profile. Now this isn't done very often because it's rather unpleasant, and there is no operational need. I used to do it for my own physical training, and to teach students the difference between instantaneous and sustained 'g' effects. I don't believe NASA ever employed such methods since there was no need, the astronaut office were focused on high performance jet proficiency flying, and the T-33/F-102/T-38 were not capable. quote:
And "the" top three cardiologists in the country would have more knowledge than those at Johnsville. Johnsville guys only dealt with healthy hearts and not ones with abnormalities.
I don't know Jim. Are you saying Slayton was the only guy at Johnsville who ever exhibited an abnormality? I don't know, but it seems very unlikely to me. Or are you saying the top three had spent a lot of time observing centrifuge runs? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-11-2019 03:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by David C:
Or are you saying the top three had spent a lot of time observing centrifuge runs?
You are connecting two unrelated events. The centrifuge run detected that Slayton had a heart anomaly. The cardiologists were asked for their advice on what effect this might have on Slayton if he made a space flight. They didn't have to observe centrifuge runs to give an opinion, all they needed was their experience on dealing with patients with a similar condition. |
David C
Member Posts: 1015
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-18-2019 05:11 PM
No, you're missing my point. Take Slayton's heart as a malfunctioning mechanism. The cardiologists had seen the performance of lots systems with the same malfunction (and indeed many other defects), but under completely different conditions to those where it would be required to operate. At Johnsville they had observed at least one (and honestly, I presume several) malfunctioning mechanism(s) functioning under as near to the required conditions of operation as it was possible to match. Both sets of data are obviously useful, but I know which I would consider more relevant.Bottom line though is we know the answer, and it wasn't a problem. |
advertisement