posted 11-20-2011 10:34 AM
I find it very unusual that of the 10 manned Gemini missions listed on the sign, six have the number of orbits listed incorrect. Should be:
GT-3: 3
GT-7: 206
GT-9: 45
GT-10: 43
GT-11: 44
GT-12: 59
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-20-2011 01:15 PM
Maybe one number refers to orbits and the other refers to revs. They are not quite the same. I think that an orbit is slightly longer because it takes into account the Earth's rotation. But I am not an expert on the subject.
Perhaps somebody who has studied orbital mechanics can explain it better.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 11-20-2011 04:41 PM
The sign is mislabeled. Gemini did use revs vs orbits back then.
A revolution was counted when the spacecraft passed over the same longitude as the launch site. In inertial space, the revolution is longer distance traveled since Earth has rotated about 15 degrees for a low orbit. An orbit is counted every time the spacecraft crosses the equator on ascending node.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-21-2011 08:54 AM
Copy that Jim — equator and longitude. I guess what we need now is a Gemini list that includes both orbits and revs to avoid the confusion.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-24-2011 06:41 AM
Before the KSC Shuttle Landing Facility was built, where did the Gemini and Apollo astronauts normally land their T-38 jets prior to launch? Did they make use of the Cape Canaveral Skid Strip or did they always land at Patrick Air Force Base further south?
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3799 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 11-24-2011 08:04 AM
Normally at Patrick AFB, as the base was more suited in supporting continuous aircraft operations there.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-24-2011 09:06 AM
About half (15) of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights splashed down in the Atlantic Ocean. The crews returning to Cape Canaveral would often land at the CCAFS skid strip.
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3799 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 11-24-2011 08:22 PM
No, for instance, all the Mercury flown astronauts did not immediately return back to the Cape area after their splashdowns.
For both MR-3/4, the pilot-astronauts were flown from their Atlantic recovery areas to Grand Bahama Island for a two-day post-flight medical check and debriefing.
Once finished, in fact, they flew into Patrick AFB (not the Cape skid strip) for a big heroes welcome at the air base, followed by a motorcade parade downtown Cocoa Beach, and ending up at the Cape missile test annex away from the general public.
The same can be said for Glenn and Carpenter as well. After splashdown, the pilot-astronauts were flown to Grank Turk Island of the British West Indies for their post-flight medical checks and mission debrief-interview reports.
Next stop almost three days later for the first Americans to orbit the Earth, was not Cape Canaveral, but again Patrick AFB for a big returning space hero celebration, a parade downtown Cocoa Beach, and ending up at the old Cape station.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-25-2011 05:45 AM
Note that I did say often land at CCAFS, and not always land.
Some of the post-flight Gemini crews landed at the CCAFS skid strip.
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3799 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 11-25-2011 12:18 PM
Are you referring to a first-time returning crew from a just-recovered spaceflight mission?
If so, however, just about all the returning earlier spaceflight crews would fly into Patrick for a number of reasons and not the Cape Canaveral Skid Strip.
Yes, at times, crew members did fly into the Cape's skid strip, but normally the air base at Patrick was their primary "Cape base" of aircraft flight operations.
Even when Apollo crews would fly from Texas to Florida for their final launch preps, almost always, the astronaut flight crews would land at Patrick.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-25-2011 12:32 PM
There are some photos out there showing the crews of Gemini 3, 6A, 10, 11 and 12 arriving at the Cape Canaveral skid strip, and the astronauts are wearing their blue flight coveralls, running shoes, baseball hats and making speeches. Sure looks like those photos were taken shortly after the flights. The photo descriptions mention the skid strip.
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3799 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 11-25-2011 01:58 PM
Yes, you are correct, as some of the returning-home Gemini crews did in fact land at the Cape skid strip after their ocean recoveries in the Atlantic.
It was a reversal role than from prior Mercury pilots when coming back to Florida after their space voyages in 1965-66.
Two days after splashdown, some Gemini crews were flown back to Florida in a slower transport aircraft.
They would undergo more physical examinations and engineering debriefings.
Next up would be a motorcade parade, but this time heading south instead of north -- from the Cape to Cocoa Beach, and ending up with a press conference at the Gemini News Center.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 11-25-2011 02:20 PM
Okay Ken - thanks for looking into that. I have not come across any photos of the Gemini 4, 5, 7, 9A and Apollo 9 crews arriving at the skid strip (if they did) after their Atlantic Ocean splashdowns. I suspect they probably did though.
The Apollo 7 astronauts flew from the USS Essex to the Cape Canaveral skid strip on a Navy aircraft the day after splashdown.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 12-06-2011 08:27 AM
What is Hangar S being used for today? Is it still a NASA hangar?
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 12-06-2011 02:58 PM
It used to be for Life Support (SCAPE suit) support.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 12-07-2011 04:50 AM
I do not understand why the "NASA Manned Spacecraft Center" designation was removed from Hangar S. It should have been kept on the hangar as a "plaque" in recognition of the significant role that the building played during Project Mercury. Why take it down?
They should have kept the NASA designation on Hangar S for historical purposes — even if the facility was just used for storage.
xlsteve Member
Posts: 397 From: Holbrook MA, USA Registered: Jul 2008
posted 12-07-2011 08:00 AM
I think it was probably removed when the MSC was moved to Houston, and then the hangar was used for other purposes and the sign didn't make sense. I agree there probably should be a sign indicating that it was once there.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 12-07-2011 08:28 AM
quote:Originally posted by LM-12: I do not understand why the "NASA Manned Spacecraft Center" designation was removed from Hangar S.
Because Hangar S was turned over to NASA ULO (Unmanned Launch Operations, who had their own sign after Mercury. Lunar Orbiters, BIOS, HEOS and other spacecraft were processed in it. MSC no longer had a need for it and facilities were at a premium at the time.
They weren't concerned about historical preservation back then, they were in the middle of the space race and needed everything available to beat the Soviets. People don't stand back in the middle of projects and wonder if things should be preserved if there is still ongoing work.
Hangars and facilities were changing hands and supporting multiple projects in those days. The Mercury Project may have ended but manned program was ramping up with Gemini and Apollo. So there was no real ending unlike the shuttle.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 12-07-2011 08:47 AM
I heard that Hangar S is not even mentioned on the KSC 'Then and Now' tour. Is that correct? Has anyone taken the tour recently?
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 12-07-2011 12:20 PM
Don't understand the issue. It would only be a drive-by of a nondescript building (it looks like all the other hangars) and there are more interesting buildings in the area.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 12-07-2011 01:41 PM
I am just a bit surprised that there is nothing at Hangar S to acknowledge the events of 50 years ago, and that Hangar S would not be included on a tour that emphasizes the history of Cape Canaveral.
mjanovec Member
Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
posted 12-07-2011 11:33 PM
I've taken the "Then and Now" tour twice. The first time I took the tour, Hangar S was never mentioned as we drove past. The second time, the bus slowed down a few seconds while the tour guide explained the significance of the hangar. So I think it all depends on the tour guide you get and how knowledgeable they are (or how much they are willing to tell you).
As for Hangar S being a "nondescript building," there are plenty of historic sites at the Cape that aren't much to look at, but it's the kind of stuff that people want to hear about.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 12-27-2011 01:44 PM
NASA photo KSC-63PC-0033 is a nice "Missile Row" shot of Launch Complex 14 and the MA-9 launch vehicle. You can also see the Ready Room just across from the pad blockhouse. The photo is dated about a week before launch.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 02-16-2012 08:21 AM
Kennedy Space Center director Bob Cabana gives us an interesting video tour of the Astronaut Crew Quarters in the Operations and Checkout Building.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 02-24-2012 08:48 AM
They should fill the walls of the suiting-up room and hallway in the crew quarters with suiting-up and walkout photos of all the Apollo astronauts who prepared for launch there.
Those astronaut photos would more accurately reflect the history of the suiting-up room, and they would be much better than the landscape photos that seem to be hanging there now.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 02-24-2012 11:47 AM
Huh? Why?
It is not a museum, it is a living area for personnel and place to get ready. There is too much going on and need to relax is important. That is why there are landscapes. There is no need for historical photos.
Why Apollo astronauts? Many, many more shuttle astronauts passed through there.
Not every operational facility has to reflect upon its past history.
Why does space related facilities have to be treated differently than other such as aviation historical sites. Is Roosevelt Field preserved?
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 02-24-2012 06:57 PM
We obviously disagree on certain things Jim. But that's okay. I think that anyone suiting-up for a launch would find those photos very inspirational.
The walls of the Apollo-era Mission Operation Control Room in Houston are covered with Gemini and Apollo mission emblems to remember past accomplishments. Similarly, the walls of the Shuttle and ISS Flight Control Rooms are covered with shuttle and expedition emblems.
The principle is the same.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 02-24-2012 07:29 PM
quote:Originally posted by LM-12: The principle is the same.
No, the principle is not the same. The emblems in the MOCRs and firing rooms are no different than the silhouettes of launch vehicles on blockhouses or kills on an aircraft noses. They are just records of accomplishments. Crews suiting up don't need inspiration, they are highly motivated people already.
With that said, the past crews don't need any more adoration, they have had plenty and actually too much that it takes away from the mission and the other workers.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 03-30-2012 02:23 PM
This Industrial Area Construction poster is one of a series from NASA celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy Space Center.
Does anyone have a good exterior photo of the Flight Crew Training Building that they could post? The Apollo-era FCTB was also located in the KSC Industrial Area, just east and south of the MSOB. I do not recall ever seeing a good close-up photo of the FCTB that showed the whole building.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 52160 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 04-09-2012 10:39 AM
quote:Originally posted by LM-12: It looks like that old Pad 19 Gemini billboard shown in an earlier post has been spruced up a bit...
It appears that this post and the subsequent discussion that it inspired about the errors on the sign attracted the attention of someone who may be able to have it corrected. From Malcom Glenn's most recent Neat Information Update (NIU):
LC-19 Road Sign - The Story Continues. I believe I first wrote about this story some two years ago in the NIU and I thought the case was closed, but such is not the case! Taking a lead from a posting in collectSPACE (neat website by the way!), there are more mistakes with the current sign.
I thought Pete Chitko and I had double and triple checked this sign for correctness last year, but we missed some things. Okay, Pete and I have now checked ourselves several times over and I intend to get with the Director of Operations at CCAFS who I have previously worked with and report the following:
The number of orbits posted for the GT-3, GT-7, GT-9, GT-10, GT-11, and GT-12 missions is incorrect. Pete and I believe the correct numbers should be 3, 206, 47, 43, 44, and 59 respectively.
Tom Stafford's name is spelled incorrectly for the GT-6 mission, note the 't' instead of 'f'.
I will see about getting these mistakes corrected! Lesson Learned: You can never check something enough, whatever it is in life!
PS - The noted Director specifically asked me last year if the information on the Subject Sign was correct and I responded in the affirmative! Also of note, it would appear the 'number of orbits' mistakes are consistent as this is about a 5th generation sign. I checked photos of some of the previous signs and they show the same mistakes!
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 04-09-2012 07:24 PM
I am impressed that the people at CCAFS are so determined to get the sign right, rather than just leaving it the way it is now with the mistakes.
mgspacecadet Member
Posts: 21 From: Registered: Apr 2012
posted 05-15-2012 04:18 PM
I stopped by LC-19 today and noted Tom Stafford's name has been corrected on the subject sign; reference previous posting. Of the previously noted mistakes, this is the most important one that needed to be corrected in my mind! Thank you to whoever did this!
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3799 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 05-15-2012 05:29 PM
Good to see Stafford's name corrected, however, "Jr." has not been added after the names of Schirra and Lovell. All others with a "Jr." afterwards were included except for these two. Not too much of a big deal, but why have it for others (Cooper, Conrad, Gordon and Aldrin)?
APG85 Member
Posts: 314 From: Registered: Jan 2008
posted 05-15-2012 06:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by LM-12: Kennedy Space Center director Bob Cabana gives us an interesting video tour of the Astronaut Crew Quarters in the Operations and Checkout Building.
I'm surprised (well, maybe not) that the bedroom furniture is the same cheap, uncomfortable stuff you see an any military billeting room. I would have thought they would spend the extra dime for something a little more comfortable.
Those desk chairs will break your back if you sit in them for any length of time...
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 05-15-2012 07:38 PM
I suppose that the Crew Quarters and all the other rooms as seen in the video tour will eventually be gone and replaced as a result of the major renovations currently underway inside the Operations and Checkout Building.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1896 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 05-15-2012 09:20 PM
The renovations are for the north half of the building (they have been going on in phases for more than five years, starting way before the video was taken).
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 05-16-2012 08:47 AM
From a KSC news release dated March 12, 2012.
The new laboratory building will enable a complete gut and renovate project for the South Wing of the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building similar to the current one on the north wing of the O&C.
mgspacecadet Member
Posts: 21 From: Registered: Apr 2012
posted 07-27-2012 03:05 PM
quote:Originally posted by mgspacecadet: I stopped by LC-19 today and noted Tom Stafford's name has been corrected on the subject sign
Tom Stafford's name has now been officially/professionally fixed. There was a pen and ink fix in place, as earlier noted.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 07-27-2012 08:09 PM
Good to see that corrected Malcolm. I think General Stafford would be pleased.
LM-12 Member
Posts: 3914 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: Oct 2010
posted 07-31-2012 07:44 AM
Looks like Hangar S is on the demolition list as mentioned in Florida Today.
The space agency is in the midst of a post-shuttle era examination of all its facilities at KSC and Cape Canaveral. The goal: Determine which facilities will be needed to move ahead with the development of new rockets and spacecraft for deep space missions; which facilities might entice commercial space taxi companies, and which facilities no longer have a reason for being.
"Unfortunately, there are some buildings that aren't sustainable anymore, some that we can't really afford to maintain," said Tom Engler, deputy manager of the Center Planning and Development Office at KSC.
"This is a 60-plus-year-old building. It has a lot of maintenance issues, and it's actually beneficial to the center to put them on the abandon list and then eventually demolish them because they are too expensive for us to maintain."
posted 11-20-2011 10:34 AM
advertisement