Controversial Flight Assignments/Bumpings
John Geenty
was wondering what everyone thought on some of the other controversial
decisions made in the American Program with regard to astronauts and
assignments. To be honest, there are probably so many it would take a month
of Sundays to run through them all, and equally we're unlikely to all agree
on which decisions were controversial and which were justified. But here are
a few.
1) MA-9 Cooper Or Shepard?
Walt Williams and a few others in NASA seemed to be unhappy with Gordo even
at this early stage and were seriously considering having Shepard make the
MA-9 flight. It seems to be largely down to Deke that this complaints were
buried. Now, was this simply a clash of personalities between Gordo and NASA
HQ, or was there actually a case to answer that Gordo shouldn't fly. My own
feelings are that Cooper maybe lacked a little tact and made some poor
decisions on the ground, but his performance on MA-9 more than justified the
decision to fly him.
2) Scott Carpenter
I have to admit that I've been guilty of joining in on occasion the
increasingly popular 'Carpenter Bashings' that seem to have grown in
intensity as time goes on. Chris Kraft was pretty damning in his book. But
was Carpenter really as bad as has been said? Did he deserve another chance
in Gemini, perhaps even from the pilot seat if not Cdr, or was it simply too
much to fool around with second chances after Aurora 7?
3) The Grounding Of Cunningham & Eisele (& Schweickart?)
We all know what happened when Apollo 7 splashed down and Kraft made his
statement regarding the future of these two. Maybe considering what happened
to Eisele he was correct, but what about Walt Cunningham? Was he simply used
as a scapegoat since Schirra was beyond punishment? Was it even justified?
Deke seemed to want to let him fly again by offering a backup slot for
Skylab. If Cunningham hadn't retired and something had happened to get him
into the flight rotation, would he have been allowed to fly? And did Rusty
Schweickart deserve to be shuffled off to Skylab following 9? It does seem
harsh that despite serving the longest in the Skylab program, neither
Cunningham or Schweickart recieved prime flight assignments. Were they
sub-standard, or unlucky with the numbers?
4) Apollo 13 Cooper Or Shepard?
Not surprising that the second close call assignment wise was between the
same two guys. Cooper made his thoughts pretty clear and he seemed to have a
few points. But was it his own fault for not getting back on the good side
of NASA? Or was there a witch hunt, combined with greater support for
Shepard? Or was there a genuine concern over Cooper. If so, why assign him
for Apollo 10? When he served as backup Cdr, it was still in the period
where injury to the Prime crewman could lead to a direct swap (Eg, Apollo
13) so if Cooper wasn't up to it, why did he get assigned to such an
important mission? Eisele too for that matter.
5) Apollo 17 Cernan/Evans/Schmitt or Gordon/Schmitt/Brand
While Schmitt's pressence on 17 seemed fairly sure once 18 was cancelled,
there was some debate on whether the 18 crew should be kept together,
especially since following Apollo 13 crews weren't broken up (Eg, on 16 they
waited for Duke rather than replace him since it was considered more
important to keep the crew together). So should the 18 crew stay together,
or was the right choice made? Would it have made any difference? I doubt it
would have done, but it didn't stop two distinct camps forming in the
astronaut office, with Shepard and Stafford fighting for Cernan and
McDivitt, Conrad and Scott for Dick Gordon's crew. Cernan himself said it
made more sence to keep the 18 crew together if your going to fly Schmitt.
So, the right call or not?
6) STS-1 Young or Haise?
Its been suggested that John Young slid into the STS-1 mission because he
was Chief Astronaut and he assigned himself. Ahead of guys like Fred Haise
who had worked on the OFT program. Did Fred Haise or someone from OFT
deserve STS-1, or was Young always aimed at that first flight?
JamesOberg
<Its been suggested that John Young slid into the STS-1 mission because he
was Chief Astronaut and he assigned himself. Ahead of guys like Fred Haise
who had worked on the OFT program. Did Fred Haise or someone from OFT
deserve STS-1, or was Young always aimed at that first flight?>
Haise already had a shuttle command assignment, the Skylab reboost mission.
John Geenty
mission.
Yes, but did he deserve STS-1. I've heared some say, having lead the OFT
flights, he was
disappointed to miss out and that combined with his frustrations over the
delays, he decided to leave NASA.So, did Young slide into STS-1 leaving
Fredo
with a consolation second place when he might have deserved first? Or did
the OFT flights not really matter all that much in the scheme of who gets
the first flight? I suppose it wouldn't really. Although Grissom lead the
Gemini development, if Shepard had been fit he would have commanded GT3, so
Fredo had no real reason to assume STS-1 would be his. What do you all
think?
OM
...Correct(*)! Haise was skeded for one of the early STS missions for
the Skylab reboost, but it appears that Young was slotted for STS-1
for quite a while prior to the actual mission. Which brings us to
another interesting topic: Bob Crippen. Crippen trained for MOL, then
finally got his flights with Shuttle. Is he still on some semblance of
flight status that would allow him an ISS spot?
OM
(*) "Duh...I corrected Jim Oberg! Do I get a t-shirt? Huh, George? A
t-shirt for my very own! Duh..."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dante Scott
Why would Haise have deserved STS-1? Sure he commanded some of the
Enterprise flights but by the same token so did Joe Engle. Given
Engle's history of experience with the X-15 and having commanded some
of the Enterprise flights I imagine a case could be made that he
deserved the first flight before Haise would have.
Just a thought.
Dante
Richard Glueck
> 1) MA-9 Cooper Or Shepard?
> I think it was pretty well assured that Cooper was going to get this
> flight. He was colorful, the public liked him, and each of the Mercury 7 were
> championed by public opinion. Each was going to show his "right stuff" on his
> own flight. Originally it was thought to narrow down the selection to 6
> astronauts, but on the basis of the criteria used, a "tie" for the sixth spot
> was deemed to have occur. Cooper was going to ride the rocket for that flight
> designation. When Slayton was cut, that assured the mission.
>
> 2) Scott Carpenter
>
I ahve always championed Scott Carpenter, since only he and John Glenn had
any idea of what it felt like to sit on that missile and be propelled outward
into space. Carpenter was as enthused about spaceflight as the public, and
perhaps he saw the possibilities of the new environment well before Wally
Schirra and the other engineers. The playground was hazardous and full of
unknowns, and he probably shouldn't have exercised the autonomy he did while in
flight, but still think he got clobbered by people who wanted numbers rather
than a shared experience. In Gemini, he would have done well on one of the long
duration flights, but not in a spacewalk situation. Kraft just grinds away at
Carpenter, to his own detriment.
>
> 3) The Grounding Of Cunningham & Eisele (& Schweickart?)
>
This is was unfortunate for several reasons. Everyone agreed that Kraft had
to have order and authority, but to can Cunningham after he put in tremendous
effort trying to make it up to the program by working on Skylab, just wasn't
right. Kraft has been quoted as saying words to the effect that it might have
been an over reaction.
Eisele was just used to fill in dead-end slots until the program concluded. A
poor way to use trained man-power imho.
>
> 4) Apollo 13 Cooper Or Shepard?
It should have gone to Gordo, but Al Shepard wanted an orbital mission to
satisfy his ego. It's pretty plain that he had the position and power and
authority to step on anyone who got in his way. Cooper had pushed a lot of
buttons at Houston and was not popular. He was like a kid in a candy store with
his public image. When he was squashed, nobody would have irked the powers that
be to stand up and do anything in his favor.
>
> 5) Apollo 17 Cernan/Evans/Schmitt or Gordon/Schmitt/Brand
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Considering the hostility that the LMP
switch brought about, Dick Gordon and Vance Brand should have gone in. Nobody
can say that Cernan didn't do a fine job however. Evans got his shot too. The
real problem with this assignment is that three more flights should have been
flown, and at least one more geologist should have been included on one of them.
>
> 6) STS-1 Young or Haise?
Hard to say. Young had tons of experience and wanted that first Commander's
seat to top his career. Should Haise have flown next to Young? Did they get
along in other aspects of the astronaut corps? Haise did great work and served
NASA well, earning himself a special place in the history of spaceflight.
It is remarkable to learn about the animosity that brewed within the space
program. Lack of respect for each other, and downright hatred. Man, check out
Mike Collin's characterization of Carpenter in "Carrying the Fire". Check out
Cernan's take on Buzz Aldrin! Cooper's slams at Shepard are fierce, and in the
video version of "Moonshot", it is obvious that Cooper disliked Shepard right up
to the filming. Schirra bashes John Glenn with abandon in his book. Slayton's
biography tells of Elliott See "flying in an old womanish manner" (Mike Cassutt,
do I have that correct?). With so much infighting, one has to admire Deke
Slayton for assigning so many personalities and distributing them to as many
flights as they got. I have often wondered why so many had second and third
missions while other were just passed over.
davebananna
>another interesting topic: Bob Crippen. Crippen trained for MOL, then
>finally got his flights with Shuttle. Is he still on some semblance of
>flight status that would allow him an ISS spot?
No.
He hasn't been with NASA for awhile. I believe he's an exec with Morton
Thiokol.
DF
Andy
Thiokol. >>
Yes, he's president of Thiokol Propulsion (which belongs to Cordant
Technologies, IIRC). Retiring this year.
Andy
"Gee, I thought we'd be alot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]
Colin Burgess
chosen to do a job nobody knew too much about at the time. The
sophistication, the public adulation, the extreme personal and commitmental
pressure - that would all come later on a bunch of guys who were simply
excellent pilots. Maybe Scott Carpenter mightn't have made the cut once
NASA knew exactly what they expected of their astronauts, but he was
selected from a damned good field of men, and thrust into a technology and
onerous responsibility that far exceeded expectations at the time of that
selection. Remember that their job function was just to sit passively in a
capsule and be flown up and down atop a rocket like one of the damned
monkeys, and to find out if their eyeballs fell out, if weightlessness
caused them to become hysterical, or if they choked when trying to swallow
food. Maybe Scott fell short, but he's only human, after all. The
expectation on him by the time his flight came around - particularly after
Glenn's titanically overblown effort - must have been incredible. Gordon
Cooper was an outstanding, laid-back Mercury pilot, but from what I hear,
not exactly a great team player. Sentimentality for Cooper aside, Shepard
was a superb test pilot, and did a great job on Apollo 14. I think there
might have been problems had Cooper retained this mission, but that's only
my feeling. I personally think Shepard did a better team-leader job than
Cooper might have, despite the circumstances of the way in which he got the
flight. Joe Engle was a fine X-15 pilot, and performed well on the shuttle.
But he was certainly not one of the most accomplished astronauts. A wife of
one of the Group 3 astronauts told me just a fortnight ago that Joe's
proficiency was markedly below that of his peers, and her husband (for one)
spent a lot of time with Joe just trying to bring him up to speed.
Michael Cassutt
> [snippage] Slayton's biography tells of Elliott See "flying in an old
womanish manner" (Mike Cassutt, do I have that correct?).>
Yes. Deke felt he had been "sentimental" (his exact word) in giving See a
flight assignment when he harbored some doubts about his flying skills.
Remember, however, that this was Deke looking back some years after See's death
-- and that many of See's contemporaries, notably Frank Borman, thought he was
first rate.
< With so much infighting, one has to admire Deke Slayton for assigning so many
personalities and distributing them to as many flights as they got. I have
often wondered why so many had second and third missions while other were just
passed over.>
Well, test pilots or just pilots in general tended to be aggressive, outspoken,
and confident in themselves -- especially in that era. Eagles don't flock, is
how one of them (Collins?) put it. It's natural that they would have had
differences with each other, especially given the competitive situation they
were in, and the stakes. (First in space, first on the Moon?!?) And while
recent memoirs may have uncovered some of the rivalries, I don't think there
are that many long-standing grudges.
Michael Cassutt
Justin Wigg
news:bv16gtcck7nl2q1ih...@4ax.com...
> Crippen trained for MOL, then
> finally got his flights with Shuttle. Is he still on some semblance of
> flight status that would allow him an ISS spot?
As Andy and Dave stated, he is long gone from the astronaut corps and is
currently serving as big shot at Thiokol. Before that he was director of
KSC.
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com
Justin Wigg
news:3B02FDFA...@saturn.caps.maine.edu...
> > 2) Scott Carpenter
>
> I ahve always championed Scott Carpenter, since only he and John Glenn
had
> any idea of what it felt like to sit on that missile and be propelled
outward
> into space. Carpenter was as enthused about spaceflight as the public,
and
> perhaps he saw the possibilities of the new environment well before Wally
> Schirra and the other engineers.
I personally think Carpenter was well ahead of his time. He would have made
a great crew member on a Skylab flight IMHO.
> > 3) The Grounding Of Cunningham & Eisele (& Schweickart?)
>
> This is was unfortunate for several reasons. Everyone agreed that
Kraft had
> to have order and authority, but to can Cunningham after he put in
tremendous
> effort trying to make it up to the program by working on Skylab, just
wasn't
> right. Kraft has been quoted as saying words to the effect that it might
have
> been an over reaction.
Hmmm - is this "over reaction" quote from his book? I've gotta get a copy.
AIUI, Cunningham knew that Kraft might shoot him down regarding Skylab and
he just rolled the dice with his fingers crossed. I guess he was pretty
pissed when he was handed a buckup slot behind Conrad.
> Eisele was just used to fill in dead-end slots until the program
concluded. A
> poor way to use trained man-power imho.
Eisele is the one I don't really have much sympathy for. I don't mean that
in a nasty way, just that I don't think he could have claimed to be hard
done by. He joined in with Schirra nastiness towards MOCR during Apollo 7
much more than Cunningham, and as Deke and Michael Cassutt state in "DEKE!"
just kinda quit working after that due to personal issues. The only
Apollo-era astronaut to be given marching orders...
> > 4) Apollo 13 Cooper Or Shepard?
>
> It should have gone to Gordo, but Al Shepard wanted an orbital mission
to
> satisfy his ego.
I'm not sure about either of them. IMHO Cooper did little to "earn" the
command of Apollo 13, and the BCDR slot on Apollo 10 was really his last
chance - which he blew. From my limited knowlege on his training regimen,
he was resting on his Mercury 7 laurels too much. Shepard's assignment to
CDR of Apollo 14 was grossly unfair to the other crews IMHO, and Apollo 14
suffered as a result. Possibly the low-point of the Apollo program
science-wise.
> > 5) Apollo 17 Cernan/Evans/Schmitt or Gordon/Schmitt/Brand
[snip]
> real problem with this assignment is that three more flights should have
been
> flown, and at least one more geologist should have been included on one of
them.
Only problem is that Schmitt was the only real geologist in the corps. Tony
England from the 1967 group had a background in geology but was more a
geophysicist that geologist. He might have made a good scientist LMP if his
flying skills were up to scratch (which I doubt they were in time to enter
the rotation in around 1971).
> > 6) STS-1 Young or Haise?
Much has been made of Young's "self-assignment" to glamour flights such as
STS-1, STS-9 and the pre-Challenger Hubble deploy mission STS-61J. However,
did the Chief of the Astronaut Office really manage flight assignments after
Deke was gone? Come to think of it, after ASTP didn't Deke have a role
assigning crews to the ALT and OFT programs?
OM
><< He hasn't been with NASA for awhile. I believe he's an exec with Morton
>Thiokol. >>
>
>Yes, he's president of Thiokol Propulsion (which belongs to Cordant
>Technologies, IIRC). Retiring this year.
...Does he have at least $20M in pension to spare? :-)
OM
OM
<glu...@saturn.caps.maine.edu> wrote:
>Eisele was just used to fill in dead-end slots until the program concluded. A
>poor way to use trained man-power imho.
...Yes and no. When you have someone on your team, and your team is a)
dependent upon public funding and b) VERY visible, then canning that
person for whatever reason may be far worse than keeping him on the
team. Ergo, it was politically safer to put Eisele into shit positions
until either he said "fuck you!" and left, or the program's focus in
the public eye became obfuscated enough to allow his being punted
without fear of bad publicitiy. The latter is essentially what
happened, although I suspect the former wasn't that far off.
LooseChanj
| another interesting topic: Bob Crippen. Crippen trained for MOL, then
| finally got his flights with Shuttle. Is he still on some semblance of
| flight status that would allow him an ISS spot?
Nah, he doesn't even work for NASA anymore. But I did get to sit at the
desk he used when he was KSC's center director. (It had been handed down.
:-)
--
> </paranoia>
Do you really think it's a good idea *ever* to close a paranoia tag?
The Scarlet Manuka in ATSR
Henry Spencer
Michael Cassutt <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, test pilots or just pilots in general tended to be aggressive, outspoken,
>and confident in themselves -- especially in that era. Eagles don't flock, is
Somebody pointed out a while back that fighter pilots are exactly the
people you do *not* want commanding long-duration space missions. Their
psychology, on average, is almost precisely the opposite of what makes a
good leader for a small group spending a long time crammed together far
from home.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
David Sander
>
> Somebody pointed out a while back that fighter pilots are exactly the
> people you do *not* want commanding long-duration space missions. Their
> psychology, on average, is almost precisely the opposite of what makes a
> good leader for a small group spending a long time crammed together far
> from home.
I remember the scene in "The Right Stuff" when the group of Washington
DC staff erupted when Ike suggested test pilots as the first astronauts.
Is this supposed to be the same thing?
David
OM
wrote:
>"OM" <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> wrote in message
>news:bv16gtcck7nl2q1ih...@4ax.com...
>| Which brings us to
>| another interesting topic: Bob Crippen. Crippen trained for MOL, then
>| finally got his flights with Shuttle. Is he still on some semblance of
>| flight status that would allow him an ISS spot?
>
>Nah, he doesn't even work for NASA anymore. But I did get to sit at the
>desk he used when he was KSC's center director. (It had been handed down.
>:-)
...Know how that feels. I discovered something about this 1950's
Suburbia-styled oak desk that I inherited from KTBC TV about 10 years
ago that's next to my bed holding up 4 computers and two monitors.
When I got it, it was being thrown out because the promotions director
was retiring after 35 years in the business, and no longer needed the
desk. It was an ugly monstrosity in everyone else's eyes, and has this
HEAVY oak top and the noisest roll-out drawers in existence. Being
someone who needed a good desk at the time, I piled the 300 pound
monolith into a truck, and took it home.
...Flash forward to a year ago. During a discussion at another
retirement party for another long-time station employee, I was asked
by said retiree if I still had that desk. When I told him yes, she
said to hold onto it, because the previous owner was not the original
owner.
"Who was the original owner?"
"Would you believe Mr. J."
<jaw hits ground> "...You mean...as in 'LBJ', Mr. J???"
"Yep. Seems he had it in the penthouse on top of the station in the
50's, and Lady Byrd hated it. So when they went to Washington to stay
in the White House after Kennedy bought it, she gave it to <the
retiree who I got it from> and told him to take it to his office where
Lyndon would probably never notice, being as busy as he'll be!"
...So here I share a bedroom with a desk upon which no telling how
many ballots were stuffed in intercepted ballot boxes. Go figure.
OM
Chris Jones
[...]
> 2) Scott Carpenter
2a) In addition to Scott Carpenter *after* Aurora 7, there's the whole question
of him being assigned to MA-7 in the first place. First, whether Slayton's
grounding was justified, and second, whether Carpenter should have gotten the
assignment over Schirra, the backup. That whole episode seems to have been
botched from the get-go.
JamesOberg
< It should have gone to Gordo, but Al Shepard wanted an orbital mission to
satisfy his ego. It's pretty plain that he had the position and power and
authority to step on anyone who got in his way. Cooper had pushed a lot of
buttons at Houston and was not popular. He was like a kid in a candy store
with
his public image. When he was squashed, nobody would have irked the powers
that
be to stand up and do anything in his favor.>
All the people I talked to on the Apollo-10 crew slots -- backup and support --
tell me Cooper couldn't hack it. He prefered the 'stick and rudder' fly-boy
stuff and left all the systems work to the LMP and CMP, He didn't learn the
systems, he didn't learn the mission profile, he figured they owed him and he
didn't have to prove himself to anybody. He would have been a disaster as a
real mission commander, Apollo-10 had been a purgatory last chance (as had
Gemini-12 backup), and in his book he tells how Slayton offered him ANOTHER
Apollo backup (Apollo-13) -- he interpreted it as an insult, I interpret it as
Slayton bending over backwards to give him one last shot to redeem his
reputation. Cooper was a jerk and got what he deserved. Note how he waited
until both Slayton and Shepard were dead to publish his book about being
stabbed in the back.
JamesOberg
< I think there
might have been problems had Cooper retained this mission, but that's only
my feeling.>
Cooper would have commanded Apollo-13, not Apollo-14. In my view, his useless
presence aboard would have sealed the deaths of the entire crew.
JamesOberg
< Joe Engle was a fine X-15 pilot, and performed well on the shuttle.>
No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all night
before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. He darned near
took the tail off during prox ops with a satellite on 51-I. Once he got beyond
a one-page checklist he was over his head.
JamesOberg
<Somebody pointed out a while back that fighter pilots are exactly the
people you do *not* want commanding long-duration space missions. Their
psychology, on average, is almost precisely the opposite of what makes a
good leader for a small group spending a long time crammed together far
from home. >
True, and we should take note of how GOOD a commander non-pilot Bill Shepherd
was on ISS-1, the way he ran his team was really impressive.
David Sander
Ouch.
Lovell - it could be argued - was perhaps the best CDR to have a mission
fail on him, as his personality, perseverance and patience[1] certainly
moulded the mission as it ended up being after the blast[2]. The efforts
of the guys on the ground certainly increased the chances of a
successful splash and recovery, but I feel it was Lovell who ultimately
carried the whole thing through.
Now, the suggestion that Cooper might have doomed the crew to whatever
ghastly fate would wind up happening begs the question: who else - out
of the entire astronaut corps - might have done as well as Lovell if put
in the same situation? And who else might have screwed the pooch like
Cooper might have?
[1] IIRC, for those who think it was Lovell who snapped at capcom whilst
accidentally on VOX as was depicted in the film "Apollo 13", it was
actually Haise who was a little loose with the language
[2] not to deride the efforts and Haise and Swigert, who no doubt also
did the best they could too.
David
OM
...Do we have performance breakdowns yet on Expedition One? Something
that might lend us to compare with the Skylab performances?
OM
>
>< Joe Engle was a fine X-15 pilot, and performed well on the shuttle.>
>
>No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all night
>before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. \
...Now -that- is pretty harsh, Jim. Was this the only "anomaly" that
Engle performed on STS-2, or were there other problems that haven't
been pushed into the public light?
OM
...Maybe, maybe not. He proved he could play it cool on both his MA-9
and GT-5 flights when things weren't going quite right. However, I
suspect that had he been on A13, this might have happened:
From the original text at
http://members.accessus.net/~090/awh/as13.html#tv2
Adapted and altered - this ain't how it happened, so don't claim it
was or I'll sic Markus on you...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56:09:07 - Cooper: "Well-yuh, ah'm lookin' out th'winder here, and it
appears to me that we be venting something out the side of the
spacecraft. You hear that, Houston?"
56:09:10 - CapCom: (over Lovell) "Roger."
(loop)
Flight: "Cooper thinks they're venting. Anyone think he's full
of it this time?"
EECom: "I got that, Flight."
Cooperl: "Ay-yup! That's a roger We's venting something out into the,
into space. Things are beginning to stack up here a bit. Guess we's
best not do any more Tang for a while, huh?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...And you thought combining "Petticoat Junction" with "I Dream of
Jeannie" was nuts.
OM
Oberg Clones) wrote:
>Note how [Cooper] waited until both Slayton and Shepard were dead to publish his book about being
>stabbed in the back.
...And by the Greys and EBEs helping twist the knife, no less.
Scooter
From what I have read I agree with your opinion on Cooper (and you obviously
were in a stronger position to judge than I). Cooper commanding Apollo 13
instead of Lovell could have killed the three astronauts and the space
program IMO. However, the information on Joe Engle is news to me.
I was wondering if you have opinions as to the capacity of other notable
astronauts, for example several other astronauts were questioned in regards
to their performance: Grissom (unfairly I think); Schirra (Apollo 7
insubordination); and Elliott See (capacity as a pilot).
Michael Cassutt
> [snip] ..did the Chief of the Astronaut Office really manage flight
assignments after Deke was gone?
Somewhat, at least to make recommendations. But the final say was George
Abbey's from early 1976 to 1987.
<Come to think of it, after ASTP didn't Deke have a role assigning crews to the
ALT and OFT programs?>
He had opinions, which he expressed, but had no authority regarding crews or
astronaut selection after leaving the flight crew director's job to train for
ASTP.
Michael Cassutt
Andre Lieven
Hmm... That strongly suggests that, on A17, Schmitt was by far a better
LMP, doesn't it ? <g>
One might presume that Engle didn't get that bad, starting from 1973,
yes ?
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
JamesOberg
<I was wondering if you have opinions as to the capacity of other notable
astronauts, for example several other astronauts were questioned in regards
to their performance: Grissom (unfairly I think); Schirra (Apollo 7
insubordination); and Elliott See (capacity as a pilot).>
Nothing startling.... sorry.
JamesOberg
that might lend us to compare with the Skylab performances?>
You'll have to wait for my book. November. Put it on your Xmas List.
John Geenty
> Hmm... That strongly suggests that, on A17, Schmitt was by far a better
> LMP, doesn't it ? <g>
>
> One might presume that Engle didn't get that bad, starting from 1973,
> yes ?
>
> Andre
Yeah, I'm reading all this Andre *s*
John
John Geenty
support --
> tell me Cooper couldn't hack it. He prefered the 'stick and rudder'
fly-boy
> stuff and left all the systems work to the LMP and CMP, He didn't learn
the
> systems, he didn't learn the mission profile, he figured they owed him and
he
> didn't have to prove himself to anybody. He would have been a disaster as
a
> real mission commander, Apollo-10 had been a purgatory last chance (as had
> Gemini-12 backup), and in his book he tells how Slayton offered him
ANOTHER
> Apollo backup (Apollo-13) -- he interpreted it as an insult, I interpret
it as
> Slayton bending over backwards to give him one last shot to redeem his
> reputation. Cooper was a jerk and got what he deserved. Note how he waited
> until both Slayton and Shepard were dead to publish his book about being
> stabbed in the back.
Having established this, maybe assigning Cooper to 10 in the first place was
a bad idea. What was his performance like on GT12 backup? And if not Cooper,
who else was a suitable candidate for Apollo 10 backup Cdr? It seems that
most of the guys Slayton had slated for Commands were either working on
preparations for their own missions or serving backup or just coming off a
flight and didn't want to fly again. Eg:
Apollo 7: Schirra retires, Cunningham and Eisele both grounded and at this
stage in Apollo, probably considered to lack the experience for a Cdr job.
Apollo 8: Borman retires, Anders working on Apollo 11 backup, Lovell on
Apollo 11 backup.
Apollo 9: These guys are too busy training for their own flight.
Seems like all the established crew commanders are tied up. Was it a case
that there simply wasn't anyone else to fill the Apollo 10 backup role? If
Schirra had remained in the program maybe he would have taken the spot, but
he'd likely be grounded too following Apollo 7. I'm guessing that maybe Deke
was anticipating being able to rotate someone from Apollo 7 as the backup
Cdr prior to the mission. Or was he planning to give Cooper a second-second
chance all along? If Schirra or Cunningham or Eisele had come off 7 smelling
of roses, would they have been given the slot instead of Hotdog?
Andy
Shepherd
was on ISS-1, the way he ran his team was really impressive. >>
We attended a banquet (April 15) in the civilian cosmonaut complex
(Khovanskaya) which followed a less-than-well-attended cosmonaut tennis
tournament (yes, I'm still going to post the trip report...I had said Monday,
but I didn't say WHICH Monday :-)), where a toast was made to Krikalev (who was
in attendance, looking rather fit); the essence of the (Russian) toast was:
"We all know who the REAL commander of Ex. 1 was--so let's toast to our
intrepid young cosmonaut Sergei Konstantin'ich, commander of Ex. 1, for his
efforts and for allowing the Americans to maintain the fascade that Shep was in
charge..." (and this guy was serious)
I "boycotted" the toast, but had to make a serious effort to resist loudly
voicing serious opposition to the suggestion....
Andy
"Gee, I thought we'd be alot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]
OM
...Hell, I'm still waiting for the updated _Red Star in Orbit_ :-P
Michael Cassutt
>> No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all
night before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. He
darned near took the tail off during prox ops with a satellite on 51-I. Once
he got beyond a one-page checklist he was over his head.
And Andre Lieven commented:
>Hmm... That strongly suggests that, on A17, Schmitt was by far a better LMP,
doesn't it ? <g>
>One might presume that Engle didn't get that bad, starting from 1973, yes ?
Well, it's a presumption, nothing more.
The sources I've asked -- all of whom were actually there -- say that, circa
summer 1971, there was simply no comparison between Engle's skills as an LM
pilot, including knowledge of the systems, and Schmitt's -- that Engle was far
superior in every facet of knowledge except geology.
They also admit quite freely that Engle could indeed have worked harder, and
struggled with certain parts of training, as did other astronauts.
Michael Cassutt
Michael Cassutt
because Slayton realized the Apollo missions were soon going to be launching
fast and furiously, and he wanted Stafford's crew --ostensibly assigned as
backups to 7, to start working toward their downstream flight on 10, doing
checkout on LM 5, from that point on.
There was no other veteran available for the backup commander role on 10 at
that time other than Cooper.
Michael Cassutt
Interim Books
>concluded. A poor way to use trained man-power imho.
Somebody has to back up. An untrained person in this slot just slows
everyone down.
D.
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
John Geenty
>
> The sources I've asked -- all of whom were actually there -- say that,
circa
> summer 1971, there was simply no comparison between Engle's skills as an
LM
> pilot, including knowledge of the systems, and Schmitt's -- that Engle was
far
> superior in every facet of knowledge except geology.
>
> They also admit quite freely that Engle could indeed have worked harder,
and
> struggled with certain parts of training, as did other astronauts.
>
> Michael Cassutt
Just out of interest, when all the '66 group were assigned various aspects
of the program to follow, what area was Engle assigned to? And when did he
specifically start training as an LMP? Was it a personnal decision for the
astronauts to decide if they would be LMP or CMP, or was it a decision taken
higher up? I would have thought that his pilot/engineering experiences from
the X-15 program would have made him very useful in a development and
testing situation, or did the X-15 part of his record simply lead people to
expect too much from him?
Andre Lieven
<vbg>
> John
Andre Lieven
> Jim Oberg noted, re Engle:
>
>>> No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all
> night before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. He
> darned near took the tail off during prox ops with a satellite on 51-I. Once
> he got beyond a one-page checklist he was over his head.
>
> And Andre Lieven commented:
>
>>Hmm... That strongly suggests that, on A17, Schmitt was by far a better LMP,
> doesn't it ? <g>
>
>>One might presume that Engle didn't get that bad, starting from 1973, yes ?
>
> Well, it's a presumption, nothing more.
Which is why I offered it, as a little extra. It wasn't related to my
original thesis.
> The sources I've asked -- all of whom were actually there -- say that, circa
> summer 1971, there was simply no comparison between Engle's skills as an LM
> pilot, including knowledge of the systems, and Schmitt's -- that Engle was far
> superior in every facet of knowledge except geology.
So, how is it that Schmitt all but ran off with this, by the time that
really counted, December 1972 ? The various quotes that have been posted
here suggested that Schmitt was second to no one in his LMP qualities by
the time of flight, which is the only real test.
> They also admit quite freely that Engle could indeed have worked harder, and
> struggled with certain parts of training, as did other astronauts.
But, did anyone have cause to say that about Schmitt ?
Andre Lieven
> Cooper was given the Apollo 10 backup commander job as early as April 1968
> because Slayton realized the Apollo missions were soon going to be launching
> fast and furiously, and he wanted Stafford's crew --ostensibly assigned as
> backups to 7, to start working toward their downstream flight on 10, doing
> checkout on LM 5, from that point on.
Nit pick... That was, of course, LM-4. LM-5 was A11's Eagle.
> There was no other veteran available for the backup commander role on 10 at
> that time other than Cooper.
I suppose that the fast and furious flight rate, coupled with the
training requirements for mission that differed from each other even
more then the successive Geminis had something to do with that.
Makes sense.
Graham Nelson
> Kraft just grinds away at
> Carpenter, to his own detriment.
Kraft argues that Carpenter was poor in training and preparation as well;
he puts the case persuasively, despite his rather suspect vehemence (one has
the impression that Kraft divides people into good guys - ex-military
types -
and bad guys - anyone German).
> Everyone agreed that Kraft had
> to have order and authority, but to can Cunningham after he put in tremendous
> effort trying to make it up to the program by working on Skylab, just wasn't
> right. Kraft has been quoted as saying words to the effect that it might have
> been an over reaction.
Kraft's memoirs actually accuse Slayton of exercising arbitrary power, but
Kraft himself also seems to admit that he went along with it. It's an opaque
paragraph or two.
--
Graham Nelson Oxford, United Kingdom
Graham Nelson
See, Jim, that's exactly why somebody ought to write a candid insider's
history of the early Shuttle programme...
JamesOberg
Put it on your Xmas 2002 list. 8-}
JamesOberg
summer 1971, there was simply no comparison between Engle's skills as an LM
pilot, including knowledge of the systems, and Schmitt's -- that Engle was far
Sounds right to me -- 1971, not 1981, recall.
OM
><...Hell, I'm still waiting for the updated _Red Star in Orbit_ :-P>
>
>Put it on your Xmas 2002 list. 8-}
...That's not the year Xmas comes on the 26th, is it? ;-P
OM
...Motion seconded. That's two Oberg clones in favor. Any others?
OM
<fair...@hurricane.net> wrote:
>> Eisele was just used to fill in dead-end slots until the program
>>concluded. A poor way to use trained man-power imho.
>
>Somebody has to back up. An untrained person in this slot just slows
>everyone down.
...Precisely. So, you stick the slower performer in the backup slot to
cover your ass. As long as he's qualified, it doesn't matter if he's
second-best just so he meets the criteria.
John Geenty
> >history of the early Shuttle programme...
>
> ...Motion seconded. That's two Oberg clones in favor. Any others?
>
>
> OM
I doubt I qualify, but my God I'd love to read such a book. *s*
John G
Justin Wigg
news:20010517145218...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
<snip>
> doing checkout on LM 5, from that point on.
Checking out LM-5? Do you mean LM-4 (Snoopy) or did the 10 crew actually
have some involvement with the development of LM-5 (Eagle)?
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com
Michael Cassutt
>Just out of interest, when all the '66 group were assigned various aspects of
the program to follow, what area was Engle assigned to?>
His initial technical assignment, circa September 1966, was to the AAP branch,
along with Anders, Lousma and a couple of others, under Al Bean.
> And when did he specifically start training as an LMP? Was it a personnal
decision for the astronauts to decide if they would be LMP or CMP, or was it a
decision taken higher up?>
He started working on the Apollo 10 support crew in April 1968, and was
assigned as an LMP in August 1969. Those decisions were made by Slayton and
Shepard.
>I would have thought that his pilot/engineering experiences from the X-15
program would have made him very useful in a development and testing situation,
or did the X-15 part of his record simply lead people to expect too much from
him?>
Most of the 19 astronauts in the 1966 group (13, if I recall correctly) had
test pilot backgrounds, so they were all pretty qualified for development.
Engle's X-15 background was envied and may very well have caused others to
expect more of him.
Michael Cassutt
Michael Cassutt
>So, how is it that Schmitt all but ran off with this, by the time that really
counted, December 1972 ?>
Ran off with what? There was no contest. Schmitt dug in and did an excellent
job getting ready for a flight that took place sixteen months after he was
assigned to the crew. We have no way of knowing how much better would Engle
have been -- even in geology -- with that much additional training.
>The various quotes that have been posted here suggested that Schmitt was
second to no one in his LMP qualities by the time of flight, which is the only
real test>.
I have seen a couple of quotes praising Schmitt's readiness. I haven't seen
any quotes comparing Schmitt to the theoretical readiness of any other
potential LMPs. This was a one-man race.
>> They also admit quite freely that Engle could indeed have worked harder, and
struggled with certain parts of training, as did other astronauts.
>
>But, did anyone have cause to say that about Schmitt ?
No one was asking, because Schmitt's skills, as of August 1971, were not the
issue, as long as they were adequate. His selection was political, dictated by
NASA H.Q.
Michael Cassutt
Michael Cassutt
>
Nit pick yourself. Until October 1968 and the cancellation of the E mission
(Borman's Apollo 9), LM-3 was assigned to McDivitt, LM-4 was assigned to
Borman, and LM-5 was Stafford's.
Michael Cassutt
Justin Wigg
Ah, of course. Now, when did SWIP take place? It was before 10/1968 wasn't
it? I'm just wondering if SWIP had whittled the weight of LM-5 down to
landing weight and therefore Stafford and Cernan could have been given the
'G' mission if necessary without having to change LMs...
LooseChanj
news:5ei8gt8kmtbf49til...@4ax.com...
> ...Motion seconded. That's two Oberg clones in favor. Any others?
I'll put my vote in, even though I'm also Gio Abrate.
--
OM
wrote:
...Nonono, we ran the genetic tests. Your DNA is from the top level of
slime, which means you and Geo share no genes whatsoever.
JO
LooseChanj
| ...Nonono, we ran the genetic tests. Your DNA is from the top level of
| slime, which means you and Geo share no genes whatsoever.
Whew, what a relief.
--
> </paranoia>
Do you really think it's a good idea *ever* to close a paranoia tag?
The Scarlet Manuka in ATSR
Darkhop Sr.
>
> Richard Glueck wrote:
> > Kraft just grinds away at
> > Carpenter, to his own detriment.
>
> Kraft argues that Carpenter was poor in training and preparation as well;
> he puts the case persuasively, despite his rather suspect vehemence (one has
> the impression that Kraft divides people into good guys - ex-military
> types -
> and bad guys - anyone German).
Except he'll give credit when & where he thinks it's due. Page 278,
about the SV: "Wernher von Braun built a masterpiece."
I re-read the parts about Carpenter yesterday, and whether or not his
interpretation of SC is loaded with some kind of bias, I wouldn't call
it grinding away. If he'd followed with gratuitous mentions of him in
parts of the book where he otherwise wouldn't be, then yeah, but he
doesn't. He puts down his recollection and moves on.
So if Kraft has an axe to grind, he knows how to hide it, by keeping
things simple & straightforward -- a very convincing way to write. All
autobiographies are suspect because humans can't help but develop their
biases to the point where some memories can become straight fiction, so
the grain of salt has to be there. Just saying that Kraft's excesses
don't come across as cut & dried as has been depicted here.
IMO!
/JSH
http://www.darkhop.com/
"Everything beeps now." --George Carlin
Interim Books
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:22:39 +0100, Graham Nelson
><gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>JamesOberg wrote:
>>> < Joe Engle was a fine X-15 pilot, and performed well on the shuttle.>
>>>
>>> No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all night
>>> before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. He darned near
>>> took the tail off during prox ops with a satellite on 51-I. Once he got beyond
>>> a one-page checklist he was over his head.
>>
>>See, Jim, that's exactly why somebody ought to write a candid insider's
>>history of the early Shuttle programme...
>
>...Motion seconded. That's two Oberg clones in favor. Any others?
>
Either that or get Dennis to split his into two or more volumes....
Trying to cram it all into one is only going to get worse as time goes
on.
Interim Books
wrote:
>As long as he's qualified, it doesn't matter if he's
>second-best just so he meets the criteria.
A very big point that too many in these groups miss. Not all astro's
can be Gus, or John, but if they weren't qualified, they wouldn't be
there.
[I've been in that position.. I was probably the heaviest FTB on the
'hog during the last half of my tour there. I was massively humbled
when I was transferred to instructor duty. Even though I more than
met the qualifications, I rated myself at just about the bottom of the
guys there.]
Michael Cassutt
>Now, when did SWIP take place? It was before 10/1968 wasn't it? I'm just
wondering if SWIP had whittled the weight of LM-5 down to landing weight and
therefore Stafford and Cernan could have been given the 'G' mission if
necessary without having to change LMs...
My guess, somewhat informed but lacking hard data this minute, is that it was
in summer 1968.
I suppose, yes, if Stafford-Cernan had wound up flying LM-5 rather than LM-4,
spacecraft weight would not have been a factor in keeping them from attempting
a landing. But there were several other reasons, such as the lack of landing
software, etc.
Michael Cassutt
OM
>I suppose, yes, if Stafford-Cernan had wound up flying LM-5 rather than LM-4,
>spacecraft weight would not have been a factor in keeping them from attempting
>a landing. But there were several other reasons, such as the lack of landing
>software, etc.
...So, from an FAQ standpoint, here's the official, formal answer to
the A10 Landing question: regardless of whether they had LM-4 or LM-5,
the landing could not have been accomplished at that time because the
landing software was not ready.
OM
OM
<fair...@hurricane.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 16:59:58 -0500, OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:22:39 +0100, Graham Nelson
>><gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>JamesOberg wrote:
>>>> < Joe Engle was a fine X-15 pilot, and performed well on the shuttle.>
>>>>
>>>> No he did not. He went out of control on STS-2 and decided to stay up all night
>>>> before the landing just to sightsee, so he had to land fatigued. He darned near
>>>> took the tail off during prox ops with a satellite on 51-I. Once he got beyond
>>>> a one-page checklist he was over his head.
>>>
>>>See, Jim, that's exactly why somebody ought to write a candid insider's
>>>history of the early Shuttle programme...
>>
>>...Motion seconded. That's two Oberg clones in favor. Any others?
>>
>
>Either that or get Dennis to split his into two or more volumes....
>Trying to cram it all into one is only going to get worse as time goes
>on.
...Heh, then again, if Asif can put out a book thicker than a Bible
with annotations, color maps, and the complete Cliff's Notes attached
- ergo, a book thick enough to kill a small child if it falls on one -
then he might just get away with one volume for another decade of
shuttle flights or so.
OM
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:14:44 -0500, OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com> wrote:
>
>>Adapted and altered - this ain't how it happened, so don't claim it
>>was or I'll sic Markus on you...
>
>And you don't want that. :)
...Especially since I have it confirmed he's not up on his shots.
Andre Lieven
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 17:02:47 -0500, OM <om@RE_MOVE_THIS.ccsi.com>
> wrote:
>>As long as he's qualified, it doesn't matter if he's
>>second-best just so he meets the criteria.
>
> A very big point that too many in these groups miss. Not all astro's
> can be Gus, or John, but if they weren't qualified, they wouldn't be
> there.
I kinda thought that that *was* my point all along.... <g>
> [I've been in that position.. I was probably the heaviest FTB on the
> 'hog during the last half of my tour there. I was massively humbled
> when I was transferred to instructor duty. Even though I more than
> met the qualifications, I rated myself at just about the bottom of the
> guys there.]
Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
LooseChanj
news:9e40n8$qan$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
| Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
Fat Tubby Bastard, I would imagine. However I have no idea if OM's parents
were married or not.
And, just because I'm feeling a little guilty about being so offtopic
lately:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35259,00.html
OM
wrote:
>"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:9e40n8$qan$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>| Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
>
>Fat Tubby Bastard, I would imagine. However I have no idea if OM's parents
>were married or not.
...They are, and you're dead. Write your will beforehand, please.
>And, just because I'm feeling a little guilty about being so offtopic
>lately:
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35259,00.html
...So, what was the fix for this one? Anyone have access to TechNet
that can look up that error?
Michael Cassutt
>So, from an FAQ standpoint, here's the official, formal answer to the A10
Landing question: regardless of whether they had LM-4 or LM-5, the landing
could not have been accomplished at that time because the landing software was
not ready.
Not only software, but a whole bunch of other procedures, according to Stafford
(and we were discussing this episode just the other day, for his book).
Michael Cassutt
OM
>OM noted--
>
>>So, from an FAQ standpoint, here's the official, formal answer to the A10
>Landing question: regardless of whether they had LM-4 or LM-5, the landing
>could not have been accomplished at that time because the landing software was
>not ready.
>
>Not only software, but a whole bunch of other procedures, according to Stafford
...Funny one about Tom Stafford: In high school, I did an oral report
on the months leading up to A11. Stafford was mentioned. Afterwards,
the teacher - a bit of a dingbat - asked if he was still recording
music.
"Recording music...???"
"Yes. Isn't he the Tom Stafford who recorded 'My Girl Bill' and
'Wildwood Weed'?"
Needless to say I never took another class from that ditz...
>(and we were discussing this episode just the other day, for his book).
...Any projected release date?
Jim Davis
>> [I've been in that position.. I was probably the heaviest FTB on the
>> 'hog during the last half of my tour there.
>Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
Fire Control Technician (Ballistic). Perhaps Derek can clear up something
for me. I never served on a boomer, my years in the Navy were on an attack
sub. Someone who had once told me that FTBs and MTs were permitted to sleep
on watch. That can't be right, can it, Derek?
Jim Davis
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On 16 May 2001 23:29:12 GMT, as...@aol.comno.spamx (Andy) wrote:
>
> ><< He hasn't been with NASA for awhile. I believe he's an exec with
Morton
> >Thiokol. >>
> >
> >Yes, he's president of Thiokol Propulsion (which belongs to Cordant
> >Technologies, IIRC). Retiring this year.
>
> ...Does he have at least $20M in pension to spare? :-)
>
There you go. That's how John Young should get back into space.... via
Soyuz!
LooseChanj
| >http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35259,00.html
|
| ...So, what was the fix for this one? Anyone have access to TechNet
| that can look up that error?
You know, I just noticed..."ms3.ost". Lemme guess...JV was mission
specialist 3? Never noticed that before. I guess there's a CDR.ost, a
PLT.ost, etc.
Technet is largely free, btw. M$ has actually done a halfway decent job
with their knowledge base, you can *find* the damn thing now anyway.
That said, my guess would be a corrupt file. Yeah, I know that's a stretch
on a windows machine, but without more info who knows? Hell, it might make
a difference if that was the first time they'd checked mail or not. This is
the only KB article on it:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/4/35.ASP
And we all know M$ error messages tell us *exactly* what the problem is.
Another possibility is that "ms3.ost" had been a carry-over from a previous
mission, not deleted, and just added to this other astronaut's mail profile.
But I can't imagine that being the case at all, unless it was an ODIN
laptop, in which case it would be highly likely.
Anecdote, one of my cow-orkers at KSC told me, about when he had the 24/7
crew support shift:
Astronaut: My flight simulator program is broken.
Cow-orker: So go *flying*.
Michael Cassutt
>...Any projected release date?
Next summer, from Smithsonian Institution Press.
Michael Cassutt
OM
...Will put it on my purchase list, especially if you include lyrics
to all his hit songs :-P
Terrell Miller
news:3B02FDFA...@saturn.caps.maine.edu...
> I ahve always championed Scott Carpenter, since only he and John Glenn
had
> any idea of what it felt like to sit on that missile and be propelled
outward
> into space. Carpenter was as enthused about spaceflight as the public,
and
> perhaps he saw the possibilities of the new environment well before Wally
> Schirra and the other engineers. The playground was hazardous and full of
> unknowns, and he probably shouldn't have exercised the autonomy he did
while in
> flight, but still think he got clobbered by people who wanted numbers
rather
> than a shared experience.
Enthusiasm and imagination are wonderful things, but when you're in an
inherently hostile environment where the margins are extremely small, and
where there is an enormous amout of national attention, effort and prestige
on teh line, then I think it's fair to expect that the people you select to
operate in that environment should exert their utmost to fulfilling the
mission and keeping their heads in the cockpit.
Carpenter didn't do that. Kraft is obviously biased against him, but he's
scrupulous to back up his allegations. Carpenter did in fact use way too
much fuel and get way behind the timeline chasing after the "fireflies",
which was an extremely childish (literally) thing to do. He failed to report
an instrumentation problem (easily fixable, and with potentially fatal
consequences) until right before reentry. And even after Scott finally
realized he was in serious trouble, he *still* kept maneuvering every which
way, joyriding. I think it's safe to assume that Kraft's discussion of the
actual events of Carpenter's flight (and his previous snafu's as a CAPCOM)
are accurate enough. If he erred any, it was in some of the sarcastic,
overly negative "taglines" that he used to lead into and out of that part of
the book (that chapter is titled "The Man Malfunctioned", which is
unneccessarily harsh--that kind of thing).
> In Gemini, he would have done well on one of the long
> duration flights, but not in a spacewalk situation.
Maybe as a right-seater with limited responsibilities, but not as a
commander. Can you imagine Carpenter being so filled with teh sensuwunda on
GT-V that he totally ignored the fuel cell situation? That was serious
enough with Gordo and Pete up there, but I get the idea the mission would
have been ended early if Carpenter had been in command, at which point he
may or may not have gotten into a nasty exchange with MOCR about not coming
back yet.
Same thing for A7 or Skylab. Carpenter as a single-seater or commander is
just not a good idea.
> Kraft just grinds away at
> Carpenter, to his own detriment.
No, I think he gave his honest, well-reasoned HO. Actually, I was surprised
at how objective the man has become (or how objective the ghostwriter
portrayed him). He went out of his way several times to give fair credit to
his other "enemies", esp. Von Braun, for the things they did well.
> > 4) Apollo 13 Cooper Or Shepard?
>
> It should have gone to Gordo
Not according to his contemporaries and many people here. Mike Collins
summed it up pretty well when he said that Gordo went downhill. Brilliant
flying on Mercury, OK on GT-V, after that he was over his head. Call it the
Peter Principle.
> > 5) Apollo 17 Cernan/Evans/Schmitt or Gordon/Schmitt/Brand
>
> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Exactly. There was no possible good solution to that one. Nomatter what Deke
did, somebody would have gotten screwed. And the decision to include Schmitt
in the first place was a side deal between NAS and NASA, it was totally out
of Deke's hands.
> It is remarkable to learn about the animosity that brewed within the space
> program. Lack of respect for each other, and downright hatred.
Pilots are by nature ultracompetitive long before they ever get to be pilots
in the first place. A couple of my high school mates fly for the Air Force,
and they were some of the most obnoxious, antagonistic people in school.
That's exactly the character traits the military selects for in pilots in
the first place.
Now ratchet that up by a factor of about ten for astros. No surprise that
htere should be infighting, the real surprise is that it stayed out of the
press for so long.
>I have often wondered why so many had second and third
> missions while other were just passed over.
Some of that was simply competence: some astros were simply better at
learning all the stuff necessary for spaceflight than others. Some of it was
just kismet and oversupply. If your good buddy from test pilot school was a
veteran astro, you had a friend at court and got an assignment. If nobody
knew who the hell you were, then you probably either never flew or had to
wait for STS.
--
Terrell Miller, Ordo Pantheris
terrel...@mindspring.com
"If organisms face the same old perils continuously, they blunder into a
1-way genetic cul-de-sac and lose their ability to adapt to new dangers"
-Pierre Ouellette
Michael Cassutt
>I think it's safe to assume that Kraft's discussion of the actual events of
Carpenter's flight (and his previous snafu's as a CAPCOM) are accurate enough.
If he erred any, it was in some of the sarcastic,
overly negative "taglines" that he used to lead into and out of that part of
the book (that chapter is titled "The Man Malfunctioned", which is
unneccessarily harsh--that kind of thing).
Perhaps not so safe. I had the chance to discuss Kraft's book not long ago
with one of his contemporaries, best unnamed (and not an astronaut), who found
the story of Carpenter's supposed screw-up in that capcom role to be completely
wrong. For one thing, the astronaut involved was Grissom. For another, the
job was impossible to accomplish as designed, and was changed as a result.
I don't have any information on this event, unfortunately. But if my source is
correct, it offers some support for the notion that Kraft may be a bit too
harsh on Carpenter. (There are a couple of outright mistakes in Kraft's book,
too, not that I'm anyone to be throwing stones... ;)
Michael Cassutt
OM
>I don't have any information on this event, unfortunately. But if my source is
>correct, it offers some support for the notion that Kraft may be a bit too
>harsh on Carpenter. (There are a couple of outright mistakes in Kraft's book,
>too, not that I'm anyone to be throwing stones... ;)
...This isn't the first time we've seen this happen. Borman and Cernan
have both shown a lot of derision towards Aldrin over the "Dr.
Rendezvous" debate, and McDivitt's never been too keen with Cernan
over the pre-A17 chopper mishap, while Cooper's pissed at everyone it
seems who was involved in keeping him grounded.
...Maybe it's time we did a canonical list of who hates who in the
Astronaut Corps :-(
Graham Nelson
> I don't have any information on this event, unfortunately. But if my source is
> correct, it offers some support for the notion that Kraft may be a bit too
> harsh on Carpenter.
I also suspect this of being true, but note that Carpenter himself,
out of his own mouth, confessed to having essentially failed on his
one and only mission. The chapter written by, or at any rate ghosted
from interviews with, Carpenter in "We Seven" is a rather elegant
mea culpa; I considerably warmed to Carpenter after reading it. But
he fully confesses to his faults.
What was new in Kraft's book was the suggestion that Carpenter's
apparently casual, distracted manner was directly life-threatening,
and that he was in an emergency situation but didn't realise.
--
Graham Nelson Oxford, United Kingdom
John Geenty
Probably not such a surprising thing really, Cernan himself writes that
McDivitt was in the camp that thought Dick Gordon's whole crew should fly 17
instead of Cernan and Evans with Schmitt. He was probably still sore over
that which coloured his views on Cernan and the accident.
Richard Glueck
out the way it was intended to go, but I do think that calling it a total fiasco is
wrong as well. He may not have used his time well, he may have been lax in
reporting serious, life threatening issues, but he was only the second American to
fly into orbit and was no doubt totally intrigues by his ability to footnote
history in this manner.
Inspite of the manifold problems with Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", when you
re-read his account of the Aurora 7 mission, it makes one reconsider every issue
discussed here.
I do believe that Kraft is honest in his perspective of Scott Carpenter, but I
think his vision may not be entirely without bias.
Mike, you're in a great position to contact and interview the man in question. I
don't think it would be too forward for you to talk to Scott Carpenter about his
career inside NASA. I know, I know...., one book at a time.
I'm very much interested in your Stafford biography. You do history a service by
talking to these people while they are living American treasures.
RDG
Colin Burgess
and is putting together his own autobiography. If so, it promises to be a
tremendous read if he gives it the right approach. What with Mercury,
Sealab, two near-fatal accidents, and the "cookies" it could be a very
entertaining and enlightening book. I've met Carpenter and discussed his
part in CapCom duties at Muchea in Western Australia, and he really is a
very nice and unassuming guy.
Andy
and is putting together his own autobiography. >>
I had breakfast w/ Scott on Tuesday, and we talked at some length about his
book (due out next June, BTW). He is writing it with his daughter. He stated: "
I wanted to write about my family, and in particular, my grandfather, who was
my hero. She wants to write about *her* hero (meaning him, Scott), and it turns
out that a major focus of the book will be my mother and her role in the family
(most of this based on an apparently large volume of letters that she wrote and
were recently discovered in a dusty attic.) "
So don't look for it to be an autobiography per se, but more or less about the
Carpenter family.
Andy
"Gee, I thought we'd be alot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]
Graham Nelson
> So don't look for it to be an autobiography per se, but more or less about the
> Carpenter family.
He's not related to _The_ Carpenters, by any chance?
Andy
nah, he's a terrible singer.
Interim Books
wrote:
>Interim Books (fair...@hurricane.net) writes:
>
>I kinda thought that that *was* my point all along.... <g>
>
Restating the obvious so that even Geo can't miss the point....
>> [I've been in that position.. I was probably the heaviest FTB on the
>> 'hog during the last half of my tour there. I was massively humbled
>> when I was transferred to instructor duty. Even though I more than
>> met the qualifications, I rated myself at just about the bottom of the
>> guys there.]
>
>Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
Fire Control Technician Ballistic Missile. (Or to be exact, I was a
3305: FT(B):Trident-I and Trident-I Backfit Operations and
Maintenance.)
Interim Books
wrote:
Not even *remotely* right! That may be jealousy speaking as FTB's and
MT's were about the only rates that could do much of their maintenance
and collateral duties while on watch, so we got a lot more movie/rack
time than most others.
Interim Books
wrote:
>On 18 May 2001 20:29:28 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>wrote:
>
>>Interim Books (fair...@hurricane.net) writes:
>>> [I've been in that position.. I was probably the heaviest FTB on the
>>> 'hog during the last half of my tour there. I was massively humbled
>
>>Question ? " FTB " ? " Fitness Training Boiler " would work... :-)
>
>Fire Control Technician Ballistic. Correct, Derek?
>^ ^ ^
Correct!
Interim Books
wrote:
>On 18 May 2001 18:49:35 GMT, cas...@aol.com (Michael Cassutt) wrote:
>
>>I suppose, yes, if Stafford-Cernan had wound up flying LM-5 rather than LM-4,
>>spacecraft weight would not have been a factor in keeping them from attempting
>>a landing. But there were several other reasons, such as the lack of landing
>>software, etc.
>
>...So, from an FAQ standpoint, here's the official, formal answer to
>the A10 Landing question: regardless of whether they had LM-4 or LM-5,
>the landing could not have been accomplished at that time because the
>landing software was not ready.
>
I'd double check Murray & Cox, but when did landing sims start?
D.
OM
<gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Andy wrote:
>> So don't look for it to be an autobiography per se, but more or less about the
>> Carpenter family.
>
>He's not related to _The_ Carpenters, by any chance?
...It would almost make sense.
OM
><< He's not related to _The_ Carpenters, by any chance? >>
>
>nah, he's a terrible singer.
...Yes, but does anyone have any tapes of Scott & Rene sitting on
hippie pillows, plucking away at folk songs?
Colin Burgess
won't get a full-blown autobiography it will still be interesting to read
something of his life and background. As you know, Scott's actually a very
gentle man (and gentleman) so it doesn't surprise me at all that he doesn't
want to use his book to lower the boom on a few of his contemporaries, but
he should take advantage - as he did with that recent letter to an editor -
to answer some freshly-raised criticisms of his performance. He was a man
chosen as a test subject to sit on top of a rocket - not to be an ersatz
Superman. He may have got a few things wrong, he may have been spellbound
by the view, he may have spent an unnecessary amount of time chasing Glenn's
"fireflies" (the public *was* demanding an answer to this), but he survived,
we learned a lot about spaceflight and spaceflight pressures from him, and
it was shown that emergency contingencies worked well and smoothly.
Andy
doesn't surprise me at all that he doesn't want to use his book to lower the
boom on a few of his contemporaries, but he should take advantage - as he did
with that recent letter to an editor - to answer some freshly-raised criticisms
of his performance >>
And Scott, unlike most of his contemporaries, seems to me simply uninterested
in talking about himself and his achievements (or lack of, depending on your
viewpoint). We sat for an hour and a half over breakfast and aside from the
conversation about the book, all he wanted to know was how *I* was doing,
expressed concern for *my* well being, wondering when *I'm* gonna get myself
married, how things are with *me....* Sheesh, like there aren't much more
interesting things to talk about!
My impression is that he isn't interested in putting out too much effort
refuting Kraft's opinions.
Nice to see you're around, Colin, where ya been?
Julian Bordas
Now that Dennis Tito has had his flight, I think that he qualifies for
membership of the space explorers club. Am I right?
Julian
Justin Wigg
news:3B09B6BE...@bigpond.com.australia...
Not if Walt Cunningham has anything to do with it. Right, Andy?
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com
Andy
for
membership of the space explorers club. >>
Just a nitpick, and perhaps it is semantics, but it is not a "space explorers
club." It is an "association of space explorers." There is a difference, again,
however semantic it may be.
To answer the question, yes, he qualifies, and he has been issued an invitation
to join. Whether he chooses to do so or not remains to be seen.
To respond to Justin's question, no individual member has much to do with
whether or not Tito becomes a member, short of registering their objections
(which have been duly noted). The charter spells out what the requirements are,
and Tito has fullfilled the basic eligibility criterion.
Julian Bordas
Andy wrote:
> << Now that Dennis Tito has had his flight, I think that he qualifies
> for
> membership of the space explorers club. >>
>
> Just a nitpick, and perhaps it is semantics, but it is not a "space explorers
> club." It is an "association of space explorers." There is a difference, again,
> however semantic it may be.
>
Thanks for the clarification. I was not sure of the correct name
Julian
Julian Bordas
Justin Wigg wrote:
> "Julian Bordas" <jbo...@bigpond.com.australia> wrote in message
> news:3B09B6BE...@bigpond.com.australia...
> > Hello
> > Now that Dennis Tito has had his flight, I think that he qualifies
> for
> > membership of the space explorers club. Am I right?
>
> Not if Walt Cunningham has anything to do with it. Right, Andy?
> --
Why Walt Cunningham?
Julian