Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LLTV as the Key to Landing Assignments

158 views
Skip to first unread message

Stuf4

unread,
May 27, 2001, 3:59:59 AM5/27/01
to
I would like to say hello to everyone.
I am new to Usenet and this is my first post:


* A HISTORICAL EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LLTV *

At the beginning of June 1969, there were a total of ZERO astronauts trained
to land on the moon. Neil Armstrong was able to finish training in time for
Apollo 11, but he had no fully trained backup. Not Jim Lovell. Not Buzz
Aldrin. Some speculate as to whether Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan could have
made the first lunar landing on Apollo 10. But even if they were given the
proper hardware (with the proper software) they were not trained either.

This particular training had been deemed so important that there had even been
plans to operate the training vehicle at KSC to optimize proficiency prior to
launch. The training I am referring to is the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle.
The Apollo program had a serious bottleneck that is not emphasized in any
historical account I have ever researched. There was more than a 13-month
period where no astronaut flew the LLRV/TV, from Armstrong's crash in LLRV#1
on 6 May 68, through LLTV#1's JP-4 tank explosion incident on 27 Aug 68, and
Joe Algranti's crash of LLTV#1 on 8 Dec 68 (that led to wind tunnel testing at
Ames) until more than a week after the flight readiness review (chaired by
Gilruth) on 31 May 1969. Armstrong completed LLTV training on 16 Jun 69, only
one month before the launch.

On 25 Jun 69, Dean Grimm was fired as program manager, but this didn't end
the problems as one of the legs on LLTV#2 collapsed on 14 Jul 69. Bell
Aerospace's maintenence responsibilites were terminated on 1 Sep 69. Also,
a third vehicle was destroyed on 1 Jan 71, leaving only one LLRV and one LLTV.

There were two distinct modes of flight for the LLTV. The basic mode was with
the engine gimbal locked. But in the gimbaled lunar sim mode, the engine was
kept pointed downward which allowed the vehicle to tilt at the greater angles
necessary in the reduced lunar gravity to achieve similar rates of translation.
The original proposal was for both CDRs and LMPs to have 11 fixed-gimbal
checkout flights and 29 flights in the lunar sim mode. But after the crashes,
the training requirements were scaled back to reduce the risk. At the end of
Apollo 12, just 8 astronauts had flown 88 LLRV/TV flights with only 28 of those
in lunar sim mode. The training requirements were later specified at 11
initial qualification flights and 11 flights in the lunar sim mode for the CDR
only. Aldrin was the only person to fly the LLRV/TV and then fly as LMP. But
with the 28 lunar sim flights going primarily to Armstrong and Conrad, neither
Aldrin nor Lovell were fully trained to land Apollo 11. Scott, as backup CDR
on Apollo 12, did not complete his training until 24 Apr 70, 5 months after
Apollo 12 splashed down. Alan Bean (and all subsequent LMPs) never flew the LLTV.

It was back in Dec 66 that three crews were selected for LLTV training. These
were Borman/Anders, Armstrong/Aldrin, and Conrad/Williams. At the time, Conrad's
crew was backing up Borman's and Armstrong's crew was not officially assigned.
There were several assignment changes that would be forced on Deke Slayton,
but this was the short-list of candidates to make the first landing.

The order that Slayton prefered these three crews is not entirely clear. But
way back at the beginning of the LLRV/TV program, it was Neil Armstrong who was
the one chosen to be the CB representative. Armstrong's involvement goes back
at least as early as the LLRV-DEI (Design Engineering Inspection) of 13 Aug 64
(Both Armstrong and Charlie Bassett were invited by the FRC director, Paul
Bickle, to this meeting). First flight of the LLRV occurred on 30 Oct 64.

~

Facts were collected primarily from the Woodson Research Center at Rice University
(boxes 44, 45, 46, 51, 52 and 53) with the assistance of Joan Ferry, 713-348-2586

Terrell Miller

unread,
May 27, 2001, 1:07:29 PM5/27/01
to

"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.01052...@posting.google.com...

> I would like to say hello to everyone.
> I am new to Usenet and this is my first post:

<snip a pretty damn good first effort :) >

>Aldrin was the only person to fly the LLRV/TV and then fly as LMP. But
> with the 28 lunar sim flights going primarily to Armstrong and Conrad,
neither
> Aldrin nor Lovell were fully trained to land Apollo 11. Scott, as backup
CDR
> on Apollo 12, did not complete his training until 24 Apr 70, 5 months
after
> Apollo 12 splashed down. Alan Bean (and all subsequent LMPs) never flew
the LLTV.

This was probably a combination of two things: the difficulties with the
LLTV program that you described, and the evolution of the mission rules.
There really would not be a reason for the LMP (despite the name) to know
how to land his craft. If teh CDR was for some reason unable to do so, the
situation was by definition so hazardous that an immediate abort would be
called for, not a continued landing attempt. So if Armstrong had become
incapacitated after PDI or if his controls somehow locked up, Aldrin
wouldn't even try to land, he'd just fly the LM back to rendezvous with the
CSM. And a LMP wouldn't need to ever set foot in a LLTV to be able to train
for that, he'd just need time in the LM simulators.

> It was back in Dec 66 that three crews were selected for LLTV training.
These
> were Borman/Anders, Armstrong/Aldrin, and Conrad/Williams.

I'm a little puzzled by this. Borman's planned Apollo 3 mission was an
Earth-orbit LM checkout, and at the time nobody knew how many of what became
the C, D, E and F missions would be required before the first landing, so to
give LLTV assignments to crews who were not guaranteed to need them seems a
bit odd.

Also, consider that in December '66 Aldrin had just rolled off a Gemini
assignment that was originally a dead-end backup slot for GT-X, and that his
first Apollo assignment was as BCDR (not BLMP) for A8, and it seems strange
that he'd have been paired with Armstrong for lunar-lander training in 1966.
(Only ways this would make sense would be a) because with the cancelled E
mission/move to C-prime without a LM that Aldrin's navigation expertise
would have been better served backing up the middle seat, so he temporarily
switched specialties, and/or b) Deke's pre-AS204 policy that the CMP on
early Apollo missions had to have flown before, which Fred Haise had not, so
Aldrin was forced to become the BCMP much as Collins was for A3).

Pete Conrad's crew (originally Gordon and Williams until CC died and was
replaced by Al Bean) wasn't even on the schedule for the first 3 (Earth
orbit) Apollo flights, so it would make more sense to consider them for
later landing missions, so the Conrad/Williams LLTV assignment makes more
sense.

--
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


Stuf4

unread,
May 27, 2001, 2:39:52 PM5/27/01
to
> a third vehicle was destroyed on 1 Jan 71, leaving only one LLRV and one LLTV.

CORRECTION:

The third crash occurred on 29 Jan 71 (with MSC pilot Stu Present).

*

This did not end the program since the training was considered essential.
Cernan flew the final flight on 13 Nov 72.

Other facts: Armstrong crashed on his 21st flight in the LLRV. At that time,
Conrad had 13 LLRV flights. Then there was the 13 month break. Armstrong's
first flight in the LLTV (first flight since his ejection) was on 14 Jun 69
and he got 8 flights (6 lunar sims) in 3 days (14 t/o & landings) for a total
of 29 LLRV/TV flights. Conrad resumed flights on 9 Jul and completed
his training on 26 Oct 69 with 14 flights since the break, for a total of
27 LLRV/TV flights.


~ CT

Stuf4

unread,
May 28, 2001, 2:45:18 AM5/28/01
to
> Terrell Miller:

"There really would not be a reason for the LMP (despite the name) to know
how to land his craft."

But 3 LMPs did start the training. It was apparently decided, at that point
in time at least, that the CDR should be a "redundant component" in order to
avoid having to abort a landing.

> TM:


"So if Armstrong had become incapacitated after PDI or if his controls

somehow locked up, Aldrin wouldn't even try to land..."

I would like to know what Aldrin's plan actually was if Armstrong had been
taken out of the loop. Buzz did have some training in the LLRV. It would be
interesting to learn how these scenarios played out in the simulator.

> TM: (re: Aldrin)
"...his first Apollo assignment was as BCDR (not BLMP) for A8..."

The post-fire crews were assigned with Armstrong-Lovell-Aldrin backing up
Borman-Collins-Anders on AS-505. Aldrin only switched to BCMP (never a CDR)
in the summer of 68 as fallout from Collins' neck surgery.

> > CT:

"These were Borman/Anders, Armstrong/Aldrin, and Conrad/Williams."

> TM:
"...nobody knew how many...missions would be required before the first landing..."
"...to give LLTV assignments to crews who were not guaranteed to need them
seems a bit odd."

I have my own ideas on how these crews were chosen, but I am still trying to
gather more evidence.

David Takemoto-Weerts

unread,
May 28, 2001, 11:08:15 AM5/28/01
to
Incidentally, LLRV #2 is currently displayed at the Dryden
Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB. I didn't see it at a tour of Dryden
in 1996, but it was shown to us on a tour last month (April). More info
at: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/LLRV/index.html

David Takemoto-Weerts
Davis, CA

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:46:11 AM5/28/01
to
In article <2cf0acb0.01052...@posting.google.com>,
Stuf4 <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...Neil Armstrong was able to finish training in time for
>Apollo 11, but he had no fully trained backup. Not Jim Lovell...

It was fairly clear by then that, realistically, the main purpose of the
backup crews was to get future prime crews into training early. Had it
actually been necessary to bring the Apollo 11 backup crew forward as
prime crew, the launch would certainly have been delayed. Indeed, it was
almost delayed as it was, not because of hardware problems but to give
more time for crew training.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)

Henry Spencer

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:50:09 AM5/28/01
to
In article <9ercks$ukd$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,

Terrell Miller <terrel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> It was back in Dec 66 that three crews were selected for LLTV training.
>> These were Borman/Anders, Armstrong/Aldrin, and Conrad/Williams.
>
>I'm a little puzzled by this. Borman's planned Apollo 3 mission was an
>Earth-orbit LM checkout, and at the time nobody knew how many of what became
>the C, D, E and F missions would be required before the first landing, so to
>give LLTV assignments to crews who were not guaranteed to need them seems a
>bit odd.

Bear in mind that Borman was Slayton's private #1 choice to fly the first
landing, to the point that Slayton intended to ignore the crew rotation if
necessary to put Borman into that slot. (That plan got scuttled when
Borman made it clear that he meant it about retiring after one Apollo.)

What's puzzling is that McDivitt -- Slayton's private #2 choice for the
landing -- wasn't on the list. But he may have been tied up trying to get
the first LM into shape for Earth-orbit testing.

Justin Wigg

unread,
May 28, 2001, 8:32:49 PM5/28/01
to
"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.0105...@posting.google.com...

> > TM:
> "So if Armstrong had become incapacitated after PDI or if his
controls
> somehow locked up, Aldrin wouldn't even try to land..."
>
> I would like to know what Aldrin's plan actually was if Armstrong
had been
> taken out of the loop. Buzz did have some training in the LLRV. It
would be
> interesting to learn how these scenarios played out in the
simulator.

I'd find it hard to believe that if either the CDR or LMP were
rendered unconscious or incapacitated somehow, that the landing would
still go ahead.
--
He who laughs last... | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
...thinks slowest. | Reply: justi...@yahoo.com


Greg D. Moore (Strider)

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:47:41 PM5/28/01
to

"Justin Wigg" <justi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9euqlc$1ev6m$1...@ID-71863.news.dfncis.de...

> "Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2cf0acb0.0105...@posting.google.com...
> > > TM:
> > "So if Armstrong had become incapacitated after PDI or if his
> controls
> > somehow locked up, Aldrin wouldn't even try to land..."
> >
> > I would like to know what Aldrin's plan actually was if Armstrong
> had been
> > taken out of the loop. Buzz did have some training in the LLRV. It
> would be
> > interesting to learn how these scenarios played out in the
> simulator.
>
> I'd find it hard to believe that if either the CDR or LMP were
> rendered unconscious or incapacitated somehow, that the landing would
> still go ahead.

There was if I recall at least one black zone where an abort was not
possible. If I'm remembering correctly, that's a case where they might have
wanted to be able to land.

Justin Wigg

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:54:53 PM5/28/01
to
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:h5EQ6.91569$f85.13...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...

> There was if I recall at least one black zone where an abort was
not
> possible. If I'm remembering correctly, that's a case where they
might have
> wanted to be able to land.

Yes, there was a "dead man's zone" during the final approach.
However, as the name implies, it was a short period where the LM was
so low that is the DPS engine quit, the LM would fall and impact the
lunar surface before the ascent stage engine could be ignited. From
memory, I believe it was below 200ft.

So there is no landing possible in that situation...

John Geenty

unread,
May 29, 2001, 3:29:23 AM5/29/01
to
>I'd find it hard to believe that if either the CDR or LMP were
>rendered unconscious or incapacitated somehow, that the landing would
>still go ahead.

What about a systems malfunction where the Cdrs controls either go dead, or
some aspect of flight control fails during decent, would not the LMP have to
take over then? Obviously such a failure would most likely lead to an abort,
but if the LMP took over quickly and there was no loss of control of the LM
itself, would a landing still go ahead in certain conditions?


Joseph Nebus

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:27:04 AM5/29/01
to
"John Geenty" <Jo...@geenty.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

>What about a systems malfunction where the Cdrs controls either go dead, or
>some aspect of flight control fails during decent, would not the LMP have to
>take over then? Obviously such a failure would most likely lead to an abort,
>but if the LMP took over quickly and there was no loss of control of the LM
>itself, would a landing still go ahead in certain conditions?

Well, I haven't got the flight rules memorized -- I am content
to bask in reflection of the glory of Henry -- my hunch is, in the
scenario you just posed, there's no way they'd continue the flight.

The overall rule for determining whether to abort a flight was,
roughly, "if the worst thing you can imagine happening next is still
survivable, continue; if it isn't, come home right away." So let's
say we're on the original Apollo 15, five miles above the surface, and
CDR Cooper's panel goes dead. Nimble-footed LMP Engle quickly switches
the controls over and resumes control. They radio back to Capcom
Dougherty and ask what to do now?

Flight Director Steve Bell talks it over with his staff quickly.
CMP's controls are gone. The worst thing that could image happening
next? LMP's controls dying too. Is this survivable? No. Sadly, Cooper
and Engle are ordered to abort, rendezvous with CMP Eisele, and head home.


Of course, specific circumstances might change things -- if this
were, let's say, Apollo 19 and the last of the Saturn V's that this was
happening on, and if the failure were of only one or two buttons on the
CMP's controls, or if Grummond was convinced the astronauts could very
easily fix it themselves by delivering the right Fonzie bop. Barring
good reason to think the CMP's console wasn't dead, though, I would
expect the landing to be aborted.

Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OM

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:52:32 PM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 07:27:04 -0400, neb...@rpi.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

>I am content to bask in reflection of the glory of Henry

...Oh boy, here we go again. Now we'll be getting submissions for the
"I Basked In The Glory of Henry Spencer" swim trunks and bikinis.


OM

-----= 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! =-----

Justin Wigg

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:09:55 PM5/29/01
to
"John Geenty" <Jo...@geenty.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9evj4v$h6f$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> What about a systems malfunction where the Cdrs controls either go
dead, or
> some aspect of flight control fails during decent, would not the LMP
have to
> take over then? Obviously such a failure would most likely lead to
an abort,
> but if the LMP took over quickly and there was no loss of control of
the LM
> itself, would a landing still go ahead in certain conditions?

As Joseph stated, I think they would abort. When you've lost
redundancy, it pays to get *very* cautious.

Interestingly, when the CDR and LMP from the original Apollo 15
backup/Apollo 18 prime crew (Gordon & Schmitt) were training in the LM
simulator, the simsups failed the CDRs flight controls to give Schmitt
some stick time. What did Gordon do? Pushed Schmitt out of the way
and took over the LMP controls himself before not so quietly
instructing the simsups to never try that again.

Now, this was with the non-fighter-jock Schmitt at the LMP post. I
wonder if Engle, Duke, Irwin, Mitchell, Haise, Bean or Aldrin would
have received the same treatment?

Ed Hengeveld

unread,
May 30, 2001, 1:53:10 AM5/30/01
to
tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote in message

> The Apollo program had a serious bottleneck that is not emphasized in any
> historical account I have ever researched.

Read my article on this very subject in the December 1992 issue of
"Spaceflight" (a publication of the British Interplanetary Society).
The title is "Lunar landing training was touch and go". An edited
version was printed in Quest a few years later.

Ed Hengeveld

Peter Smith

unread,
May 30, 2001, 8:52:23 AM5/30/01
to
"Justin Wigg" <justi...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> <snip> What did Gordon do? Pushed Schmitt

> out of the way and took over the LMP controls himself
> before not so quietly instructing the simsups to never
> try that again.
>
> Now, this was with the non-fighter-jock Schmitt at the
> LMP post. I wonder if Engle, Duke, Irwin, Mitchell,
> Haise, Bean or Aldrin would have received the same
> treatment?

The sims were mainly done in shirtsleeves. In the real situation,
suited up and strapped down, the 'push LMP out of the way' option would
not be so easy...

- Peter


Stuf4

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:11:56 AM5/31/01
to
> > CT:

"The Apollo program had a serious bottleneck that is not emphasized in any
historical account I have ever researched."

> Ed Hengeveld:

"Read my article on this very subject..."


It was several years ago that I researched the LLTV. Your article was like
an oasis in the desert of publications on the topic. But I was frustrated
by its lack of punch in conveying the criticality of the LLTV program.

Armstrong describes the LLTV as "very worthwhile" and he is quoted as saying
"...I'm very pleased that I've had the opportunity to get some flights in it
here just before the Apollo 11 flight". The article quotes Conrad saying,
"This is...the frosting on the cake as far as simulations are concerned."
I totally agree with the article when it talks about six flawless moon landings
where "The LLRV and LLTV programmes were absolutely essential to this record of
success." But this statement following the choice of quotes seems thoroughly
deflated. Frosting on the cake?!? These are very weak words that fail to
convey that LLTV training was INTEGRAL to the success of Apollo.

Armstrong himself tells how the LLTV was the ONLY training device that gave
him the confidence to maneuver around the boulder field at Tranquility Base.
If he hadn't learned how to fly the LLTV during those critical lunar sim
flights, Apollo 11 would quite possibly have ended in an abort or crash landing.
Conrad also gives heavy credit to his LLTV training for giving him the skill
to fly a precision landing, a major objective for Apollo 12 that would be
necessary for future landing sites.

Armstrong and Conrad paint a clear picture of LLTV training at this meeting
that was held after Conrad's return (Chris Kraft makes a plug for future
autoland capability, but the argument for the LLTV overrides him):

LLTV-FRRB 12 Jan 70, chaired by Gilruth
(distilled from over 12 pages of audio tape transcripts)

Conrad:
"...we are banking our whole program on a fellow not making a mistake on his
first landing. To build that confidence, I feel, we should continue to fly
the LLTV."
"...there is no replacement for that type of training."
"I could leave the Langley simulator out of it completely."
"If I were to go again tomorrow...I would fly the LLTV as close to flight
as practical..."
"I understand the problem of flying close to flight, but you only get one chance."
"I got the decided impression we might abort out of a possible landing situation
that could be avoided by a man having a little bit more confidence that you
would get out of Langley and the LMS but not having had the LLTV."

Armstrong:
"I agree with...all the points Pete's made."
//
"Our problem was getting into a small area. I felt that we would never find a
spot that was good enough to land in. That's a kind of problem that's impossible
to duplicate in the LMS, or in the LLRF. It's even that difficult to do in the
LLTV unless you sort of play the game to yourself, as you fly into a touchdown
area and you say no, I don't want to land there -- I want to land over there."

Gilruth:
"...it would give a real feeling of confidence."

Armstrong:
"It is the only device we've had."
//
"...you have to fly about half dozen lunar sims before you have really seen
everything that's happening. You are flying through it, but it's flying you
for awhile, unless you fly three flights, or beginning to fly it, by the time
you fly half dozen flights, you're flying the vehicle, going where you want to
go..."
//
Kraft:
"...if when you have this auto mode, I think it's going to make you feel a lot
more comfortable about landing sites."
//
McDivitt:
"Chris, that auto mode is not doing us much good. These guys just got through
discussing those auto modes and the complications in flying straight down with
it."

It is at this meeting where the decision is made to make completion of
LLTV training mandatory for all subsequent flights despite the high risk.


~ CT

Ed Hengeveld

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 3:52:58 AM6/1/01
to
> It was several years ago that I researched the LLTV. Your article was like
> an oasis in the desert of publications on the topic. But I was frustrated
> by its lack of punch in conveying the criticality of the LLTV program.


I admit that I had to do my research from this (the wrong) side of the
ocean, without access to all the important documents. JSC helped me a
great deal, but I was still somewhat limited in my scope of the entire
program. That is why your additional information is very interesting
to me.

I approached Pete Conrad at the time, who gave me the address of
program manager Dean Grimm. When I wrote to Grimm I never received a
reply. This makes sense when I read in your info that he was fired
from the program...

Ed

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 6:04:42 PM6/1/01
to
> Ed Hengeveld:
"I approached Pete Conrad at the time..."

Ed, were you able to get any more info from Pete Conrad on assignment
selection?

After Armstrong finished LLTV training, it was Conrad, not Lovell, who
was the next priority for the LLTV before the launch of Apollo 11.
This is a very strong indication that Conrad was the real backup for
Armstrong. I wonder if the backup plan was to swap in Conrad's whole
crew.

Your article also touches on the topic of how Armstrong and Conrad got
to be first and second. This is the area I would really like to
explore. The concensus in the history of Apollo seems to be that
Armstrong's assignment to Apollo 11 was more luck of the rotation than
calculated grooming and planning.

I refuse to accept that.


~ CT

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 1, 2001, 7:27:32 PM6/1/01
to
I've found the LLTV material to be fascinating and most informative.
However--

>[snippage] Your article also touches on the topic of how Armstrong and Conrad


got
>to be first and second. This is the area I would really like to explore. The
concensus in the history of Apollo seems to be that Armstrong's assignment to
Apollo 11 was more luck of the rotation than calculated grooming and planning.

>I refuse to accept that.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I have it straight from Deke Slayton, both
verbally and in writing, that after the Apollo fire he expected the crews
commanded by Borman, McDivitt or Stafford to have the best chance to make the
first landing. Conrad was definitely the next most likely candidate after
those four, especially if you had to make such a prediction in the summer of
1968.

In fact, the novelist Allen Drury (THRONE OF SATURN) was doing research at MSC
at this time, and was told by Slayton then that if Drury had to lock in a name
for the first man on the moon, it should be Conrad. (Drury's book was
published after Apollo 11, and he had time to change it to Armstrong.)

It's tempting to look at various astronaut technical assignments -- Armstrong
as lead for the LLTV, for example -- as hard and fast pointers to later flight
assignments, but it can be misleading. Frank Borman was given the lead for the
Block II command module in 1967-68 -- he didn't fly the first Block II mission.

Given that Armstrong was coming to Apollo relatively late -- indeed, at the
same time as Conrad, post Gemini-11 -- putting him on the LLTV was a natural
choice. The LM effort was being spearheaded by McDivitt, the CM would be
Borman. Stafford wound up as point man for the troubled software after the
fire (with Conrad as his deputy). Armstrong had more extensive experience with
funky vehicles like the LLRV/TV than the other guys, and was familiar with the
NASA development approach.

Armstrong was a much stronger candidate to be first on the Moon than many
astronauts, but in no way was he annointed. (Remember, also, that when he was
named commander of Apollo 11 there was no guarantee it would be the first
landing attempt.)

Michael Cassutt, co-author of DEKE!


Terrell Miller

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 11:52:53 AM6/2/01
to
"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.0105...@posting.google.com...

> > TM: (re: Aldrin)
> "...his first Apollo assignment was as BCDR (not BLMP) for A8..."
>
> The post-fire crews were assigned with Armstrong-Lovell-Aldrin backing up
> Borman-Collins-Anders on AS-505. Aldrin only switched to BCMP (never a
CDR)

...my bad <g>

> in the summer of 68 as fallout from Collins' neck surgery.

The only way that makes sense, though, is if it jibes with the first
scenario we looked at: by that time it was clear that LM-3 wouldn't be ready
in time, and by early August George Low had dusted off his plan to send A8
to teh moon, so Slayton figured he needed Aldrin's expertise backing up
Lovell, not Anders. Also, Haise probably wasn't as up to speed as he would
have been if he'd been in teh rotation all along, so instead of inheriting
the BCMP slot, he got the less rigorous BLMP spot.

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 2, 2001, 2:02:02 PM6/2/01
to
Terrell Miller noted, re the Apollo 9 (later 8) backup crew--

>The only way that makes sense, though, is if it jibes with the first scenario
we looked at: by that time it was clear that LM-3 wouldn't be ready in time,
and by early August George Low had dusted off his plan to send A8 to teh moon,
so Slayton figured he needed Aldrin's expertise backing up Lovell, not Anders.

Yes and no. Slayton had a firm rule at that time (indeed, through the first
manned test of the LM) that any CMP, prime or backup, had to be
flight-experienced. Aldrin was it.

>Also, Haise probably wasn't as up to speed as he would have been if he'd been
in teh rotation all along, so instead of inheriting the BCMP slot, he got the
less rigorous BLMP spot.

The conclusion is correct, but the assumptions are wrong. Haise was not only
"up to speed," he was considered to be one of the astronaut office's
specialists in the lunar module. And while the CMP job had its own special
demands, I don't think it's fair to say it was "less rigorous".

Michael Cassutt

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 12:13:23 AM6/3/01
to
> >CT:

"seems to be that Armstrong's assignment to Apollo 11 was more luck
of the
rotation"
"I refuse to accept that."

> Michael Cassutt:
"...I have it straight from Deke Slayton, both verbally and in


writing,
that after the Apollo fire he expected the crews commanded by
Borman,
McDivitt or Stafford to have the best chance to make the first
landing."


It was several years ago that the "Why Armstrong?" question first
wedged in my brain. Your post forced me to reexamine the
semi-satisfying answers that I settled on at the time. Last night I
got wound up to stay awake the entire night reanalyzing this issue.
One problem I had is that if Borman or McDivitt was a top choice then
why crew them with rookies? By sunrise I had worked out rudimentary
charts that, to my surprise, fit quite well with Deke's words. Here's
what I came up with:

SUMMARY OF MAJOR CREW CHANGES
(only showing Gps1,2&3)
No LM/
Apollo2 CNX AS-204 Fire neck surg
SEP 66 DEC 66 MAY 67 AUG 68

1-GriWhiCha 1-GriWhiCha - - - N-1 Failures
2ASchEisCun - - - C-SchEisCun C-SchEisCun
3- T B D 2BMcDScoSch D-McDScoSch C'BorLovAnd
4(McDScoSch) 3-BorColAnd E-BorColAnd D-McDScoSch 21 Feb 69
?(BorStaCol) ?(SchEisCun) F(StaYouCer) F(StaYouCer)
6- T B D 5(StaYouCer) ?(ConGorBea) !(Arm*Ald**) 3 Jul 69
(ConGorWil) ?(ArmLovAld) ?(ConGorBea)
(+11 more) 71
unassigned (ArmLovAld) 72
(Cooper) (Cooper) (Cooper)
(Bean)

? = Possible first landing attempt
! = Slayton has a good idea that this may be the first landing attempt


CREW RANK BY POST-GEMINI EXPERIENCE

TEST PILOTS in CAPS TOTAL TOTAL ASSIGN CDR/
(crew after 1 flt) RDZ FLTS FLIGHTS CYCLES BCDR + = b/u assig
will add exp
GRISS WHITE chaff 0(0-0-0) 3(2-1-0) 5(3-2-0) 1/2
MCDIV SCOTT schwe 1(0-1-0) 2(1-1-0) 2(1-1-0) 1/0
SCHIR EISEL cunni 1(1-0-0) 2(2-0-0) 4(4-0-0) 1/1
(SCHIR EISEL cunni) 1(1-0-0) 5(3-1-1) 7(5-1-1) 2/1
-BORMA COLLI ander- 2(1-1-0) 2(1-1-0) 5(2-2-1) 1/1
CONRA GORDO WL/BN 2(1-1-0) 3(2-1-0) 6+(3-2-1) 1/1++ (+Bean BCDR)
xBORMA STAFF COLLIx 4(1-2-1) 4(1-2-1) 7(2-3-2) 2/1
ARMST LOVEL aldri 4(1-2-1) 4(1-2-1) 9+(3-4-2) 2/3+
STAFF YOUNG cerna 4(2-1-1) 5(2-2-1) 8+(3-3-2) 2/0+
(MCDIV SCOTT schwe) 4(1-2-1) 5(2-2-1) 5(2-2-1) 2/0
(BORMA COLLI ander) 5(2-2-1) 5(2-2-1) 8(3-3-2) 2/1 (w CSM/LM flt)


By this ranking, weighing rendezvous experience higher than total
flight experience and higher than primary or backup crew assignment
cycles (*and ignoring a lot of other factors*), the Borman, McDivitt
and Stafford crews come out with the highest experience levels (after
Apollo 8 and 9 are flown).

*****

But there are still several pieces to the puzzle that don't fit so
well. It's hard to imagine that Deke's recollection of these
important crew decisions are inaccurate for any reason. Nevertheless,
here are the issues that I don't have satisfying answers to:

One popular theory is that Armstrong was first because he was a
civilian. Slayton outright denies this, but in one of Michael
Collins' books, he speaks of the interview process and he shares that
he expects Armstrong to be selected because of all of the civilians,
he has the best qualifications. This indicates that Collins knows
that NASA is specifically looking for a civilian. If this is true,
then what would be the reason? There may have been interservice
rivalry that pressured NASA to select some balance of Air Force, Navy
and Marines (why the Army never got in on the act is another question
I have never gotten answered - I would think that a helicopter test
pilot would be an valuable background for the LLTV and LM) but why
would NASA specifically want a civilian?

Everyone in Group 2 had gone to Test Pilot School except for the two
civilians, Armstrong and See (Armstrong did attend the civilian
National Test Pilot School AFTER he retired from NASA). Yet they are
both selected as commanders in the "sweet spot" of the Gemini
rendezvous missions. The only other rookie commanders in the class
were Borman and McDivitt, both graduates of TPS AND the new Aerospace
Research Pilot School and neither of those missions were scheduled as
rendezvous.

Cunningham and Schwickert are the civilians in Group 3, but they get
passed over for Gemini missions. They were hired with no flight test
background whatsoever (like four others in their class). Schweickert
seems less qualified than others as Slayton's pick on the first flight
test of the LM. It is possible that if Schweickert rotated to LMP for
the first landing mission that the decision could have been made for
the LMP to walk first (I am not convinced by Aldrin's story about the
hatch hinging one particular way. After all, they were scheduled for
a sleep period before the EVA. Upon working around from their
sleeping positions, I don't imagine that it would have been too
difficult a task to switch sides before going out).

And when Haise rose to the head of his class and gets their first
Apollo slot, did being a civilian help him get ahead of his seven
other ARPS/TPS classmates?

Back to Armstrong, how is it that he can fly into two near-fatal
mishaps, Gemini 8 and LLRV#1, and still get assigned as an Apollo CDR?
No matter how sanitized the accident boards may have been, I imagine
that Slayton questioned Armstrong's actions.

*****

There are so many angles. When they are all examined, I will probably
decide to just take Slayton at his word.


~ CT

Dave Michelson

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 12:35:58 AM6/3/01
to
Stuf4 wrote:
>
> This indicates that Collins knows that NASA is specifically
> looking for a civilian.

I suggest that you're reading too much into the remark. IMHO, Collins
was expressing the opinion that *if* a civilian is accepted, it will
likely be Armstrong "because of all of the civilians, he has the best
qualifications".

This does not indicate that NASA is specifically looking for a civilian.

--
Dave Michelson
dmich...@ieee.org

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 7:20:05 AM6/3/01
to
> Everyone in Group 2 had gone to Test Pilot School except for the two
> civilians, Armstrong and See (Armstrong did attend the civilian
> National Test Pilot School AFTER he retired from NASA).

I was under the impression that onw of the entry requirments for Group 2 was
that they had to be test pilots. I didn't think it was possible to be a test
pilot without attending test pilot school. If it is possible without Test
pilot school, what is the point of asking for test pilots, any Joe soap
could claim to have the qualifications. And given Armstrong's work at
Edwards on the F-100, F-101 and F-104, X-20 and X-15, everyone else seemed
to think he was a test pilot. Did he really never attend a test pilot
course?

>Yet they are
> both selected as commanders in the "sweet spot" of the Gemini
> rendezvous missions. The only other rookie commanders in the class
> were Borman and McDivitt, both graduates of TPS AND the new Aerospace
> Research Pilot School and neither of those missions were scheduled as
> rendezvous.

The first five Gemini missions were regarded by Slayton as needing hand
picked crews, the five after that being more or less identical. McDivitt was
given GT4 since Slayton wanted a 62 astronaut with some early command
experience. Borman was given GT7 (one of the most dreaded assignments) since
it was felt he could tough out a long duration mission. Armstrong and See
actually missed out on the early missions and by the time they flew had the
best of the '63 astronauts with them. It was only due to the changes with
GTA-6 that Armstrong's flight becomes the first docking in space. The real
'sweet spot' flights of Gemini, as far as test pilots were concerned were
GT3 and GTA6, both taken by Mercury guys. True, many would have probably
prefered GT8 over a duration flight, but it still meant that by the time
they flew, Armstrong and See were last in line of their group and would miss
out both on a second Gemini mission and the early Apollo flights. They
hardly had the best deal. And its worth remembering that Deke had real
concerns about See and only gave him GT9 since he didn't think Elliot could
handle an EVA on GT8. Its also fairly clear that Slayton had no plans for
See beyond a deadend backup slot at the end of Gemini, he wasn't being
groomed for anything.

> Cunningham and Schwickert are the civilians in Group 3, but they get
> passed over for Gemini missions. They were hired with no flight test
> background whatsoever (like four others in their class). Schweickert
> seems less qualified than others as Slayton's pick on the first flight
> test of the LM.

Both Cunningham and Schwickert had both been military pilots, they certainly
weren't civilians in the true sense of the word (as in England or Schmitt).
Their lack of test pilot background was made up by better academic
qualifications, something planned for in the hiring process. The Group 3
guys were basically split in two. The first group with test pilot experience
(Scott, Bassett, Collins, Gordon and Cernan who is odd man out) were given
the Gemini slots to prepare them for work as Apollo CMPs where they would
have to fly solo. The engineering and research guys were seen as better used
on the development side of Apollo and as support for a Cdr in the LM. When
the McDivitt/Scott/Schweickert crew was put together at the end of '65 they
had been following Group 3 astronauts for several years and clearly it was
felt that Rusty was more than up to the task.

>It is possible that if Schweickert rotated to LMP for
> the first landing mission that the decision could have been made for
> the LMP to walk first (I am not convinced by Aldrin's story about the
> hatch hinging one particular way. After all, they were scheduled for
> a sleep period before the EVA. Upon working around from their
> sleeping positions, I don't imagine that it would have been too
> difficult a task to switch sides before going out).

The whole idea that NASA was planning to have a civilian made the first
steps doesn't fly for me. If that was what they really wanted, they would
probably have stuck Armstrong on an early Gemini mission and put in directly
into Apollo after that so that he could be in line for an early mission.
Slayton had no problem placing the Borman or McDivitt crew into the first
landing spot if either of them had accepted it. He even offered A11 to
Borman's crew following A8. Its also worth remembering that if Grissom had
lived, he would almost beyond doubt have commanded the first landing.

> And when Haise rose to the head of his class and gets their first
> Apollo slot, did being a civilian help him get ahead of his seven
> other ARPS/TPS classmates?

Well, obviously I don't know what was going on in Slayton's head, but he
never mentions the civilian part as being important. All I've ever read or
heard about Fredo simply states he was one of, if not the, top guy in his
class. He knew the LM like the back of his hand and Deke had no concerns
about making him BLMP for Apollo 8 and Apollo 11. Fredo would also have been
the first guy in his class to get a command on A19, but I don't think its
due to civilian status. Brand, Lind and Swigert were civilians too and it
didn't help them get into prime spots.

> Back to Armstrong, how is it that he can fly into two near-fatal
> mishaps, Gemini 8 and LLRV#1, and still get assigned as an Apollo CDR?
> No matter how sanitized the accident boards may have been, I imagine
> that Slayton questioned Armstrong's actions.

Grissom's problems on MR-4 didn't stop him getting GT3 and then Apollo 1 as
well as a possible first landing. In many ways I think Armstrong's actions
on GT8 probably enchanced his reputation, since he saved the mission and got
the ship back safely. It wasn't pilot error, it was a malfunction. GT8 also
didn't stop Dave Scott's career either. Many of the astronauts got into
problems on the ground, involving helicopter crashes, sports accidents, and
it never did them any harm.

> There are so many angles. When they are all examined, I will probably
> decide to just take Slayton at his word.

There is a temptation I think to believe that it was a plan to get Armstrong
on the moon first, due to the fact that he seems to come out of nowhere to
take the grand prize. Many of the other astronauts seem to be mentioned as
early candidates for the first landing, Grissom, McDivitt, Conrad, Borman,
Stafford...nobody mentions Armstrong who in many ways was the least
experienced CDR. But when you look at the details, it seems almost
impossible to plan to put anyone one person on the moon first given all the
accidents and twists dealt by fate. Lets face it, without the Apollo 8/9
swap in the bottom half of '68 Pete Conrad would have been first man on the
moon with his all navy, all military crew.


Terrell Miller

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 11:19:10 AM6/3/01
to
"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.01060...@posting.google.com...

<snip>


> that NASA is specifically looking for a civilian. If this is true,
> then what would be the reason?

Several possible political reasons. First, NASA was trying like hell to keep
their independence and not get pushed around by the Pentagon. Second, there
was the need to demonstrate that America's space program (as opposed to the
Sovs) was a totally peaceful and public thing, and having a few civilian
astros was part of that.

> There may have been interservice
> rivalry that pressured NASA to select some balance of Air Force, Navy
> and Marines

Definitely. Just in the first group alone you have three USAF (Grissom,
Slayton, Cooper), three USN (Shepard, Schirra, Carpenter) and a Marine
(Glenn). Group 2 was again pretty even: 4 USAF (McDivitt, White, Borman,
Stafford), 3 USN (Young, Lovell, Conrad), and 2 civilian (Armstrong and
See). Same for Group 3: 6 USAF (Bassett, Aldrin, Collins, Eisele, Scott,
Freeman), 4 USN (Gordon, Bean, Cernan, Chaffee), a Marine (Williams), and 3
civvies (Schweickart, Anders, Cunnungham). Definitely looks like they were
trying to make each branch as happy as possible.

> (why the Army never got in on the act is another question
> I have never gotten answered - I would think that a helicopter test
> pilot would be an valuable background for the LLTV and LM)

Remember that the first three groups were selected by October of 1963, a
long time before Gemini even. We hadn't done anything more than send one man
at a time up into LEO, with no ability to maneuver. Nobody had a really
clear idea what would be required to succeed in spaceflight, let alone a
lunar landing. It was felt that piloting jets was the closest experience in
terms of rigorous training and mission complexity. Helo drivers have always
gotten less acclaim than they deserve (takes a lot more physical
coordination than fixed-wing, for starters), but again the thinking was that
it was better to take jet pilots and train them to fly helos (if necessary)
than the other way around. Landing on the moon is a crucial part of the
journey, but first you have to get there, and to handle all the spacecraft
systems, NASA felt that jet jocks were a safer bet.

<snip>


> both selected as commanders in the "sweet spot" of the Gemini
> rendezvous missions. The only other rookie commanders in the class
> were Borman and McDivitt, both graduates of TPS AND the new Aerospace
> Research Pilot School and neither of those missions were scheduled as
> rendezvous.

GT-IV was. McDivitt tried to rendezvous (but not dock) with his Titan
booster, which was when NASA collectively learned that orbital mechanics are
entirely different from flying an aircraft rendezvous. McDivitt just pointed
the nose of his Gemini at the booster and fired his thrusters, and couldn't
quite figure out why he was getting further away from his target.

<snip>


>It is possible that if Schweickert rotated to LMP for
> the first landing mission that the decision could have been made for
> the LMP to walk first (I am not convinced by Aldrin's story about the
> hatch hinging one particular way. After all, they were scheduled for
> a sleep period before the EVA. Upon working around from their
> sleeping positions, I don't imagine that it would have been too
> difficult a task to switch sides before going out).

The LM was cramped to begin with. Now imagine two guys in bulky spacesuits
(which they wore the whole time between entering and leaving Eagle) in
microgravity trying to maneuver around each other and not poke a hole in the
cabin walls. Not likely. I'd imagine that anytime one of the crew was doing
anything more than working on his side of the cabin, then the other guy
would have to be as still as possible and concentrate on staying out of the
way. Possible, but that introduces too many variables.

Couple other reasons why Aldrin didn't go out first: even though NASA was a
civilian agency and the Astrinaut Office scrupulously avoided a lot of the
military trappings, there was still an ingrained belief in the chain of
command. Going over the boss's head (which is what Aldrin did) is a very
serious thing, and I'd imagine Buzz pissed off quite a few people. Also,
bear in mind that NASA was a very pragmatic, mission-focused organization. I
can imagine people being a little suspicious of Aldrin's interest in the
spirituality of the first landing. Neil wasn't the type to wax mystical and
philosophical about the mysteries of the cosmos and God's Eternal Verities,
but maybe they worried that Buzz would get a little carried away in front of
a large percentage of the human race.

> Back to Armstrong, how is it that he can fly into two near-fatal
> mishaps, Gemini 8 and LLRV#1, and still get assigned as an Apollo CDR?
> No matter how sanitized the accident boards may have been, I imagine
> that Slayton questioned Armstrong's actions.

As others have mentioned, Armstrong didn't "fly into" anything. He had
nothing to do with the stuck thruster on his Gemini or the malf on the
flying bedstead. If anything, he earned credit for keeping calm and
surviving both accidents.

Terrell Miller

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 11:26:44 AM6/3/01
to
"Michael Cassutt" <cas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010601192732...@ng-fz1.aol.com...

> In fact, the novelist Allen Drury (THRONE OF SATURN) was doing research at
MSC
> at this time, and was told by Slayton then that if Drury had to lock in a
name
> for the first man on the moon, it should be Conrad. (Drury's book was
> published after Apollo 11, and he had time to change it to Armstrong.)

God, I'd forgotten about that one! The most negative, depressing, cynical
novel I've ever read, with teh possible exception of "Bonfire Of the
Vanities". Yecch.

> Armstrong was a much stronger candidate to be first on the Moon than many
> astronauts, but in no way was he annointed. (Remember, also, that when he
was
> named commander of Apollo 11 there was no guarantee it would be the first
> landing attempt.)

Or indeed, when he was named BCDR of A9/8.

Henry Spencer

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 1:42:13 PM6/3/01
to
In article <9fd6kl$p48$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John Geenty <Jo...@geenty.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>...Lets face it, without the Apollo 8/9

>swap in the bottom half of '68 Pete Conrad would have been first man on the
>moon with his all navy, all military crew.

In fact, Michael Collins observed, at the time the Apollo 11 crew was
selected, that 11 had only about a 50% chance of being the first landing
attempt. He thought there was a slight possibility that NASA might try to
hurry things along and have 10 land, and a very good chance that the LM
would make enough trouble that the landing would be postponed to 12.

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 6:20:00 PM6/3/01
to
Stuf4 and others have raised a bunch of great points here, and I'm going to try
to respond, though it will be piecemeal:

(The charts came out a little funny in my newsgroup reader, so I'll have to
take a look at them after re-formatting....)

>One problem I had is that if Borman or McDivitt was a top choice then why crew
them with rookies?>

They weren't crewed with rookies. Borman had the very experienced Stafford and
the GT-10 veteran Collins as CMP on both crews. McDivitt had GT-8 vet Scott on
his. The LMP slots (Collins, Anders, Schweickart) didn't require flight
experience at this time, according to Deke's working rules.


By sunrise I had worked out rudimentary charts that, to my surprise, fit quite
well with Deke's words.

>One popular theory is that Armstrong was first because he was a civilian.

Slayton outright denies this, but in one of Michael

Collins' books [snippage]..

As is noted further down the threat, I think you're reading too much into
Collins' statement. NASA made a point of opening up the astronaut selections
to civilians for 1962, and there were, I believe, only 5 civilians who made it
to the group of 32 (or so) finalists. NASA had originally wanted to select
astronauts from a much broader pool than the military test pilot group imposed
by Pres. Eisenhower. This was a first step away from that stricture.

>There may have been interservice
>rivalry that pressured NASA to select some balance of Air Force, Navy

>and Marines [...]

At some point in the selection process it always came up, certainly, though
usually above Slayton's level. As in someone from H.Q., knowing that NASA
needed to keep the services happy and supportive, reminding Deke to make sure
he didn't ignore the Navy, for example.

>[...] (why the Army never got in on the act is another question I have never


gotten answered - I would think that a helicopter test pilot would be an
valuable background for the LLTV and LM) but why would NASA specifically want a
civilian?

Slayton didn't want anyone who wasn't a fighter pilot -- again, not to fly the
mission. (Logic certainly suggests that a helicopter pilot would indeed have a
natural affinity for lunar landings.) Astronauts were selected as much for
their skills as development test pilots as for any perceived skills on a future
mission. After all, most of the career was training and support work, not
flying in space. Going back and forth between Houston, St. Louis, Boston and
the Cape without having to rely on commercial transport was one of the tangible
reasons Slayton favored fighter pilots. (There were undoubtedly intangibles,
too.)

NASA was a civilian agency; its predecessor, N.A.C.A., used its own small group
of test pilots. Call it institutional bias. (Don't forget that all of the
military astros were detailed to NASA for three years at a time, and could have
been yanked away in the middle of a program, had the Pentagon so desired.)

>Everyone in Group 2 had gone to Test Pilot School except for the two

>civilians, Armstrong and See (Armstrong did attend the civilianNational Test


Pilot School AFTER he retired from NASA). Yet they are both selected as
commanders in the "sweet spot" of the Gemini rendezvous missions. The only
other rookie commanders in the class were Borman and McDivitt, both graduates
of TPS AND the new Aerospace Research Pilot School and neither of those
missions were scheduled as rendezvous.>

See was originally assigned as a pilot; he only got "promoted" to commander of
GT-9 because Slayton harbored doubts about his ability to withstand the
physical rigors of EVA. It was hardly a "sweet" spot.

Borman and McDivitt were expected to fly early Gemini missions, move into
Apollo CSM and LM development, and gain rendezvous experience in early Apollo
missions.

>Cunningham and Schwickert are the civilians in Group 3, but they get passed
over for Gemini missions. They were hired with no flight test background
whatsoever (like four others in their class). Schweickert seems less qualified
than others as Slayton's pick on the first flight
test of the LM. It is possible that if Schweickert rotated to LMP for
the first landing mission that the decision could have been made for the LMP to
walk first (I am not convinced by Aldrin's story about the hatch hinging one
particular way. >

I cannot imagine a scenario in which an astronaut office under Slayton and
Shepard would have allowed Schweickart to take the first steps on the Moon.
Schweickart and Cunningham were considered, along with Aldrin, to be "quasi"
scientists, and assigned development jobs that fit that under appreciated role.
Aldrin got assigned to Gemini rather than Apollo because of his knowledge of
rendezvous.

<[...] After all, they were scheduled for a sleep period before the EVA. Upon


working around from their sleeping positions, I don't imagine that it would
have been too difficult a task to switch sides before going out).

Mission planning had a sleep period preceding EVA, but nobody expected the
astronauts to wait.

>And when Haise rose to the head of his class and gets their first Apollo slot,
did being a civilian help him get ahead of his seven other ARPS/TPS classmates?

No. Haise and Mitchell seem to have ranked about the same as LM specialists,
with Irwin and for a while, Bull, close behind. If Haise had any advantage
being a civilian, it was that because he was a NASA employee prior to joining
the astronaut office, he had less of an adjustment to make to the agency's way
of doing business.

>Back to Armstrong, how is it that he can fly into two near-fatal
>mishaps, Gemini 8 and LLRV#1, and still get assigned as an Apollo CDR?
> No matter how sanitized the accident boards may have been, I imagine
>that Slayton questioned Armstrong's actions.

Not really. He gave Armstrong comand of Apollo 11 when he had a total time in
space of about 8 hours, much less than either of his crew mates. Had Deke
harbored doubts about Armstrong's abilities, he would have been insane to
entrust the first landing -- or any Apollo mission -- to him.

Michael Cassutt

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 6:27:47 PM6/3/01
to
John Geenty noted:

>I was under the impression that onw of the entry requirments for Group 2 was
that they had to be test pilots. I didn't think it was possible to be a test
pilot without attending test pilot school. If it is possible without Test pilot
school, what is the point of asking for test pilots, any Joe soap could claim
to have the qualifications. And given Armstrong's work at Edwards on the F-100,
F-101 and F-104, X-20 and X-15, everyone else seemed to think he was a test
pilot. Did he really never attend a test pilot course?

As you say, any Joe Soap could claim to be a test pilot -- if you're hired as a
test pilot by an aircraft company, that's what you are.

That's why Slayton and others reviewed the applications. Some commercial or
government test pilot work qualified, some did not. Armstrong had been hired
by N.A.C.A. in the 1950s as a flight test engineer, had become a test pilot
with the agency, and by 1962 had worked in that capacity for six years or so.
He had not graduated from a test pilot school, but that wasn't a requirement.

Michael Cassutt

OM

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 8:50:05 PM6/3/01
to
On 03 Jun 2001 22:27:47 GMT, cas...@aol.com (Michael Cassutt) wrote:

> Armstrong had been hired
>by N.A.C.A. in the 1950s as a flight test engineer, had become a test pilot
>with the agency, and by 1962 had worked in that capacity for six years or so.
>He had not graduated from a test pilot school, but that wasn't a requirement.

...And the fact that he *did* fly the X-15 may have had something to
do with it, no? :-)

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 3, 2001, 11:54:17 PM6/3/01
to
To continue with Stuf4's chart--

>SUMMARY OF MAJOR CREW CHANGES (only showing Gps1,2&3)
> No LM/
> Apollo2 CNX AS-204 Fire neck surg
>SEP 66 DEC 66 MAY 67 AUG 68
>
>1-GriWhiCha 1-GriWhiCha - - - N-1 Failures
>2ASchEisCun - - - C-SchEisCun C-SchEisCun
>3- T B D 2BMcDScoSch D-McDScoSch C'BorLovAnd
>4(McDScoSch) 3-BorColAnd E-BorColAnd D-McDScoSch 21Feb69
>?(BorStaCol) ?(SchEisCun) F(StaYouCer) F(StaYouCer)

>6- T B D 5(StaYouCer) ?(ConGorBea) !(Arm*Ald**) 3Ju 69
> (ConGorWil) ?(ArmLovAld) ?(ConGorBea)

I chopped off the bottom third of this, because the spacing in my newsreader
made it hard to understand.

This looks logical, but isn't necessarily what was under discussion. For
example, Baseline SEP 66 should read:

# Prime Backup Type of Mission
1-GriWhiCha McDScoSch Block I
2-SchEisCun BorStaCol Block I
3-McDScoSch Block II w/first LM
4-BorStaColl Block II w/LM
5-Gri w/CMP-LMP

The three-flight rotation that Deke developed for Gemini was never really
intended to carry beyond that program: it only came about because a Gemini
mission seemed to require 6 months of specific crew training, and the missions
were being launched every two months.

Think of the Block I missions as anomalies, and consider that McDivitt's crew
was going to fly that first LM no matter what. And that Grissom was unlikely
to be offered, or accept, a backup spot. Which is why the DEC 66 lineup is
more likely:

# Prime Backup Type of Mission
1-GriWhiCha SchEisCun Block I
2-McDScoSch StaYngCer Block II w/first LM
3-BorColAnd ConGorWms Block II w/LM
4-GriLovEis ArmWhiBean Block II w/LM

Or something like that.

It's an amusing game, but there is a limit to how close you can ever come. I
became privy to a lot of Deke's thinking, but by no means all of it. And there
were larger scheduling questions that would have affected all of the Apollo
crew assignments.

Michael Cassutt


OM

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 3:54:17 AM6/4/01
to
On 04 Jun 2001 03:54:17 GMT, cas...@aol.com (Michael Cassutt) wrote:

>I chopped off the bottom third of this, because the spacing in my newsreader
>made it hard to understand.

...Thank you! I was just about to start lining things up so they made
sense and reposting it.

># Prime Backup Type of Mission
>1-GriWhiCha SchEisCun Block I
>2-McDScoSch StaYngCer Block II w/first LM
>3-BorColAnd ConGorWms Block II w/LM
>4-GriLovEis ArmWhiBean Block II w/LM

^^^
|||

...I guess this brings us to Eisele's fate in the "no A1 fire" ATL.
Michael, what's your take on Eisele's overall performance prior to the
fire? Was his slacking off occurring before A1, or do we see this only
after the shakeups caused by the A1 shock and his subsequent divorce?
Considering the time frame, I'm doubtful Eisele would have been in the
CMP slot at least due to his divorce situation.

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 5:18:02 AM6/4/01
to
> ...I guess this brings us to Eisele's fate in the "no A1 fire" ATL.
> Michael, what's your take on Eisele's overall performance prior to the
> fire? Was his slacking off occurring before A1, or do we see this only
> after the shakeups caused by the A1 shock and his subsequent divorce?
> Considering the time frame, I'm doubtful Eisele would have been in the
> CMP slot at least due to his divorce situation.
>
> OM

I think another important point for consideration in an ATL setting with no
Apollo 1 fire, is the fate of Wally Schirra. Deke seems to have made it very
clear that he had no intension of advancing Wally's crew to a Lunar landing
slot, they were only set to fly a CSM test. With the original Apollo 2
cancelled, he was left backing up Grissom. Given the fact that Gus was
almost certainly going to advance directly to another prime slot, and that
his crew wasn't in line for any other Apollo flight, would Wally have just
retired after the BCDR job? A couple of sources I've read have suggested
that Wally was pretty bored with it all after GT6, so would he be happy
waiting for an Apollo flight later on down the line in the distant future,
maybe after yet another backup job? Personally I think Schirra would have
simply retired after A1 and the only guy to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
would have been Gus Grissom.

John

Darkhop Sr.

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 10:03:13 AM6/4/01
to
Michael Cassutt wrote:

> Michael Cassutt, co-author of DEKE!

Hey, I just bought that book on Saturday. Almost 3/4 done
already. Great stuff.

(Sorry for this near-nothing post, but it's not often you
get to read a good book and tell the author you enjoyed it.)


/JSH
http://www.darkhop.com/
"You fall out of your mother's womb, you
crawl across open country under fire, and
drop into your grave." --Quentin Crisp

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:11:03 AM6/4/01
to

>Which is why the DEC 66 lineup is
> more likely:
>
> # Prime Backup Type of Mission
> 1-GriWhiCha SchEisCun Block I
> 2-McDScoSch StaYngCer Block II w/first LM
> 3-BorColAnd ConGorWms Block II w/LM
> 4-GriLovEis ArmWhiBean Block II w/LM
>
> Or something like that.
>
> It's an amusing game, but there is a limit to how close you can ever come.

I totally agree with what you say about ALT crew assignments being a
guessing game, especially prior to AS204 fire, but educated guess work can
be made (but some of us are more educated and informed than others, I for
one can only go on what I've read and heard from others). I always assumed
that working off the assignments as of January 1967, the following would
likely happen.

1 - Grissom/White/Chaffee - Schirra/Eisele/Cunningham - Block 1CSM 012 Test
(Earth Orbit)
2 - McDivitt/Scott/Schweickart - Stafford/Young/Cernan - Block II 101/LM3
Test (Earth Orbit)
3 - Borman/Collins/Anders - Conrad/Gordon/Williams - Block II 103/LM4 Test
(High Earth Orbit)
4 - Stafford/Young/Cernan - Grissom/Lovell/Chaffee - Block II 104/LM5 Test
(Lunar Orbit)
5 - Conrad/Gordon/Williams - Armstrong/Aldrin/Cunningham - Block II 106/LM6
Test (Lunar Orbit)
6 - Grissom/Lovell/Bean - White/Eisele/Bean - Block II 107/LM7 Test (Lunar
Landing Attempt)

Obviously much of this is open to debate and is very subjective. But from
what Collins writes in Carrying the Fire, right up to the middle of '67
everyone still considered that at least four different methods of CSM/LM
rendezvous needed to be tested;

1) LM Above or Below
2) Primary or AGS guidance
3) Abort stage alone or Decent stage attached
4) Small or large Delta H

Obviously some of these may well have been cut out and done in one go, but
thats how the situation looked in 1967. Even assuming that only two of these
were tested in Lunar Orbit, that is still four tests of the LM prior to a
landing attempt. Its also clear that Grissom would have been the Cdr of the
landing mission. Whether he would have served backup to bring him up to
speed on the LM or if he would have simply rotated to another prime slot is
difficult to say. My main problem is what to do with the Schirra crew. Deke
obviously didn't want them on a landing and didn't consider the crew to be a
top notch bunch. Without their dull and fairly easy CSM 014 flight, would
they have moved forward to LM mission? I personally don't think so, I'm not
even sure Schirra would stick around after Apollo 1 and might retire early.

If they do move forward onto say Apollo 4/5 and a LM test in Lunar Orbit, it
doesn't change much. It just means that Conrad's crew would probably end up
with the second landing mission again and the skip two rotation would be
established.

If this all sounds very confusing and academic, it probably is *s* but it
can be a really fascinating "what if?".


OM

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 12:50:33 PM6/4/01
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:11:03 +0100, "John Geenty"
<Jo...@geenty.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>6 - Grissom/Lovell/Bean - White/Eisele/Bean - Block II 107/LM7 Test (Lunar
>Landing Attempt)

...Here's another monkey wrench to throw in the works: IIRC, the
post-A1(*) autopsy of Ed White turned up a heart condition that would
have grounded him. Was the condition such that it could have been
detected after a successful A1 launch, and thus removing him from
flight status?

OM


(*) If it wasn't a tragedy, that almost sounds like a setup for a
steak sauce gag. Blah.

Interim Books

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 1:17:54 PM6/4/01
to
On 2 Jun 2001 21:13:23 -0700, tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>By this ranking, weighing rendezvous experience higher than total

[snippage]

>But there are still several pieces to the puzzle that don't fit so
>well.

The selection process was *not* done by some scientific equation.
There are many factors tangible and intangible that go into making
such a selction.

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/


Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 2:09:34 PM6/4/01
to
OM asked--

>Michael, what's your take on Eisele's overall performance prior to the fire?
Was his slacking off occurring before A1, or do we see this only after the
shakeups caused by the A1 shock and his subsequent divorce? Considering the
time frame, I'm doubtful Eisele would have been in the CMP slot at least due to
his divorce situation.

From my limited, years-after-the-fact knowledge, Eisele was considered a solid
if unspectacular candidate for flight and only started slipping around the time
of Apollo 7 -- obviously it was related to his personal problems.

MC

OM

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 4:40:26 PM6/4/01
to

...Then by the time of the "A5" landing, it's questionable if Eisele's
solidity would still be intact. The hints I've seen so far tend to
lead towards a possible "Survivor Syndrome" having been the trigger
that sent his marraige and his career down the tubes. Had A1 flown, I
can see a fair possibility of Eisele being the CMP, but probably not
as solid as you're suggesting. Again, we'll never really know.

...Now, about Ed White's heart problem...?

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 6:10:48 PM6/4/01
to
>..Now, about Ed White's heart problem...?

Well, if it only turned up in an autopsy, and was missed in White's annual 1966
Air Force medical (usually done around the pilot's birthday, though I'm just
making an assumption here), I doubt it would have had any effect at all. That
is, it wouldn't have been found, White would have continued on with his
astronaut career.

Michael Cassutt

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 6:16:20 PM6/4/01
to
> MC:

"Had Deke harbored doubts about Armstrong's abilities,
he would have been insane to entrust the first landing
-- or any Apollo mission -- to him."

Maybe not. Consider this person's background: a failed spacewalk, a
crew-coordination switch error that could have resulted in the loss of
the LM, and then he flew his helicopter into the water while showing
off in front of a crowd of boaters (demonstrating gross lack of
judgment and discipline along with negligence - he almost drowned
because he didn't wear his inflatable vest). After these major
screw-ups, Slayton still chose Gene Cernan to command Apollo 17. On
top of this, nobody on the entire crew had any flight test background!
Every other mission in the entire history of the US space program has
had at least one test pilot on board. And all commanders (Mercury,
Gemini and Apollo) were test pilots except for this one mission.
Engle had been the crew's test pilot, but Slayton was directed to put
a (the) geologist on the last landing mission.

It is inconceivable that Slayton had also been directed to put a
civilian on the first landing mission?

He denied it to his death, but consider Slayton's willingness to
mislead the public. One example from Cernan's book is where Slayton
tried (more than once) to get Cernan to fabricate a story about engine
failure to justify his helicopter crash. When we try to reconstruct
history, it is not enough to think, "well this person said so, so it
must be true". The words must fit with the facts.

So to analyze the "civilian first" theory, let's look at the
alternatives:

GRISSOM? Leapfrogged Gemini with no rendezvous flight and his Apollo
1 assignment was not going to correct that deficiency in experience.
This leads me to conclude that when astronauts say that he would have
been the first, it is more eulogy than reality.

SCHIRRA? Flew the first rendezvous, but Slayton crewed him with two
rookies for a CSM-only Apollo. The writing was on the wall, so he
quit.

COOPER? Grounded due to discipline problems (his selection as
Stafford's backup seems insignificant - the only other people
available were Eisele, Cunningham and the new groups).

(Overall comment for Group 1: They were hired to do a "monkey's job".
Not all of them even graduated from college and none of them had any
master's degree. Subsequent groups were hired specifically with
Apollo in mind.)

STAFFORD? Given command of the most highly experienced crew put
together, but he misses the boat with the first LLTV class chosen in
Dec 66. Does this indicate that Slayton had "dress rehearsal" in mind
when he put Stafford's crew together? Serious problems in the LLTV
program become the drastic limit on who Slayton can send on the first
landing mission and I don't think that Stafford was considered. He
stays active, but never gets another LM. Is this Slayton's penalty
for his switch error with Cernan that could have resulted in their
loss?

BORMAN? He appears to make the short list in Dec 66 when selected for
LLTV training. But then he is chosen as primary in the fire
investigation and this puts his training behind Armstrong and Conrad.
I think that if Slayton wanted Borman on the first landing then
someone else would have been put on the investigation. There is talk
about turning his crew after Apollo 8, but I have two major problems
with this: Training for C' did not involve the LM. This puts them
way behind the other crews. More importantly, Borman's physiological
problems (a significant unknown at the time) made him unassignable (by
my read) and I think this is his primary (unspoken) reason for
retiring. When I hear Slayton talk about offering Borman the first
landing, I think "Trojan horse". I can see it possibly having been
offered as an incentive when Slayton asked him to take the first
piloted Saturn V into lunar orbit, but I expect that any such offer
would be considered void by his SAS.

McDIVITT? Finished Gemini without rendezvous experience and gets
crewed with a rookie non-test pilot. After his CSM/LM checkout
mission, he should be in good shape for a landing assignment, but he
is not in the first cut for the LLTV. After Apollo 9, he quits to
join management!

YOUNG and LOVELL? "Demoted" from CDR status to pack experience into
Stafford's and Armstrong's (later, Borman's) crews.

CONRAD? Well qualified, but not given a highly experienced crew with
either rookies Williams or Bean. Selected for LLTV in Dec 66. He is
in good position to be first, but when 8 and 9 are switched, Slayton
decides to switch backup crews as well. It is logical for Slayton to
keep Conrad as backup to McDivitt, but it could have easily been
decided that Conrad would stay fixed as backup to the second Apollo
crew. Barring any setbacks, this deliberate action by Slayton keeps
Conrad from getting the first shot at landing.

ARMSTRONG? A top candidate from day one of the LLRV/TV program.
Flies first docking mission, but after the malfunction, he makes the
mistake of undocking instead of analyzing the thruster problem while
attached to the Agena. This error costs the mission and almost the
crew. Selected for first LLTV class and given command of an
experience-packed crew. Crashes the LLRV - the problem is blamed on
the hardware (does "loss of helium in the attitude control system"
sound vaguely parallel to Cernan's "engine failure"?). After two
major mishaps, I would guess that Slayton would have reservations
about Armstrong. But Armstrong stays in the lineup and gets switched
as the Apollo 8 backup. This firmly places him in the rotation to get
the first landing attempt. There was no "luck" involved in Slayton's
decision. And, as far as I can tell, there was no luck involved when
Armstrong was given the LLRV/TV program back in 1964.

The importance of the civilian aspect of NASA is imbedded in its
foundation. Until I get more evidence to the contrary, I will not
dismiss the idea that this was a significant factor in Armstrong being
chosen.


~ CT

OM

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 6:59:08 PM6/4/01
to
On 4 Jun 2001 15:16:20 -0700, tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote:

>> MC:
> "Had Deke harbored doubts about Armstrong's abilities,
> he would have been insane to entrust the first landing
> -- or any Apollo mission -- to him."
>
>Maybe not. Consider this person's background: a failed spacewalk, a
>crew-coordination switch error that could have resulted in the loss of
>the LM, and then he flew his helicopter into the water while showing
>off in front of a crowd of boaters (demonstrating gross lack of
>judgment and discipline along with negligence - he almost drowned
>because he didn't wear his inflatable vest).

1) The failure has never, ever, been attributed to Cernan having
screwed up. Anyone who understands the situation would know better.

2) IIRC, there was some mention that the switch setting was not on the
checklist, hence the omission.

3) Finally, he's a figher jock. Expecting a fighter jock not to show
off in front of civilians is like expecting a high-priced defensive
tackle to meet a higher-priced thug-turned-basketball icon at a strip
club and proceed to spend money and eventually get thrown in jail with
the rest of the thugs and dope dealers.

>It is inconceivable that Slayton had also been directed to put a
>civilian on the first landing mission?

...It's not inconceivable at all, even though it didn't happen. This
is one of those situations where circumstance and the related evidence
simply don't give the true story.

>He denied it to his death, but consider Slayton's willingness to
>mislead the public. One example from Cernan's book is where Slayton
>tried (more than once) to get Cernan to fabricate a story about engine
>failure to justify his helicopter crash. When we try to reconstruct
>history, it is not enough to think, "well this person said so, so it
>must be true". The words must fit with the facts.

...Ah, the old "Tell one lie, and you're always a liar" bit. There's
holes in that bucket, son. Sure that's not a sieve?

>GRISSOM? Leapfrogged Gemini with no rendezvous flight and his Apollo
>1 assignment was not going to correct that deficiency in experience.
>This leads me to conclude that when astronauts say that he would have
>been the first, it is more eulogy than reality.

...I'll give you credit for this point with one exception: McDivitt
was also a Gemini one-shot with no docking experience. I suspect that
had McDivitt not pulled off the A9 docking, then things might have
been different with regards to Gus. On the other hand, he was *Gus*.

>SCHIRRA? Flew the first rendezvous, but Slayton crewed him with two
>rookies for a CSM-only Apollo. The writing was on the wall, so he
>quit.

...Yes, but was the writing on the wall in Wally's own handwriting?
Remember, he'd been mumbling about retirement after he'd come back
from GT-6A.

>ARMSTRONG? A top candidate from day one of the LLRV/TV program.
>Flies first docking mission, but after the malfunction, he makes the
>mistake of undocking instead of analyzing the thruster problem while
>attached to the Agena. This error costs the mission and almost the
>crew. Selected for first LLTV class and given command of an
>experience-packed crew. Crashes the LLRV - the problem is blamed on
>the hardware (does "loss of helium in the attitude control system"
>sound vaguely parallel to Cernan's "engine failure"?).

...Have you ever *watched* the LLRV crash? It becomes obvious from
watching the chain of events that it was a vehicle failure, based on
the way it behaved visibly prior to crash.

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 9:27:04 PM6/4/01
to
> > John Geentry:

"I didn't think it was possible to be a test pilot without attending
test pilot school. If it is possible without Test pilot school, what
is the point of asking for test pilots..."

> Michael Cassutt:


"As you say, any Joe Soap could claim to be a test pilot -- if
you're hired as a test pilot by an aircraft company, that's what you
are."


Consider Elliot See. Here is a perfect example of how far NASA was
willing to bend in order to get a civilian. The man went to the
Merchant Marine Academy! (the only other alumnus NASA hired from that
school is Mark Kelly in 1996, and an argument could be made that the
reason NASA hired him was because they wanted to hire twins). So here
is Elliot See, corporate GE "test pilot" with F-86, XF-D, F-104,
F11F-1F, RB-66, F-4H and T-38 engine test on his resume. I am not
impressed. He did have a Masters in Engineering from UCLA to his
credit. But look who NASA passes over to select Mr Civilian: Michael
Collins, Dick Gordon, CC Williams and many others. Collins was an
ARPS grad! Gordon was a seasoned test pilot who had won the Bendix
Trophy Race (beating Glenn's record). Williams was a Navy TPS grad
AND a Marine. NASA passed over all Marines, other TPS grads and ARPS
grads to hire Mr Elliot See, with his GE engine test "experience".

This is strong evidence to me, confirmed by the statements in Collin's
book, that NASA set out to hire civilians.

****

to be complete:

Four astronauts had flown flight test without going to a formal test
pilot school. Armstrong was hired by NACA and rose to the pinnacle of
the test pilot pyramid to fly the X-1B, the X-5, the X-15 and he was
heavily involved with the X-20. The other three had much weaker
resumes. See was a corporate test pilot for GE and his experience was
primarily in engine development. Not very exciting. Swigert was a
corporate test pilot for Pratt&Whitney and then North
American-Rockwell, flying Gemini's Regallo Wing (precursor to the hang
glider). He had flown the F-100 and F-104, but nothing much hotter
than that. Along with these ex-military was Carr, active duty Marine.
The hottest jet he flew was probably the F-8, nothing special. I
think that calling him a test pilot is a bit of a stretch. He had one
assignment with the Test Directors Section, Marine Air Control
Squadron 3, where he did test and eval of Marine tactical data
systems. His experience was good enough to land a Skylab command. Of
course, he was crewed with Pogue, a TPS grad and instructor at ARPS
(and ex-Thunderbird).

And then there were those who had no flight test background at all -
six members of Gp3, all of Gp4, five in Gp5 and all of Gp6.


~ CT

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:25:35 PM6/4/01
to
We're getting into deep water here, Stuf4. Take a deep breath.

Cernan certainly had his detractors, among them McDivitt. But the only "error"
you can pin on him is the helicopter crash. The GT-9 EVA, as planned and
equipped, did not have much chance of success, as witness the problems
experienced by Collins and Gordon on theirs. The LM switch error was
Stafford's.

Grissom, Borman and McDivitt were supposed to get their rendezvous experience
in the early Apollo missions. Which is why Grissom would have rotated to a
Block II mission directly after 204, had it gone as planned.

"I don't think Stafford was considered." Stafford's record and experience
don't require support from me. You're welcome to your unsupported opinion on
this one.

Characterizing Borman's assignment to the Apollo 204 board and the subsequent
CSM tiger team as support for this increasingly bizarre theory is loopy. It is
a clear sign of the trust that not only Slayton, but Gilruth, Low and Phillips
had in the man. Borman's "physiological problems" were not an issue in his
standing with Slayton, pre-Apollo 8, or his decision to forego a future
assignment, also made and announced to Slayton pre-Apollo 8. I don't doubt
that being sick on the mission made it easier for Borman to say good-bye to the
astronaut office.

McDivitt is an interesting case, one of the two pilots Slayton deliberately set
out to recruit for the 1962 group (the other being Borman, both highly
recommended by the ARPS staff for their work there). He told me he spent his
entire career, with the exception of the period from July 1964 to August 1965,
working on Apollo. If anyone was annointed, it was him. Yet, no LLTV. Of
course, given McDivitt's cautious approach, he probably didn't think much of
the vehicle, given its track record as of Dec 1968. And had he been rotated
from Apollo 9 to Apollo 12, he would have had several months to fly it. Same
thing with Stafford -- who, speaking of the LLTV, told me that in 1972 he told
Slayton (he was Deke's deputy at the time), "The moment Cernan's done flying
that son of a bitch, I want it chained to the ground so it can never take off
again."

>It is logical for Slayton to keep Conrad as backup to McDivitt, but it could
have easily been decided that Conrad would stay fixed as backup to the second
Apollo crew.

Now you're just not making sense. Conrad had spent over a year working with
McDivitt on the first LM mission; there's no justification for making his crew
backups to Borman's. <"This deliberate action keeps Conrad from getting the
first shot at landing."> Give me a break.

Armstrong and his "mishaps" -- that's your characterization, not mine. Your
synopsis of his career is wonky, too: he only wound up with the first docking
because the GT-6 Atlas-Agena blew up. I've already discussed several plausible
reasons why he would wind up with the LLRV/LLTV technical assignment that have
nothing to do with this "annointment".

I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns here, Stuf4. Enjoy your
research and your opinions. Good luck on your quest for "evidence".

I've made my comments and will turn the microphone back over to you. Or anyone
else who has time to wade through this.

Michael Cassutt

rebizman

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:27:57 PM6/4/01
to

"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.01060...@posting.google.com...
> (does "loss of helium in the attitude control system"
> sound vaguely parallel to Cernan's "engine failure"?).

Not even close, especially considering that helicopters don't use helium.

rebizman

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:58:29 PM6/4/01
to

"Michael Cassutt" <cas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010604232535...@ng-bh1.aol.com...

> I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns here, Stuf4. Enjoy
your
> research and your opinions. Good luck on your quest for "evidence".

Hey Mikey, give the lad a chance. It's obvious he's studied under Geo.


Henry Spencer

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 12:18:40 AM6/5/01
to
In article <20010604232535...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
Michael Cassutt <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
>...The GT-9 EVA, as planned and

>equipped, did not have much chance of success, as witness the problems
>experienced by Collins and Gordon on theirs...

In fairness, there was some doubt at the time, especially when Collins
seemed to do a much better job despite some difficulties. It was Gordon's
problems which really convinced NASA that spacewalks needed more careful
attention.

In retrospect, it was a mistake to assign the two best physical specimens
in the astronaut corps (White, who was a near-Olympic-class athlete, and
Collins, who wasn't in that category but paid much more attention to
fitness than most of the others) to early spacewalk slots. It hid the
problems for a while.

OM

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 4:56:21 AM6/5/01
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:58:29 -0600, "rebizman" <rebi...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

...I can see it now: The Lost Astronaut Rotations Conspiracy website.

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 4:30:49 AM6/5/01
to

>Collins was an ARPS grad!

No he wasn't. He entered ARPS after he failed the Group 2 application
process, according to his own book anyway.

>Gordon was a seasoned test pilot who had won the Bendix
> Trophy Race (beating Glenn's record). Williams was a Navy TPS grad
> AND a Marine. NASA passed over all Marines, other TPS grads and ARPS
> grads to hire Mr Elliot See, with his GE engine test "experience".
> This is strong evidence to me, confirmed by the statements in Collin's
> book, that NASA set out to hire civilians.

It probably is quite likely that NASA did want a few civilians in the
Astronaut Corps, to avoid being seen as a purely military organisation. I
think Neil Armstrong being selected was almost a certainty once the process
was opened to civilians given his experience with X-Craft, work for NASA and
other test flight jobs. He was seen as perhaps not the best stick and rudder
guy working on the X-15 but he was a superb engineer and was a valuable
asset to the group. Elliot See is more difficult since he'll never write an
autobiography and we can only go on what others say about him. Perhaps his
qualifications are lower than the others, but as Michael Collins points out,
a large part of the points program used for the interviews at NASA came from
the interview itself. If you could demonstrate a good knowledge of the
program and the techniques involved, it would be a big big plus. Just
turning up and pointing to your resume wasn't good enough. Deke Slayton says
See was the only guy from Group 2 he didn't feel was up to the task, while
Frank Borman seemed to think Elliot See was as good as anyone else in the
group. Its difficult to say. And if it turns out that NASA did want a couple
of civilians, that obviously didn't effect how they were used once in the
program. As others have pointed out, Armstrong and See were last in line
from their group and its doubtful if Elliot See would have even made it to
Apollo.


John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 5:14:58 AM6/5/01
to
> top of this, nobody on the entire crew had any flight test background!

So? NASA had dropped this requirement from the astronaut selection process,
why should it be a factor in the Apollo 17 crew.

> Every other mission in the entire history of the US space program has
> had at least one test pilot on board. And all commanders (Mercury,
> Gemini and Apollo) were test pilots except for this one mission.
> Engle had been the crew's test pilot, but Slayton was directed to put
> a (the) geologist on the last landing mission.

The only reason the other past commanders had all been test pilots was that
up until Group 3 it had been a requirement. They wouldn't have been
astronauts if they didn't have Test Pilot experience. Gene Cernan was the
first guy without such a past to get a flight assignment on GT9, he was the
first of the non test pilots to get a command, simple as that. Its also
worth pointing out that Alan Bean had test pilot experience but was left in
Apollo Applications for most of Gemini. If test pilot experience had been
paramount, surely Bean would have been selected for GT12 instead of Cernan?

> GRISSOM? Leapfrogged Gemini with no rendezvous flight and his Apollo
> 1 assignment was not going to correct that deficiency in experience.
> This leads me to conclude that when astronauts say that he would have
> been the first, it is more eulogy than reality.

Its hardly a deficiency. Since Grissom knew the Apollo systems inside and
out from having worked on it so long, he wouldn't have to worry about basic
training for his next assignment and could concentrate on learning
rendezvous. And just as a side question, on Apollo 7 they did some
rendezvous work with the S-IVB, could Apollo 1 have done the same?
Everything I've read about Grissom says he was a charger, a really dedicated
astronaut and excellent engineer and there is no reason to doubt all the
people who say Grissom would have been first. And anyway, whats to stop
Slayton assigning Grissom two rendezvous experts for the landing? There is
no reason why the Apollo 1 crew would have to stay together.

> SCHIRRA? Flew the first rendezvous, but Slayton crewed him with two
> rookies for a CSM-only Apollo. The writing was on the wall, so he
> quit.

As others have said, Schirra was on his way out after GTA6, he'd said as
much. He simply wasn't as dedicated to the whole idea of space and getting
to the moon as some of the others. You get the feeling with Wally that he'd
signed up for Project Mercury and not much else.

> COOPER? Grounded due to discipline problems (his selection as
> Stafford's backup seems insignificant - the only other people
> available were Eisele, Cunningham and the new groups).

I think Deke would have liked to have seen Gordo fly on a latter mission,
but Gordo never did enough work on the backup missions to change any minds
at NASA. Gordo himself wrote that Deke tried to give him Apollo 13 BCDR...he
was doing his best to give Cooper another chance, he just couldn't see the
problem.

> STAFFORD? Given command of the most highly experienced crew put
> together, but he misses the boat with the first LLTV class chosen in
> Dec 66. Does this indicate that Slayton had "dress rehearsal" in mind
> when he put Stafford's crew together? Serious problems in the LLTV
> program become the drastic limit on who Slayton can send on the first
> landing mission and I don't think that Stafford was considered. He
> stays active, but never gets another LM. Is this Slayton's penalty
> for his switch error with Cernan that could have resulted in their
> loss?

Tom Stafford's crew was always lined up for the Lunar LM test mission. The
reason for having such an experienced crew was probably that up until the
fall of 68, this would have been the first crew to go to the moon. He
probably wanted as much experience as possible on the mission. And Stafford
not flying again after Apollo 10 wasn't a punishment, it was because
Stafford moved into Flight Crew Operations working with Shepard and Slayton.
As you've already said, Cernan and Young both got later missions, so if
Stafford had wanted one he would have got it. Some astronauts just weren't
all that interested in the moon. And Stafford did command ASTP.

>Training for C' did not involve the LM. This puts them
> way behind the other crews. More importantly, Borman's physiological
> problems (a significant unknown at the time) made him unassignable (by
> my read) and I think this is his primary (unspoken) reason for
> retiring. When I hear Slayton talk about offering Borman the first
> landing, I think "Trojan horse". I can see it possibly having been
> offered as an incentive when Slayton asked him to take the first
> piloted Saturn V into lunar orbit, but I expect that any such offer
> would be considered void by his SAS.

Up until the change in Apollo 8, Borman's crew had been training for a high
earth orbit test of LM4 on Apollo 9. Read about Bill Anders thoughts
concerning the loss of his LM. They would have needed more LM work, true.
But they wouldn't need so much on the lunar aspects of the missio and CSM
operation. Its swings and roundabouts.

> McDIVITT? Finished Gemini without rendezvous experience and gets
> crewed with a rookie non-test pilot. After his CSM/LM checkout
> mission, he should be in good shape for a landing assignment, but he
> is not in the first cut for the LLTV. After Apollo 9, he quits to
> join management!

Others have answered about McDivitt. But its also worth remembering that
McDivitt was originally in line for Apollo 13 as Cdr and then as LMP when
Shepard was assignment, he simply didn't want to fly again. He was tired of
the work. He also was a very shrewd guy who realised he was getting a lot of
good offers for his future.

> CONRAD? Well qualified, but not given a highly experienced crew with
> either rookies Williams or Bean.

The only All Veteran crews during Apollo were on A10 and A11. Having a
rookie as LMP was normal, not a step down. I would say a crew with a CDR who
had flown twice, with long duration and rendezvous under his belt, a CMP
with rendezvous and EVA and a highly trained LMP is not an inexperienced
crew. And keep in mind that if Collins hadn't recovered from his surgery so
quickly, the Apollo 11 crew would have been Armstrong/Aldrin/Haise, making
Apollo 10 the only all Vet crew. Your statements that having a Rookie LMP
made the crew inexperienced and not up for a Landing mission are just plain
wrong. Buzz Aldrin was the only Vet LMP to walk on the moon during the whole
of Apollo.

> ARMSTRONG? A top candidate from day one of the LLRV/TV program.
> Flies first docking mission, but after the malfunction, he makes the
> mistake of undocking instead of analyzing the thruster problem while
> attached to the Agena. This error costs the mission and almost the
> crew.

Hang on, your saying Armstrong should have known the problem was with his
own craft and not the Agena? Here's a quote from Carrying the Fire;

"Next Neil decided to undock, a logical, analytical step, since he could
then move a short distance away and study each vehicle indepedantly of the
other."

Seems a fairly sensible thing to do to me. And after the undock, Armstrong
saved the mission by regaining control. And if he had remained docked with
the Agena, I don't think he would have been able to use the RCS thrusters to
stop the tumble, so he took all the right steps and actually picked up
credit for his quick thinking and good responces.

Selected for first LLTV class and given command of an
> experience-packed crew. Crashes the LLRV - the problem is blamed on
> the hardware (does "loss of helium in the attitude control system"
> sound vaguely parallel to Cernan's "engine failure"?). After two
> major mishaps, I would guess that Slayton would have reservations
> about Armstrong. But Armstrong stays in the lineup and gets switched
> as the Apollo 8 backup. This firmly places him in the rotation to get
> the first landing attempt. There was no "luck" involved in Slayton's
> decision. And, as far as I can tell, there was no luck involved when
> Armstrong was given the LLRV/TV program back in 1964.

As you've been told several times, Neil Armstrong was the APOLLO 9 backup.
Which would have given him Apollo 12, the second landing. The 8/9 switch was
the one that placed him in line for Apollo 11, by no means a certainty for
the first landing. And as for his crew, as I've already pointed out, without
Collins returning to active duty, it would have been Armstrong/Aldrin/Haise
which is exactly the same experience wise as anyone else. As for the LLRV
crash, well, other people have talked about that one too.

> The importance of the civilian aspect of NASA is imbedded in its
> foundation. Until I get more evidence to the contrary, I will not
> dismiss the idea that this was a significant factor in Armstrong being
> chosen.

Armstrong wasn't chosen for the first lunar landing, simple as that. He was
one of several candidates and as a result of the Gemini rotation, the Apollo
1 fire and the Apollo 8/9 swap he was chosen. Thats a lot of variables for
NASA to have fixed....or are you suggesting that NASA fixed all these events
to put Armstrong in the CDR seat of the first landing?


John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 5:46:24 AM6/5/01
to

>Collins was an ARPS grad!

No he wasn't. He entered ARPS after he failed the Group 2 application


process, according to his own book anyway.

>Gordon was a seasoned test pilot who had won the Bendix


> Trophy Race (beating Glenn's record). Williams was a Navy TPS grad
> AND a Marine. NASA passed over all Marines, other TPS grads and ARPS
> grads to hire Mr Elliot See, with his GE engine test "experience".
> This is strong evidence to me, confirmed by the statements in Collin's
> book, that NASA set out to hire civilians.

It probably is quite likely that NASA did want a few civilians in the

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 5:47:09 AM6/5/01
to
> top of this, nobody on the entire crew had any flight test background!

So? NASA had dropped this requirement from the astronaut selection process,


why should it be a factor in the Apollo 17 crew.

> Every other mission in the entire history of the US space program has


> had at least one test pilot on board. And all commanders (Mercury,
> Gemini and Apollo) were test pilots except for this one mission.
> Engle had been the crew's test pilot, but Slayton was directed to put
> a (the) geologist on the last landing mission.

The only reason the other past commanders had all been test pilots was that


up until Group 3 it had been a requirement. They wouldn't have been
astronauts if they didn't have Test Pilot experience. Gene Cernan was the
first guy without such a past to get a flight assignment on GT9, he was the
first of the non test pilots to get a command, simple as that. Its also
worth pointing out that Alan Bean had test pilot experience but was left in
Apollo Applications for most of Gemini. If test pilot experience had been
paramount, surely Bean would have been selected for GT12 instead of Cernan?

> GRISSOM? Leapfrogged Gemini with no rendezvous flight and his Apollo


> 1 assignment was not going to correct that deficiency in experience.
> This leads me to conclude that when astronauts say that he would have
> been the first, it is more eulogy than reality.

Its hardly a deficiency. Since Grissom knew the Apollo systems inside and


out from having worked on it so long, he wouldn't have to worry about basic
training for his next assignment and could concentrate on learning
rendezvous. And just as a side question, on Apollo 7 they did some
rendezvous work with the S-IVB, could Apollo 1 have done the same?
Everything I've read about Grissom says he was a charger, a really dedicated
astronaut and excellent engineer and there is no reason to doubt all the
people who say Grissom would have been first. And anyway, whats to stop
Slayton assigning Grissom two rendezvous experts for the landing? There is
no reason why the Apollo 1 crew would have to stay together.

> SCHIRRA? Flew the first rendezvous, but Slayton crewed him with two


> rookies for a CSM-only Apollo. The writing was on the wall, so he
> quit.

As others have said, Schirra was on his way out after GTA6, he'd said as


much. He simply wasn't as dedicated to the whole idea of space and getting
to the moon as some of the others. You get the feeling with Wally that he'd
signed up for Project Mercury and not much else.

> COOPER? Grounded due to discipline problems (his selection as


> Stafford's backup seems insignificant - the only other people
> available were Eisele, Cunningham and the new groups).

I think Deke would have liked to have seen Gordo fly on a latter mission,


but Gordo never did enough work on the backup missions to change any minds
at NASA. Gordo himself wrote that Deke tried to give him Apollo 13 BCDR...he
was doing his best to give Cooper another chance, he just couldn't see the
problem.

> STAFFORD? Given command of the most highly experienced crew put


> together, but he misses the boat with the first LLTV class chosen in
> Dec 66. Does this indicate that Slayton had "dress rehearsal" in mind
> when he put Stafford's crew together? Serious problems in the LLTV
> program become the drastic limit on who Slayton can send on the first
> landing mission and I don't think that Stafford was considered. He
> stays active, but never gets another LM. Is this Slayton's penalty
> for his switch error with Cernan that could have resulted in their
> loss?

Tom Stafford's crew was always lined up for the Lunar LM test mission. The


reason for having such an experienced crew was probably that up until the
fall of 68, this would have been the first crew to go to the moon. He
probably wanted as much experience as possible on the mission. And Stafford
not flying again after Apollo 10 wasn't a punishment, it was because
Stafford moved into Flight Crew Operations working with Shepard and Slayton.
As you've already said, Cernan and Young both got later missions, so if
Stafford had wanted one he would have got it. Some astronauts just weren't
all that interested in the moon. And Stafford did command ASTP.

>Training for C' did not involve the LM. This puts them


> way behind the other crews. More importantly, Borman's physiological
> problems (a significant unknown at the time) made him unassignable (by
> my read) and I think this is his primary (unspoken) reason for
> retiring. When I hear Slayton talk about offering Borman the first
> landing, I think "Trojan horse". I can see it possibly having been
> offered as an incentive when Slayton asked him to take the first
> piloted Saturn V into lunar orbit, but I expect that any such offer
> would be considered void by his SAS.

Up until the change in Apollo 8, Borman's crew had been training for a high


earth orbit test of LM4 on Apollo 9. Read about Bill Anders thoughts
concerning the loss of his LM. They would have needed more LM work, true.
But they wouldn't need so much on the lunar aspects of the missio and CSM
operation. Its swings and roundabouts.

> McDIVITT? Finished Gemini without rendezvous experience and gets


> crewed with a rookie non-test pilot. After his CSM/LM checkout
> mission, he should be in good shape for a landing assignment, but he
> is not in the first cut for the LLTV. After Apollo 9, he quits to
> join management!

Others have answered about McDivitt. But its also worth remembering that


McDivitt was originally in line for Apollo 13 as Cdr and then as LMP when
Shepard was assignment, he simply didn't want to fly again. He was tired of
the work. He also was a very shrewd guy who realised he was getting a lot of
good offers for his future.

> CONRAD? Well qualified, but not given a highly experienced crew with


> either rookies Williams or Bean.

The only All Veteran crews during Apollo were on A10 and A11. Having a


rookie as LMP was normal, not a step down. I would say a crew with a CDR who
had flown twice, with long duration and rendezvous under his belt, a CMP
with rendezvous and EVA and a highly trained LMP is not an inexperienced
crew. And keep in mind that if Collins hadn't recovered from his surgery so
quickly, the Apollo 11 crew would have been Armstrong/Aldrin/Haise, making
Apollo 10 the only all Vet crew. Your statements that having a Rookie LMP
made the crew inexperienced and not up for a Landing mission are just plain
wrong. Buzz Aldrin was the only Vet LMP to walk on the moon during the whole
of Apollo.

> ARMSTRONG? A top candidate from day one of the LLRV/TV program.


> Flies first docking mission, but after the malfunction, he makes the
> mistake of undocking instead of analyzing the thruster problem while
> attached to the Agena. This error costs the mission and almost the
> crew.

Hang on, your saying Armstrong should have known the problem was with his


own craft and not the Agena? Here's a quote from Carrying the Fire;

"Next Neil decided to undock, a logical, analytical step, since he could
then move a short distance away and study each vehicle indepedantly of the
other."

Seems a fairly sensible thing to do to me. And after the undock, Armstrong
saved the mission by regaining control. And if he had remained docked with
the Agena, I don't think he would have been able to use the RCS thrusters to
stop the tumble, so he took all the right steps and actually picked up
credit for his quick thinking and good responces.

Selected for first LLTV class and given command of an


> experience-packed crew. Crashes the LLRV - the problem is blamed on
> the hardware (does "loss of helium in the attitude control system"
> sound vaguely parallel to Cernan's "engine failure"?). After two
> major mishaps, I would guess that Slayton would have reservations
> about Armstrong. But Armstrong stays in the lineup and gets switched
> as the Apollo 8 backup. This firmly places him in the rotation to get
> the first landing attempt. There was no "luck" involved in Slayton's
> decision. And, as far as I can tell, there was no luck involved when
> Armstrong was given the LLRV/TV program back in 1964.

As you've been told several times, Neil Armstrong was the APOLLO 9 backup.


Which would have given him Apollo 12, the second landing. The 8/9 switch was
the one that placed him in line for Apollo 11, by no means a certainty for
the first landing. And as for his crew, as I've already pointed out, without
Collins returning to active duty, it would have been Armstrong/Aldrin/Haise
which is exactly the same experience wise as anyone else. As for the LLRV
crash, well, other people have talked about that one too.

> The importance of the civilian aspect of NASA is imbedded in its


> foundation. Until I get more evidence to the contrary, I will not
> dismiss the idea that this was a significant factor in Armstrong being
> chosen.

Armstrong wasn't chosen for the first lunar landing, simple as that. He was

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 12:18:39 PM6/5/01
to
> > CT:

"Serious problems in the LLTV program become the drastic limit on who
Slayton can send on the first landing mission and I don't think that
Stafford was considered."

> Michael Cassutt: (having quoted "I don't think Stafford was considered.")


"Stafford's record and experience don't require support from me.
You're welcome to your unsupported opinion on this one."

Your use of quotations has changed the meaning of my statement. If
you had quoted, "...I don't think Stafford was considered." then it
would be clear that it was taken out of context. Given everything I
have presented on the LLTV program, I believe that my opinion is
highly supported. I can't recall any LLTV document having Tom
Stafford's name on it. I totally agree with you that he had great
qualifications. Slayton must have thought very highly of him to give
him command of the most experienced crew. But the dress rehearsal
mission was critical. It needed max experience. Mission objectives
that were not accomplished in the Earth-orbit CSM/LM checkout would
have to be reflown. To hedge your bets on staying on schedule, you
could fill these squares on a lunar mission - if the crew is up to
snuff. I am the first to admit that trying to read Slayton's mind is
no easy task. But I that the program has been documented so well that
we can gather the facts and draw reasonable conclusions.

Here is another key piece that may help to define Stafford's role
(because I think it is so important, I will post the whole text):

*****

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum

TO : PA/Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program Office DATE: MAY 5
1967

FROM : CA/Director of Flight Crew Operations

SUBJECT: AOT performance on the lunar surface

From flight crew participation in a series of evaluations of the CM
and LM optics at Kitt Peak National Observatory, it was determined
that the lunar surface performance of the LM AOT is unacceptable.

The presence of sunlight (simulated by a 10 kw light source) caused
the general brightness of the field of view to increase to the point
where star acquisition was possible only for the very brightest stars,
and identification of these stars was impossible. Since azimuth
alignment of the IMU on the lunar surface requires the use of the AOT,
this condition is intolerable.

It is therefore recommended that ASPO investigate and implement design
modifications to insure acceptable performance of the AOT on the lunar
surface. It is further recommended that the G&C Division investigate
the analogous problem of scattered light from the LM interfering with
the use of the CM optics during translunar coast and lunar orbit.

<signed>
Donald K. Slayton

cc:
<...>

*****

The optical telescope was critical. Now why do I keep a xerox copy of
this letter? Because of who Slayton cc's the memo to. The only CBers
on the letter are McDivitt-Scott-Schweichart, Conrad-Gordon-Williams,
Borman-Collins-Anders, and Armstrong-Lovell-Aldrin. That's it.

This is another short list that fits well with the LLTV info.


~ CT

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 12:42:18 PM6/5/01
to
> The optical telescope was critical. Now why do I keep a xerox copy of
> this letter? Because of who Slayton cc's the memo to. The only CBers
> on the letter are McDivitt-Scott-Schweichart, Conrad-Gordon-Williams,
> Borman-Collins-Anders, and Armstrong-Lovell-Aldrin. That's it.
>
> This is another short list that fits well with the LLTV info.

That note was sent in May 1967. The post Apollo 1 crews had been assigned in
March 1967. That memo, concerned with an aspect of LM Design work was sent
only to the Prime and Backup Crews of Apollo 8 and Apollo 9, the two crews
assigned to test out the LM and the guys who were leading the charge as far
as LM design went at the time.

It seems perfectly logical to me not to send it to the Prime and Backup Crew
for Apollo 7, who were naturally enough more concerned with the redesign of
the CSM.

John

Darkhop Sr.

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 1:03:50 PM6/5/01
to
OM wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:58:29 -0600, "rebizman" <rebi...@email.msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael Cassutt" <cas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20010604232535...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >> I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns here, Stuf4. Enjoy
> >your
> >> research and your opinions. Good luck on your quest for "evidence".
> >
> >Hey Mikey, give the lad a chance. It's obvious he's studied under Geo.
>
> ...I can see it now: The Lost Astronaut Rotations Conspiracy website.

Think I'll download some porn instead.


/JSH -- "it's healthier"

rebizman

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 1:19:58 PM6/5/01
to

"Darkhop Sr." <darkho...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B1D10F6...@home.com...

> OM wrote:
> > ...I can see it now: The Lost Astronaut Rotations Conspiracy website.
>
> Think I'll download some porn instead.

Why is this the most intelligent thing posted in this newsgroup in a long
time?


Stuf4

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 1:32:39 PM6/5/01
to
From all of my archival reading here at sci.space.history, I got the
impression that this was an open-minded forum. Perhaps I am wrong. I
understand that the history of Apollo is firmly established and when I
present a radical interpretation I do not expect anyone to accept it.
But I would appreciate for my ideas to be respected without ridicule.
Please recognize the difference between factual error and differences
of opinion. No matter how much you may disagree with my
interpretations, I believe I have only made one error of hard fact.
Michael Collins wasn't an ARPS grad when he was first passed over. As
much as you hold to your own beliefs, please question all other
disagreements as being open to interpretation.

As for my radical ideas, many of them I question myself. I throw them
out to this group for scrutiny. Your rebuttals present some of the
same conflicts going on in my own head. If we are going to reject any
theories, how bout we do it in a mature fashion without any name
calling?

I would like to work together with you all. Not against you.

Assuming that you are still interested, I will respond to the
criticisms.


~ CT

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 1:50:11 PM6/5/01
to
CT,

>From all of my archival reading here at sci.space.history, I got the
>impression that this was an open-minded forum. Perhaps I am wrong.

I don't want to dismiss what you say out of hand, thats certainly not the
way to have a discussion. But when you raise certain points as being
examples of evidence to back up your theory, your going to have to expect
those points to be examined and counter arguments and points made. Its
happened to me before, if I make factual errors then they will and should be
pointed out. I'm certainly not the most informed people in this forum, my
knowledge is very limited in many areas, but if there is a glaring
inaccuracy, I will point it out.

> I understand that the history of Apollo is firmly established and when I
> present a radical interpretation I do not expect anyone to accept it.
> But I would appreciate for my ideas to be respected without ridicule.

I would hardly say that the "Armstrong was first on the moon because he was
a civilian" is a radical interpretation. Its a pretty old one that has been
kicked around by many people for many years. The problem is that there is a
vast amount of evidence pointing to the fact that it wasn't fixed in favour
of Armstrong. Until there is solid evidence for your case, and counter
arguments to the evidence that goes against your theory, it will be very
difficult for people to accept it to any degree. While the area of LLTV
training is certainly an under researched area of Apollo history and
provides interesting new facts, it doesn't change the existing points. If
NASA was trying to put Armstrong on the moon first from the time he became
an Astronaut in 62, NASA would have had to have fixed the Gemini crew
assignments, the Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 8/9 switch. I don't expect for
a minute your making such suggestions, but the fact does remain.

>As for my radical ideas, many of them I question myself. I throw them
>out to this group for scrutiny. Your rebuttals present some of the
>same conflicts going on in my own head. If we are going to reject any
>theories, how bout we do it in a mature fashion without any name
>calling?

>I would like to work together with you all. Not against you.

I didn't think I had started name calling, I certainly haven't made any
personal attacks on you, if I have please point them out to me and I'll make
ammends. But it is important that all factual errors are pointed out. When
they aren't they are accepted as the truth which can lead to trouble further
down the line. Its not a personal insult when someone makes a correction, it
happens to me all the time and I certainly present more questions to this
group than offer answers to other people.

I don't want to reject anyones theory out of hand, but if there is a major
flaw, they need to be pointed out, thats all I'm saying and trying to do.

John


OM

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 3:02:51 PM6/5/01
to
On 5 Jun 2001 10:32:39 -0700, tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote:

>From all of my archival reading here at sci.space.history, I got the
>impression that this was an open-minded forum.

...It is. The problem we had with you is twofold:

1) The issue of Armstrong's being first, and the chain of events
leading up to it, have been hashed out time and again over the years
this group and its parent groups have been in existence. Anything that
points to Deke Slayton having deliberately selected a civilian for the
first lunar landing is at best circumstantial, and could only be given
any consideration whatsoever iff(*) both the losses of the GT-9 and A1
crews had not occurred.

(*) If and *only* if.

2) Besides, we're really sick of conspiracy theories that have nothing
to do with grassy knolls and second gunmen hired by either the KGB,
the Mafia, or the Cubans. Practically every conclusion you reached
smacked of "Conspiracy!", and after hearing Geo preach it for over two
years now, we tend to retch and vomit whenever we hear crap like this.


...Again, we're open to discussions, but the second we hear "cover
up!", you'd better duck.

OM

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 3:03:21 PM6/5/01
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:19:58 -0600, "rebizman" <rebi...@email.msn.com>
wrote:

...Depends on the type of porn.

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 2:42:12 PM6/5/01
to
>Besides, we're really sick of conspiracy theories that have nothing
> to do with grassy knolls and second gunmen hired by either the KGB,
> the Mafia, or the Cubans.

You forgot LBJ, CIA, FBI, NSA....the giant ant people living on the
moon..... *S*

John


Stuf4

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 6:44:44 PM6/5/01
to
(Thank you to everyone who has provided me with constructive
criticism)

John Geentry:


"If NASA was trying to put Armstrong on the moon first from the time
he became an Astronaut in 62, NASA would have had to have fixed the

Gemini crew assignments, the Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 8/9 switch.


I don't expect for a minute your making such suggestions, but the fact
does remain."

OM:


"Anything that points to Deke Slayton having deliberately selected a
civilian for the first lunar landing is at best circumstantial, and
could only be given any consideration whatsoever iff(*) both the
losses of the GT-9 and A1 crews had not occurred."

I don't follow how the GT-9 and A1 losses contradict the theory.
Switching Apollo's 8 and 9 was the most critical decision I see and
that was a calculated plan.

If I were Deke Slayton and I wanted a particular guy to be first, then
what I would do is:

1) give him command of a Gemini rendezvous,
2) train him in the LLTV,
3) give him a great Apollo crew, and then
4) place this crew in the rotation near where the first landing
attempt would be.

This is exactly what Deke did with Armstrong.


~ CT

OM

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 8:54:48 PM6/5/01
to
On 5 Jun 2001 15:44:44 -0700, tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote:

>I don't follow how the GT-9 and A1 losses contradict the theory.
>Switching Apollo's 8 and 9 was the most critical decision I see and
>that was a calculated plan.

...Then you haven't studied how the crew rotations between GT-9 and A1
were shuffled after See and Bassett augered. Go back and really look
at how things were done.

...Jeez, at the rate this is going, you'll next be claiming that See
and Bassett's plane was sabotaged just to get Armstrong into the right
spot of the rotation.

Peter Stickney

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 1:04:45 AM6/6/01
to
In article <9fj968$mq5$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,

And The Dealy Lama, the Discordians, and the Benevolent and Protective
Order of Fish, and the Sons of Dagon.

--
Pete Stickney Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Peter Stickney

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 1:04:47 AM6/6/01
to
In article <2cf0acb0.01060...@posting.google.com>,

tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) writes:
>> > John Geentry:
> "I didn't think it was possible to be a test pilot without attending
> test pilot school. If it is possible without Test pilot school, what
> is the point of asking for test pilots..."
>
>> Michael Cassutt:
> "As you say, any Joe Soap could claim to be a test pilot -- if
> you're hired as a test pilot by an aircraft company, that's what you
> are."
Withinn certain limits - I'll amplify below.
>
> Consider Elliot See. Here is a perfect example of how far NASA was
> willing to bend in order to get a civilian. The man went to the
> Merchant Marine Academy! (the only other alumnus NASA hired from that
> school is Mark Kelly in 1996, and an argument could be made that the
> reason NASA hired him was because they wanted to hire twins). So here
> is Elliot See, corporate GE "test pilot" with F-86, XF-D, F-104,
> F11F-1F, RB-66, F-4H and T-38 engine test on his resume. I am not
> impressed. He did have a Masters in Engineering from UCLA to his
> credit. But look who NASA passes over to select Mr Civilian: Michael
> Collins, Dick Gordon, CC Williams and many others. Collins was an
> ARPS grad! Gordon was a seasoned test pilot who had won the Bendix
> Trophy Race (beating Glenn's record). Williams was a Navy TPS grad
> AND a Marine. NASA passed over all Marines, other TPS grads and ARPS
> grads to hire Mr Elliot See, with his GE engine test "experience".

Uhm... do you have any idea of what "corporate test pilots do?"
They're the ones who take aircraft on their first flights, and compete
the Category I testeing before the airplanes get turned over to the
Services. They're the ones who do the Envelope Extension stuff, right
out into the sticky part. They're the ones doing the Stability and
Control stuff. And the flying qualities stuff, adn the performance
guarantee stuff. When you look at "corporate" Test Pilots, you find
names like Tony LeVier, Fish Salmon, Bill Bridgeman, George Welch,
Beryl Erikson, Tex Johnston, Neil Anderson, Elliot See, and about a zillion
others. Go find a copy of "The Lonely Sky" by Bill Bridgeman, the
Douglas Test Pilot for the D558-2 and X-3, and tell me about "experience"
(Oh, and BTW, Bridgeman had been a Heavy Driver during WW 2)

Now, what does FLight Test for an engine manufacturer really does?
(BTW, it's F4D, not XF-D. You also leftout the B-58.)
He's the guy who not only gets to fly the engine first, in some
lash-up testbed, he's the one doing the performace verification and
envelope extension stuff. (BTW, _Anybody_ who flew the F4D, which was
the only 3-axis unstable aircraft ever accepted into service, has
enough Test Pilot Chops for me). They're the guys sorting out the
airframe/inlet/engine mismatches. They're the ones trying to perform
relights on stopcocked engines at 45,000'. They're the ones finding
out if the Thrust Decay on a failed outboard engine on a B-58 a Mach 2
is slow enough to allow the FLight Control System on the airplane to
compensate. (It wasn't. A lot of people died flying B-58s) At the
time of his Astronaut selection, See probably had more Supersonic time
than anyone on the planet. The only competitor to him would have been
the guys down the roatd a Pratt & Whitney, for Supersonic experience
and number of tyoes flown.

Now, if you were talking about being a Test Pilot for an Avionic
Company, that'd be different.

You seem to be rather hooked into the idea that the only Test Pilots
come from Test Pilot School. It isn't so. It also isn't so that the
only worthwile Test Pilots are military.

Ed Hengeveld

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 1:26:51 AM6/6/01
to
tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote in message news:<2cf0acb0.01060...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ed Hengeveld:
> "I approached Pete Conrad at the time..."
>
> Ed, were you able to get any more info from Pete Conrad on assignment
> selection?


No, I'm sorry. I found his address too late at the time and sent him
the article after it was finished. He read it and said it looked
accurate to him and brought back "many fond memories". He then gave me
Dean Grimm's address and left it at that.
I believe these guys don't (choose to) remember too many of the kind
of details we nuts would like to know.

One of the things that still puzzles me is that Bill Anders is
supposed to have flown the LLTV. I though that only the commanders of
the landing missions flew it and that Conrad and Armstrong were the
first to fly it in 1966 because of their Apollo-2 and 3 backup
assignments, respectively, which pointed them to possible lunar
landing missions further down the line?.

I did send the article to Jim McDivitt and he said that he and Rusty
Schweickart did not fly the LLTV - they flew Langley's tethered LLRF.
I don't believe Tom Stafford flew the LLTV either.

Did Anders fly the LLTV? And in which timeframe? Fact is that he was
part of the commission investigating one of the crashes. Any comments,
anyone?

Ed Hengeveld

rebizman

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:43:11 AM6/6/01
to

"Stuf4" <tdad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cf0acb0.01060...@posting.google.com...
> From all of my archival reading here at sci.space.history, I got the
> impression that this was an open-minded forum.

The *forum* is. You've made it plain that you are not. Refusing to ignore
the facts and agree with you does not change the status of this forum from
being open-minded. Your conclusions are wrong and your research shallow, and
here you are arguing with people who were there or who have spent a great
deal of time in contact with people who were.


rebizman

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:45:48 AM6/6/01
to

"Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8gakf9...@Mineshaft.att.net...
> And The Dealy Lama

Would that be the guy that Dealy Plaza was named after-

OH MY GOD IT ALL FITS!!!


Stuf4

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 10:16:10 AM6/6/01
to
Peter,

I was wrong in my characterization of See's background.

In a moment of introspection, I believe that my unfair bias was
because of the results of his circling approach at Lambert Field. I
wasn't there and I don't have all the facts, but there appear to be
strong indications that he was weak on talent.

*

My question about the subsequent crew swaps and the AS204 fire
remains. I have studied it thoroughly and I still don't see how it
sidetracks any possible plans Slayton may have had for Armstrong.

I would appreciate a straight answer from anyone out there.


~ CT

Stuf4

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 11:42:59 AM6/6/01
to
I have a copy of the LLRV/TV training status summary from the 16 Mar
67 LLRV/TV Monthly Progress Report that shows that Anders and
Armstrong had completed Helicopter Rqmts, LLRF tng, LLRV/TV Simulator
tng, Ground Runs and Fixture checkout. Aldrin, Conrad and Williams
were behind them by having all of this except for Helicopter Rqmts.
Borman only had LLRF training completed. This is the document that
leads me to the conclusion that the fire investigation put Borman
behind the others.

Another chart shows the LLRV/TV flight summary from the beginning of
the program at FRC through the end of 1969. This chart states that 8
astronauts flew the LLTV up through that time. I will type out a
summary chart (it should be readable in a fixed-space font):

*******************************************
8 ASTRONAUTS - 88 FLIGHTS, 28 LUNAR SIMS:

2----------068!7----000---008*01*4-
FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND
67 1968 1969

(my xerox of the chart is hard to read and my
numbers may be off by one on Mar68,May68,Jun69)

Legend-
!: 30 astronaut flights in Apr68
*: 11 astronaut flights in Jul and Oct69
-: No flights at all
0: Only flights were by MSC checkout pilots

********************************************

From incomplete data, here is my best guess at the astronauts who flew
the LLRV/TV and in what order:

Williams?
Armstrong?

---LLRV grounded for ejection seat and structural issues---
XXX---Williams T-38 Crash

Anders (order for these 5 is unknown)
Aldrin
Armstrong
Borman
Conrad
? (1/2/3 others from the second LLTV class?
Tom Stafford is the *HUGE* unknown here)

XXX---LLRV#1 CRASH-(over 13 month break in training)---
XXX---LLTV#1 CRASH
(it is after the two crashes where the policy seems to
change from CDR/LMP checkout to CDR and BCDR only)

Armstrong
Conrad
? (Lovell?)

(Apollo 11 training complete)

Conrad
Scott
? (Lovell? Young?)

(Apollo 12 training complete)

Lovell
Young

Shepard
Cernan

Gordon
Haise

I am certain that these people did NOT fly it:

McDivitt
Schweickert
Bean
All Gp5 LMPs

The mystery to me is...
Who are the 8? There are the first six, but there are only two
flights before Williams died, so I don't even know if he is one of the
8. Then LLRV#1 crashes in the timeframe that the second class is
scheduled for initial training in the LLRF. Langley training was
requested for the period of 15 Apr to 15 May 68. How could any of
these "not less than four, nor more than six" have gotten through all
of the requirements (LLRF, Helo, LLRV Sim, Systems, etc) before the
vehicle was grounded with the crash on May 6th? There are about 11
flights after Armstrong completes training for Apollo 11. Most, if
not all, of these flights appear to have been flown by Conrad. There
are only around 4 flights after Conrad completes training before
Apollo 12 launches. My guess is that his backup, Scott, flew these.
The chart says that 8 astronauts flew before the close of 1969. I am
certain that this includes: Anders, Aldrin, Armstrong, Borman and
Conrad. The other three are possibly Williams, and then Scott or
Lovell or Young or someone else in the second class. I have a
document that talks about Lovell starting flights on 18 Jan 70. I do
not know if that really means *resuming* flights.

If we knew who Slayton sent for the second class, that would give us a
lot of insight into his thinking. One thing that strikes me right off
is that the request for 4-6 in the LLRF seems to be asking for 2-3
crews. What about Alan Bean being trained as a replacement for
Williams? The policy at the time was to have both CDR and LMP trained
to fly the LLTV.

Is this an indication that Slayton didn't trust Bean to fly the LLTV
but he would still let Conrad fly with him in the LM?


~ CT

Michael Cassutt

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 11:51:47 AM6/6/01
to
To Stuf4 aka CT, wherever you are:

I'm still here, of course. Is there some other place I should be? ;)

We've covered a lot of ground in the past few days, and now it's time for a
little reflection. In fact, I have several reactions to various threads - but
this will be the general one.

No one controls this group and everyone is free to participate. That's the
glory (and terror) of usenet.

New research is welcome. I believe I said something of the sort in the first
line of my first post to you.

You've been hurt by the reaction to your posts, which is understandable,
because the reaction has been blunt. I urge you to look at your old posts,
which are studded with their own blunt accusations, often against people who
aren't around to defend themselves: Deke Slayton was a liar, you weren't
"impressed" with Elliot See's test flying background, Cernan "screwed up," etc.
Your tone certainly invited the reaction.

(While I'm at it, your posts have been quite long and filled with so many
assertions that require comment that the length alone - much less content -
makes answering them a chore. Remember that participation here is something we
supposedly do for fun.)

Please continue your research. Try to follow it to a logical conclusion
instead of making a quantum leap to a questionable one. Remember that we are
all reading cold type in small electronic boxes, and that we are rarely
received in the same mode we transmit. (For example, this little messages
can't possibly convey my wit, charm, and all around good looks...;)

And be aware that you are coming late to discussions that, in one form or
another, have been going on for thirty years. And, finally, that much of the
information you're seeking won't have a paper trail....

Other comments in other threads.

Michael Cassutt

Peter Stickney

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:02:07 PM6/6/01
to
> Peter,
>
> I was wrong in my characterization of See's background.

It wasn't personal, really. I'd just observed some tendency to deride
the experience of people who weren't active duty military test pilots,
and perhaps, a bit of unfamiliatiry with what the job entails. The
days of Hop Harrigan disappeared in the late '40s, with the posting of
people like Gen. Al Boyd and Fred Ascani to run Air Force Flight Test.
At that point, Flight Test became a science, requiring strict
discipline in order to collect data that was able to be broken down
without secondary effects (Out of prameters, basically) interfering.
This wasn't necessarily safe. Mel Apt flew the most accurate flight
profile ever for the X-2, and the high speed intability of the
aircraft killed him.


>
> In a moment of introspection, I believe that my unfair bias was
> because of the results of his circling approach at Lambert Field. I
> wasn't there and I don't have all the facts, but there appear to be
> strong indications that he was weak on talent.

As I recall it, they were making a weather penetration to Lambert
Field, (It was kinda stormy/cloudy IIRC, and they were displaced from
the runway. Not unusual in itself. In the process of going around and
trying to keep it under the clouds, they stalled/spun into the plant.
(Not sur if spacial diorientation/loss of visual horizon was a factor)
Not the best decision, but momentary lapses in the wrong place will
get you. Joe Walker getting a little too close to XB-70 no 2 in his
F-104, for example. Frank Tallman flying into the mountains near his
field in California, an approach thaat he'd made every day for 20+
years. The tendency to try to recover a marginal situation has killed
more pilots than anything else. And it happens to everyone.
Sometimes it's fatal. Remember - "A Doctor buries his mistakes, a
Pilot is buried with them."

> My question about the subsequent crew swaps and the AS204 fire
> remains. I have studied it thoroughly and I still don't see how it
> sidetracks any possible plans Slayton may have had for Armstrong.
>
> I would appreciate a straight answer from anyone out there.

Well, from what we've seen so far, it was a matter of circunstances
falling into place. Armstrong had the experience, had been involved
with the LLTV project from the beginning, and the LM hardware and
software came together at that time. I don't think that Armstrong
being a cililian was an overriding factor. The goal was to land a man
on the Moon before the Soviets. Or the end of the decade, whichever
came first. The fact that the first man on the Moon would be an
American was the driving requirement, not that he be a civilian.
Not that I'm upset that it was.

OM

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 3:02:04 PM6/6/01
to
On 06 Jun 2001 15:51:47 GMT, cas...@aol.com (Michael Cassutt) wrote:

>To Stuf4 aka CT, wherever you are:
>
>I'm still here, of course. Is there some other place I should be? ;)

...Why, yes, there is. You should be writing a few more biographies of
a few more of the astronauts before all the old guard is dead and
hasn't had their memories embellished by your talents :-) :-)

>No one controls this group and everyone is free to participate. That's the
>glory (and terror) of usenet.

...Wrong. I own this group. I have the bill of sale signed by LBJ on
the same stationary he wrote out the orders to have Armstrong chosen
as the A11 CDR. So it's mine, all mine! Nyah!

> Your tone certainly invited the reaction.

...His tone was identical to that of the MUFON morons, the conspiracy
geeks, and to some extent Geo insofar as the obstinance goes. As I
said before, *that* is what triggered our mass "fuck off" response.

>(While I'm at it, your posts have been quite long and filled with so many
>assertions that require comment that the length alone - much less content -
>makes answering them a chore. Remember that participation here is something we
>supposedly do for fun.)

"This is my newsgroup, this is my gun..."

>For example, this little messages can't possibly convey my wit, charm, and
>all around good looks...;)

<cough>

>And be aware that you are coming late to discussions that, in one form or
>another, have been going on for thirty years.

...And have been hammered to death on this group in the past five.

>And, finally, that much of the information you're seeking won't have a paper trail....

...Ah! But as most CT types claim, the lack of a paper trail is a sure
sign of a conspiracy!

OM

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 3:09:06 PM6/6/01
to
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:02:07 GMT, p-sti...@worldnet.att.net (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

> Mel Apt flew the most accurate flight profile ever for the X-2, and the high speed intability of the
>aircraft killed him.

...A flight profile which incedentally was written by Ike himself
while sunning himself on the Grassy Knoll, just to get the dominos in
line so that Armstrong would be the only civilian astronaut capable of
landing on the moon first.

John Geenty

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:30:27 PM6/6/01
to

> My question about the subsequent crew swaps and the AS204 fire
> remains. I have studied it thoroughly and I still don't see how it
> sidetracks any possible plans Slayton may have had for Armstrong.
>
> I would appreciate a straight answer from anyone out there.
> ~ CT

Because Gus Grissom died in the fire and the Director Of Flight Crew
Operations has said that he would have been the first man on the moon. The
loss of the Grissom crew in the fire also meant that the Armstrong crew was
put together officially and placed into the rotation one step earlier than
they otherwise would have been.

Prior to the fire it was;

Grissom - Schirra
McDivitt - Stafford
Borman - Conrad

After the fire it was;

Schirra - Stafford
McDivitt - Conrad
Borman - Armstrong

And even at this point Armstrong wasn't in line for the Landing, it was the
8/9 swap that made it possible.


John Geenty

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 2:34:42 PM6/6/01
to

> Is this an indication that Slayton didn't trust Bean to fly the LLTV
> but he would still let Conrad fly with him in the LM?
>
>
> ~ CT

Are you sure its a question of trust and not one of risk? The only people
who really need to fly the LLTV are guys who are gonna land the LM. If an
LMP has to fly the LM at any time during decent, its an abort situation,
hence no landing. If the LMP isn't going to land, why expose them to risk on
a fairly dangerous machine, and why risk the machines when you've got so few
and you need them for the Cdrs? By the time Bean started training, I'm sure
that the procedures for a landing and who needs what training were a lot
more advanced than they were when Williams was first assigned.

John


sha...@spdcc.com

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 7:36:01 PM6/6/01
to

Just a bit of amplification of about the research that
the LLRVs were procured for, quoted from "In-Flight
Simulation Studies at the NASA Dryden Flight Research
Facility", Mary F. Shafer, NASA TM 4396, July 1992.

"The Lunar Lander Research Vehicles (LLRVs) (Fig. 21),
a program of the mid-1969's, were initially procured
[by FRC, now DFRC] to examine the problems associated
with lunar landing.21,34,35 Lift and attitude control
rockets were used during the landing simulations but
the jet engine of the vehicle was used to lift and
translate the craft to the simulation starting point.
This led unavoidably to the examination of low dynamic
pressure vertical take-off and landing flight. This
jet engine was also used to counter 5/6 of the weight
of the vehicle, simulating the lunar gravitational
accelerations. The variable-stability control system
permitted the examination of attitude command and of
rate command with on-off control acceleration and
proportional acceleration. Pilots discovered that
attitude command was easier to fly than rate command
and that satisfactory control was more easily achieved
in rate command with on-off control acceleration than
with proportional control.

"The visual, motion, and audio cues made the simulation
highly effective. The LLRVs were so successful at
simulating lunar landings that they were transferred to
the space program21 and used for astronaut training,
renamed Lunar Lander Training Vehicles, type A or LLTV-A.
Three more derivative vehicles, the LLTV-Bs, were later
acquired by the space program.

"21Manke, John A., Retelle, John P., and Kempel, Robert
W., "Assessment of Lifting Body Vehicle Handling Qualities",
AIAA-71-310, Mar. 1971.

"34Matranga, Gene J., Mallick, Donald L., and Kluever, Emil
E., "An Assessment of Ground and Flight Simulators for the
Examination of Manned Lunar Landing," AIAA-67-238, Feb. 1967.

"35Kluever, E.E., Mallick, Donald L., and Matranga, Gene J.,
"Flight Results With a Nonaerodynamic, Variable Stability,
Flying Platform," Society of Experimental Test Pilots (SETP)
10th Symposium Proceedings, Beverly Hills, CA, vol. 8, no. 2,
Sept. 1966, pp. 98-121."

The title of ref. 35 emphasizes that the LLRV was deliberately
made to be nonaerodynamic, meaning that the airframe didn't
create lift. Naturally, there was some drag, but the airspeed
was low enough that even that was negligible.

Incidentally, Dryden has the surviving LLTV-A on display as
part of the public tour. The gimbaled jet engine has been
removed, though, as has been the ejection seat.

One last technical detail--the LLRV fllight control system
was cleverly designed to weigh a mere 61 lb. At the time,
this was a very impressive achievement. FRC had a lot of
experience with "fly-by-wire" reaction control systems, of
course, as they'd been flying them since the mid-1950's.

--
Mary Shafer sha...@spdcc.com


----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net

Interim Books

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:13:55 PM6/7/01
to
On 6 Jun 2001 07:16:10 -0700, tdad...@yahoo.com (Stuf4) wrote:
>My question about the subsequent crew swaps and the AS204 fire
>remains. I have studied it thoroughly and I still don't see how it
>sidetracks any possible plans Slayton may have had for Armstrong.
>
>I would appreciate a straight answer from anyone out there.


Try working forward from the evidence rather than backward from a
predrawn conclusion.

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/


0 new messages