Six Degrees, U.S. & Russian
Graham Nelson
Six Degrees of Neil Armstrong
-----------------------------
"I've danced with a man,
Who's danced with a girl,
Who's danced with the Prince of Wales..."
(song lyric, quoting Herbert Farjeon (1887-1945))
-----
Contents
1. The Rules
2. Can the game always be won?
3. Distances and centrality
4. The Armstrong Number
5. Six Degrees of Orville Wright
Appendix A. A One-Page History of Manned Spaceflight
B. Statistics to 3 May 1998
C. Proof of Main Theorem
-----
1. The Rules
In the game "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon", the player is given the
name of an actor -- Alec Guinness, say -- and challenged to think
of a series of films connecting him to Kevin Bacon, each connection
by a common cast member.
In the closely related game of "Six degrees of Neil Armstrong",
manned spaceflights replace films, those people aboard (henceforth
called "astronauts" regardless of nationality or employment status)
replace cast-members and Mr Neil Armstrong replaces Mr Kevin Bacon.
Calculating frivolous statistics replaces any more sensible
activity.
A "spacecraft" is any crewed vehicle launched with the intention
of reaching an altitude of 100 miles. (Early X-program rocket
planes do not count.) Crews from different craft are considered
merged into one crew only if they have crossed hatches into each
other's pressurised interior. So although Gemini 6 and Gemini 7
approached within less than twelve inches, and the four astronauts
remarked on each other's beards as seen through the windows, they
were never one crew. Similarly for the Shuttle's inspection-only
rendezvous with Mir. Astronauts on their first launch are called
"rookies".
-----
2. Can the game always be won?
"Neil Armstrong to Alexei Leonov" is an example where the player
can win, by nominating:
Alexei Leonov
~ Tom Stafford (Apollo/Soyuz)
~ John Young (Apollo 16)
~ Mike Collins (Gemini 10)
~ Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
which pleasingly joins the first man to walk in space, who then
drew a picture of it in the log-book with coloured pencils, with
the first to walk on the Moon, who was photographed only twice,
badly and by accident. The notation ~ abbreviates "was once in
the same crew as".
But the player is certain to lose if challenged to join Yuri
Gagarin to Neil Armstrong, because Gagarin flew only once, and on
his own. Gagarin is "related" to nobody: no astronaut can be
reached from him.
Main Theorem. Every astronaut is related to every other, except:
(i) The following are related to nobody at all:
John Glenn (Mercury 6) Yuri Gagarin (Vostok 1)
Scott Carpenter (Mercury 7) Gherman Titov (Vostok 2)
Valentina Tereshkova (Vostok 6)
Georgii Beregovoi (Soyuz 3)
(ii) Two pioneers are related only to subsequent rookie crews:
Al Shepard (Mercury 3) ~ Stu Roosa ~ Ed Mitchell (Apollo 14).
Pavel Popovich (Vostok 4) ~ Yuri Artyukhin (Soyuz 14).
(iii) Four rookie crews are related only to themselves:
Vladimir Komarov ~ Konstantin Feoktistov ~ Boris Yegorov
(Voskhod 1).
Gerald Carr ~ Ed Gibson ~ Bill Pogue (Skylab 4).
Gennady Sarafanov ~ Lev Demin (Soyuz 15).
Vyacheslav Zudov ~ Valery Rozdestvensky (Soyuz 23).
Notes.
(i) In a few months' time, John Glenn will fly on STS-95
and cease to be an exception, leaving Scott Carpenter the
sole American astronaut never to have flown with any other.
(iii) Feoktistov and Yegorov were civilians sent up an an
experiment: one was an engineer, the other a doctor and
neither was very fully trained. Komarov would have had a
career in cosmonautics had he not been tragically killed in
the re-entry of Soyuz 1, of which he was the sole crewman.
Although Ed Gibson did not fly again, he did become head
of NASA's scientist-astronauts in the early 1980s.
It follows that of the 383 astronauts to date, all but 21 can
be joined to Neil Armstrong by an astute enough player.
-----
3. Distances and centrality
The "distance" between two astronauts is the length of the shortest
chain between them. The largest distance on record is 12 missions
long and occurs only between these two astronauts:
Vitaly Zholobov
~ Boris Volynov (Soyuz 21)
~ Alexei Yeliseyev (Soyuz 5)
~ Nikolai Rukavishnikov (Soyuz 10)
~ Vladimir Lyakhov (a Salyut 6 crew overlap in 1979)
~ Valery Polyakov (Soyuz TM 6)
~ Ulf Merbold (a Mir crew overlap in 1994)
~ John Young (STS-9)
~ Michael Collins (Gemini 10)
~ Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
~ David Scott (Gemini 8)
~ James McDivitt (Apollo 9)
~ Edward White (Gemini 4)
It is sad to relate that to almost all modern astronauts, Russian
or American, the most distant relation is usually either Ed White,
lost in the Apollo 1 ground fire, or Georgi Dobrovolsky, lost in the
re-entry of Soyuz 11, the first space station flight in history.
One measure of the "centrality" of an astronaut -- his degree of
involvement, if you like -- is the maximum distance to any other.
Thus Zholobov and White have centrality 12, which is highly non-
central. The most central are a whole cluster of career astronauts
involved in the Shuttle/Mir dockings, on both sides, sharing a
centrality rating of 6.
-----
4. The Armstrong Number
The "Armstrong number" of an astronaut is the distance to Neil
Armstrong, i.e., the shortest way the player can win the
Six Degrees game from that astronaut.
By definition only Neil Armstrong has A = 0.
Only Michael Collins, Dave Scott and Buzz Aldrin have A = 1.
Six different astronauts have A = 2, of whom John Young is the
only one to have flown on the Shuttle. The lowest Russian A-number
is 4, held by Alexei Leonov and a number of others.
The highest Armstrong number on record is A = 9, held jointly
by four Russians:
Andrian Nikolayev (Vostok 3, Soyuz 9)
Georgi Dobrovolsky (Soyuz 11)
Viktor Patsayev (Soyuz 11)
Vitaly Zholobov (Soyuz 21)
Within the U.S. ranks, the highest Armstrong number is now 7, shared
as one might expect by the five first-time crew members of the current
Shuttle flight, STS-90 or "Neurolab". Here's the shortest link between
one of them and Armstrong:
Scott Altman (the pilot of STS-90)
~ Richard Searfoss (STS-90)
~ John Blaha (STS-58)
~ James Buchli (STS-29)
~ Thomas Mattingly (STS-51C)
~ John Young (Apollo 16)
~ Michael Collins (Gemini 10)
~ Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
Mr Altman might yet see his degree drop as low as 5, if for instance
he should one day command a flight carrying Michael Foale, who shares
the record for the lowest degree of any currently active astronaut:
Michael Foale (first flight STS-45)
~ Byron Lichtenberg (STS-45)
~ John Young (STS-9)
~ Michael Collins (Gemini-10)
~ Neil Armstrong (Apollo-11)
Conceivably, if the ESA astronaut Ulf Merbold flies again, then
Altman could even drop to A = 4: Merbold's low A-number of 3, and
the fact that he stayed on Mir in 1994, means that current Mir crews
often have A-numbers about the same as those of the Shuttle crews
being sent up to dock with them. Some measure of the degree of
mixing caused by these dockings is that almost every astronaut of
the 1990s, of either nationality, has A between 4 and 6.
For NASA astronauts of the pre-Shuttle era the record is A = 6,
shared by Gordo Cooper, Joe Kerwin and Paul Weitz. When STS-95
flies, John Glenn will share this record with them.
-----
5. Six Degrees of Orville Wright
In a sense, the inter-relatedness of astronauts today is typical
of all acquired multi-person skills. If we had taken aeroplanes
instead of spacecraft, and pilots instead of astronauts, then
almost every pilot in history would be related to Orville Wright:
since the law of every nation requires trainee pilots to have
experienced ones sitting next to them, this will always be so.
Nearly all drivers are probably related to Henry Ford. Nearly
all concert pianists to J. S. Bach.
The interesting point is that being an astronaut seems to be
considered something that one learns by experience. This isn't
obvious. With a new vehicle, it may be better to train entirely
fresh recruits, nor is it clear that fighting-fit test pilots are
necessarily better stuff than plump, short-sighted spacecraft
designers: the Russian experience with space stations has been
that both are useful.
But I doubt very much if the cork will go back into the bottle.
Will there ever be more astronauts unrelated to Neil Armstrong?
Perhaps, if China builds a primitive Vostok-style one-man rocket;
perhaps also if rich enthusiasts succeed in building a working
orbital vehicle before their government succeeds in making them
undergo proper training. But I suggest that essentially every
astronaut who ever lives will be related to Armstrong, with
A-numbers which slowly -- but surprisingly slowly -- rise over
the decades.
Graham Nelson
3 May 1998
-----
Appendix A. A One-Page History of Manned Spaceflight
Only the U.S. and the USSR/Russia have launched people into space
or are likely to in the near future, though China, Japan and
Europe all announce this intention from time to time.
In Russia, one-man Vostok capsules 1961-3 were soon replaced with
craft capable of seating either two or three cosmonauts: briefly
Voskhod, 1964-5, but ever since 1967, variants of Soyuz. Russian
aims centred on long-duration flights aboard the 1973-85 Salyut
series of space stations, from 1986 on the modular, expanding Mir.
Permanent crews of two are visited by Soyuz capsules occupied by
two professional cosmonauts and one "guest", who would stay only
briefly. 1970s and 80s guests were InterCosmos air-force officers
from the Warsaw Pact, India, Syria and France. In the wake of the
Soviet collapse, paying guests ranged from a Japanese journalist
to an English chocolate-bar scientist; a practice dropped in 1994
when a third permanent berth was created instead, occupied by an
ESA or NASA scientist-astronaut.
The U.S. programme began with one-man Mercury capsules, 1961-3,
then two-man Gemini capsules 1965-6, then three-man Apollo 1968-75:
these visited the Moon, the Skylab space station and finally
docked with Soyuz 19 in the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project (ASTP).
America then lost access to space until 1981, when the Shuttle
became operational. Its crew is usually 5 to 7 and it has since
flown 90 times, carrying guests from friendly countries,
universities, aerospace companies and, twice, the U. S. Congress
committees funding NASA. In 1995, with STS-71, the Shuttle finally
found something to dock with: Mir.
-----
Appendix B. Statistics on Manned Spaceflight to 3 May 1998
383 different people have been astronauts, filling a total of
789 assignments to 208 manned launches; the "average" crew
thus has 3.80 members and the "average" astronaut has been
on 2.06 flights.
There have been 48 dockings of differently-launched crews:
the ASTP, eight of Shuttle with Mir, eleven of Soyuz with
Salyut 6, five with Salyut 7, twenty-three with Mir.
The current statistics for astronaut experience are:
Launches Number of astronauts
6 3 (*)
5 12
4 35
3 69
2 100
1 164
total 383
(*) John Young, Story Musgrave, Gennady Strekalov.
Almost all 6- and 5-launch astronauts are retired, as are
many of the 4-launch astronauts. Many 1-launch astronauts
are one-flight-only guests or from minor space programmes:
Europe, Japan, Canada, the Ukraine and so on.
The most experienced crew ever launched was on STS-80, whose
members were, on average, on their 3.6th flight; which did
not help them to get the EVA hatch door open, though the
mission was otherwise a success. The next most experienced
was Soyuz T-13, averaging 3.5, two experts sent up to the
desperately stricken Salyut 7 in order to revive it.
The average Shuttle crew's experience level is 1.95.
There have been 31 all-rookie crews, but that is to count 14
early one-man missions; once Apollo became operational,
the only two U.S. rookie crews were Skylab 4 and STS-2;
once Soyuz did, there were ten on the Russian side.
(Russia has often placed technical expertise, or military
rank, over experience.) The last two were Soyuz 25, 1977
and Soyuz TM-19, 1994. Rookie missions have tended to be
unlucky: Soyuz 15, Soyuz 23, Soyuz 25 and STS-2 all came
down in a hurry, for instance, while Skylab 4 was an unhappy
experience almost leading to a mutiny.
-----
Appendix C. Proof of Main Theorem
The Russian part is best checked by computer, but isn't too
surprising, given (nearly) permanently manned space stations
since 1980 or so and many opportunities for crew overlap. The
American half can just about be demonstrated by hand, and
without needing to use any Russian missions.
Write A ~~ B if a chain of missions can be constructed between
A and B.
Every Shuttle mission from STS-7 to the present day has been
commanded by someone who had already flown aboard the Shuttle.
Thus every Shuttle astronaut ~~ a crew member of one of
STS-1, STS-2, STS-3, STS-4, STS-5 or STS-6.
STS-1 was commanded by John Young.
STS-2 was commanded by Engle ~ Covey (STS-51 I) ~ Hauck (STS-26)
~ Crippen (STS-7) ~ Young (STS-1).
STS-3 was piloted by Fullerton ~ Musgrave (STS-51 F)
~ Covey (STS-51 I) hence ~~ Young as above.
STS-4 was commanded by Mattingly ~ Young (Apollo 16).
STS-5 was commanded by Brand ~ Stafford (ASTP)
~ Young (Apollo 10).
STS-6 was commanded by Weitz ~ Musgrave (STS-6) hence ~~ Young
as above.
Thus, every Shuttle astronaut ~~ John Young. Which of the
earlier ones do?
Young
~ Collins (Gemini 10)
~ Armstrong (Apollo 11)
~ Scott (Gemini 8)
~ McDivitt (Apollo 9)
~ White (Gemini 4)
~ Schweickart (Apollo 9)
~ Worden (Apollo 15)
~ Irwin (Apollo 15)
~ Aldrin (Apollo 11)
~ Lovell (Gemini 12)
~ Borman (Gemini 7)
~ Anders (Apollo 8)
~ Swigert (Apollo 13)
~ Haise (Apollo 13)
~ Grissom (Gemini 3)
~ Stafford (Apollo 10)
~ Schirra (Gemini 6)
~ Eisele (Apollo 7)
~ Cunningham (Apollo 7)
~ Brand (Apollo/Soyuz Test Project)
~ Slayton (Apollo/Soyuz Test Project)
~ Cernan (Apollo 10)
~ Evans (Apollo 17)
~ Schmitt (Apollo 17)
~ Mattingly (Apollo 16)
~ Duke (Apollo 16)
More deviously,
Young
~ Garriott (STS-9)
~ Lousma (Skylab 3)
~ Bean (Skylab 3)
~ Gordon (Apollo 12)
~ Conrad (Apollo 12)
~ Cooper (Gemini 5).
This leaves only Glenn, Carpenter, Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell,
Carr, Gibson and Pogue, who divide up as claimed above.
That demonstration exaggerates the importance of John Young:
if he had retired in the late 70s and never flown STS-1 and STS-9,
the theorem would still be true (though trickier to prove). Even
if he, Mattingly and the other Apollo survivors had all retired,
the theorem would be true thanks to links between Apollo and the
Russian Soyuz programme, and subsequently between Shuttle and the
Soyuz/Mir programme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Chris Williams
In article <ant031852868M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk says...
> There have been 48 dockings of differently-launched crews:
> the ASTP, eight of Shuttle with Mir, eleven of Soyuz with
> Salyut 6, five with Salyut 7, twenty-three with Mir.
Soyuz 4 and 5?
'Six degrees' is a triumph. Thanks, Graham.
Chris
Henry Spencer
In article <ant031852868M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Will there ever be more astronauts unrelated to Neil Armstrong?
They're more likely to build a Gemini-style versatile two-man spacecraft.
There is no question that they are capable of it; it's just a matter of
whether they want to spend the money.
>...perhaps also if rich enthusiasts succeed in building a working
>orbital vehicle before their government succeeds in making them
>undergo proper training...
This is very curious wording, as if there was no possible intermediate
case between socialist government bureaucracies and rich hobbyists -- as
if there was no possibility of privately-funded *commercial* development
of manned spacecraft. In fact, there are several such ventures at various
stages of activity right now. (In some cases, the designers in question
might prefer an unmanned vehicle, but have concluded that putting a pilot
on board makes such an enormous difference in dealing with the regulators
that it's the simpler approach.)
(Note that Graham's definitions did not mandate *orbital* flight --
although for some reason he specified 100mi rather than the usual 100km as
the threshold of space -- and that expands the list of private developers
further.)
No private developer in his right mind is going to try to contract with
NASA for crew training. It would be the biggest single item in his
budget, even assuming it could be arranged at all. And it's not really of
any great importance; as Graham has already noted, the relevance of (say)
shuttle training to flying (say) a Roton is tenuous at best.
Quite possibly one would want professional test pilots with experience in
high-performance aircraft, but many such people are not astronauts or
government employees. (A particularly obvious example is Mitch Burnside
Clapp, one of the principals of Pioneer Rocketplane, who in a previous
life :-) was an instructor at the USAF test-pilot school.)
--
Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer
is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Graham Nelson
In article <6iikl1$9g$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, Chris Williams
<URL:mailto:C.A.Wi...@shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant031852868M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
> gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk says...
>
> > the ASTP, eight of Shuttle with Mir, eleven of Soyuz with
> > Salyut 6, five with Salyut 7, twenty-three with Mir.
>
My recollection is that, contrary to official TASS statements,
Soyuz 4 and 5 never had any access to each other's craft: they
didn't cross hatches, and only spoke to each other through an
internal phone line.
Although they did spacewalk to exchange a crew-member? Hmm.
A borderline case.
> 'Six degrees' is a triumph. Thanks, Graham.
Merely a Sunday afternoon exercise, but thanks.
Graham Nelson
In article <EsEp2H.Hsy%spen...@zoo.toronto.edu>, Henry Spencer
> >Will there ever be more astronauts unrelated to Neil Armstrong?
>
> They're more likely to build a Gemini-style versatile two-man spacecraft.
> There is no question that they are capable of it; it's just a matter of
> whether they want to spend the money.
Quite. I merely express doubts that they will -- I suspect that
if and when they do, they'll probably try to send astronauts up
to visit the ISS, to demonstrate that China can deal with the big
boys. Or some such exercise.
> >...perhaps also if rich enthusiasts succeed in building a working
> >orbital vehicle before their government succeeds in making them
> >undergo proper training...
>
> This is very curious wording, as if there was no possible intermediate
> case between socialist government bureaucracies and rich hobbyists -- as
> if there was no possibility of privately-funded *commercial* development
> of manned spacecraft.
Well, I had just drawn a parallel with aviation, where the government
requires you to learn by sitting next to an experienced pilot. Is
that so terribly socialist? Eventually I suspect the same will be
true of being an astronaut. In the short term, I'd guess that a
commercial spacecraft might well hire an ex-Shuttle astronaut as one
of its crew; whereas the anti-NASA, per ardua ad astra people would
sooner have nothing whatever to do with NASA, but they tend not to be
the people with the serious capital to play with.
> In fact, there are several such ventures at various
> stages of activity right now. (In some cases, the designers in question
> might prefer an unmanned vehicle, but have concluded that putting a pilot
> on board makes such an enormous difference in dealing with the regulators
> that it's the simpler approach.)
Extraordinary -- I would have guessed that the regulatory approach
to manned craft was tougher than to unmanned, rather than the
reverse.
> (Note that Graham's definitions did not mandate *orbital* flight --
> although for some reason he specified 100mi rather than the usual 100km as
> the threshold of space -- and that expands the list of private developers
> further.)
My definitions were intended to allow the Mercury sub-orbital lobs
to count. (As for kilometers rather than miles, I forgot the usual
rule.) On the other hand, I thought the Shuttle approach and landing
tests ought to be excluded. And I reflected intention rather than
achievement, so that launch accidents made in earnest still count.
> No private developer in his right mind is going to try to contract with
> NASA for crew training. It would be the biggest single item in his
> budget, even assuming it could be arranged at all. And it's not really of
> any great importance; as Graham has already noted, the relevance of (say)
> shuttle training to flying (say) a Roton is tenuous at best.
Hiring an ex-Shuttle astronaut, though, so as to have someone who
has practical experience of microgravity, and has been highly trained
in all kinds of ways, not least how to deal with a crisis on-orbit --
this is a different proposition.
I recall that Charles Conrad was in charge of the Delta Clipper?
Not a crew assignment as such, but you see what I mean.
> Quite possibly one would want professional test pilots with experience in
> high-performance aircraft, but many such people are not astronauts or
> government employees. (A particularly obvious example is Mitch Burnside
> Clapp, one of the principals of Pioneer Rocketplane, who in a previous
> life :-) was an instructor at the USAF test-pilot school.)
--
Henry Spencer
In article <ant040950b49M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>,
Graham Nelson <gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Perhaps, if China builds a primitive Vostok-style one-man rocket...
>>
>> They're more likely to build a Gemini-style versatile two-man spacecraft.
>> There is no question that they are capable of it; it's just a matter of
>> whether they want to spend the money.
>
I have doubts about it too, although the latest word is apparently that
the project is "on" again. (It's been intermittently pursued for a long
time.)
>> ...no possibility of privately-funded *commercial* development
>> of manned spacecraft.
>
>Well, I had just drawn a parallel with aviation, where the government
>requires you to learn by sitting next to an experienced pilot. Is
>that so terribly socialist?
Your wording was. Skipping that and getting back to the point, again, the
question is whether somebody like a Shuttle pilot really has anything to
teach (say) a Roton pilot. That's doubtful. In the absence of rendezvous
and docking -- which even the Shuttle pilots learn in simulators, not by
practicing it in space with an experienced pilot beside them -- the only
actual *piloting* a Shuttle pilot does is the landing. And the Shuttle
landings are totally different from the landings proposed for most of the
commercial RLV concepts. The Shuttle guys have nothing to teach the RLV
pilots, nothing that can't be taught just as well by simulators or by
ordinary test pilots.
There is no current legal requirement for dual-pilot instruction for
spaceship pilots. Besides, such a requirement would undoubtedly stipulate
that such experience be obtained in a vehicle similar to the one intended
to be flown -- you can't qualify as a helicopter pilot in a Cessna, not
even with an experienced helicopter pilot beside you, and you certainly
can't qualify as a helicopter pilot by being taught by a Cessna pilot.
Insofar as the rules have been defined -- which is not very fully yet --
private/commercial manned spacecraft probably start out as experimental
aircraft, with a requirement for a pilot's license but with necessary
qualifications otherwise left almost entirely up to the builder. Somebody
always has to fly a new type of aircraft for the first time.
Eventually, for commercial service, there will undoubtedly be more
detailed rules, with both specialized types of license (like the current
instrument rating, e.g. a rendezvous/docking rating), and type ratings
(for a specific spaceship model, e.g. a Roton 2B). In both cases, they
will require actual flight experience with experienced instructors. But
neither will apply to the first guys to fly a new experimental type, and
*those* guys will be the experienced instructors who will train the first
operational-service pilots for that type.
>...In the short term, I'd guess that a
>commercial spacecraft might well hire an ex-Shuttle astronaut as one
>of its crew...
Only for public-relations impact, not because he's any better for the job
than an ordinary test pilot. (No, you don't have to get test pilots from
the government; indeed, it's even possible to become a qualified test
pilot with all-private training.)
>...whereas the anti-NASA, per ardua ad astra people would
>sooner have nothing whatever to do with NASA, but they tend not to be
>the people with the serious capital to play with.
You might want to take a closer look at some of the new launch companies.
Also at that "per ardua" -- doing things the NASA way *is* the hard way.
>> ...(In some cases, the designers in question
>> might prefer an unmanned vehicle, but have concluded that putting a pilot
>> on board makes such an enormous difference in dealing with the regulators
>> that it's the simpler approach.)
>
>Extraordinary -- I would have guessed that the regulatory approach
>to manned craft was tougher than to unmanned, rather than the reverse.
The regulatory approach to *passenger* craft may well end up being rather
tougher, but crews are not passengers. In the absence of passengers, the
main regulatory issue is hazards to people on the ground, not to the
occupants. (The FAA is reasonably rational about these things; it's in
business to protect innocent bystanders, not to save people from risks
they voluntarily accept.) Current operational unmanned aircraft have
2000 times (!) the accident rate of their manned counterparts, and that
makes a very large difference in how they're handled by regulators.
A contributing issue here is that the regulators know how to deal with
manned vehicles, even weird experimental ones; they've been doing that for
a long time. But sizable commercial unmanned vehicles are a completely
new area and nobody knows how to handle them, so it's going to take a
while before the rules for them settle down. Somebody who wants to fly
soon under well-defined rules needs to make his vehicle manned.
>> (Note that Graham's definitions did not mandate *orbital* flight...
>> and that expands the list of private developers further.)
>
>My definitions were intended to allow the Mercury sub-orbital lobs
>to count...
Note that any rule which qualifies Mercury also qualifies most X-Prize
vehicles. And at least two of the new commercial launch systems use a
manned rocket aircraft as a first stage, going up in a ballistic
trajectory and kicking out a payload and an upper stage.
>> No private developer in his right mind is going to try to contract with
>> NASA for crew training...
>
>Hiring an ex-Shuttle astronaut, though, so as to have someone who
>has practical experience of microgravity, and has been highly trained
>in all kinds of ways, not least how to deal with a crisis on-orbit --
>this is a different proposition.
Not really. Microgravity is no big deal, at least if it's in orbit rather
than in a ballistic trajectory -- you can take your time figuring out how
to deal with it. And for high training and crisis handling, test pilots
are just as qualified and a lot cheaper (and there is much less of a fuss
if you happen to kill a couple of them). The main reason to hire an
ex-NASA astronaut is for public-relations value.
Brian Lawrence
After the success of Six Degrees of Neil Armstrong can I offer a similarly
trivial list - well two lists actually and hopefully initiate a third.
Most Companions on a Single Spaceflight (10 or more)
18 Mike Foale
17 Jerry Linenger
16 Shannon Lucid & Dave Wolf
13 John Blaha, Vladimir Titov & Musa Manarov
12 N Thagard, A Solovyov, G Strekalov, N Budarin, V Dezhurov & Andy Thomas
11 Yuri Gidzenko, Sergei Avdeyev & Thomas Reiter
10 Sergei Krikalyev
Note: Andy Thomas should equal Mike Foale's record when he returns on STS-91,
adding another
six companions.
Career Total Companions (20 or more)
42 Anatoly Solovyov
33 Shannon Lucid
31 Norm Thagard
29 Hoot Gibson & John Blaha
26 Jeff Hoffman & Story Musgrave
25 Gennady Strekalov, Jerry Ross & Bonnie Dunbar
24 Greg Harbaugh
23 Franklin Chang-Diaz, Ken Bowersox & Vladimir Titov
22 Steve Nagel, Jay Apt, Tom Akers & Jerry Linenger
21 Guion Bluford, Aleksandr Viktorenko, Mark Lee & Jim Wetherbee
20 Dan Brandenstein, Tom Henricks, Sergei Krikalyev, Steve Hawley & Curt Brown
Note 1: Titov and Krikalyev are unique in reaching 20 in only three flights.
Note 2: In this list flying with someone for a second or third time doesn't
count -
these are DIFFERENT companions.
I don't claim that these lists are complete, I could easily have miscounted :-)
Excluding the repeats from the career total list begs the question who are the
astronauts/cosmonauts who have flown together more than once? Does
anyone have a list - it must be quite a long list since the Shuttle started
flying?
In pre-Shuttle times I offer the following:
Borman & Lovell - Gemini 7 & Apollo 8
Stafford & Cernan - Gemini 9 & Apollo 10
Conrad & Gordon - Gemini 11 & Apollo 12
Shatalov & Yeliseyev - Soyuz 4/5, Soyuz 8 & Soyuz 10
Lazarev & Makarov - Soyuz 12 & Soyuz 18 (launch failure)
Gubarev & Grechko - Soyuz 17 & Soyuz 26/28
Titov & Strekalov - Soyuz-T 8 & Soyuz-T 10 (launch failure)
and there's more .............
--
Brian Lawrence, Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK
Reply to: Brian_W_...@msn.com
A man with a good memory is seldom conspicuous for original thought.