Scott Carpenter vs Chris Kraft
James Oberg
Scott Carpenter's new book offers a spirited and well documented defense
against his bad rep on MA-7, especially the way Chris Kraft stomped on him
then and for decades later. Can anybody share any of their insights on
allocating 'blame' versus 'misunderstanding' in this affair?
Dave Michelson
This extract from "This New Ocean" (p. 453) says a great deal:
"Until Aurora 7 reached the communication range of the
Hawaiian station on the third pass, Christopher Kraft,
directing the flight from the Florida control center,
considered this mission the most successful to date;
everything had gone perfectly except for some
overexpenditure of hydrogen peroxide fuel [largely
due to a spacecraft system malfunction that was not
diagnosed until after the flight]."
Moreover, I've reviewed the mission transcripts, and NASA's own
post-mission analysis reports, one of which was classified for almost
twenty years, and have concluded that the description in Carpenter's
book is a very accurate representation of events.
The evidence suggests that Kraft was very eager to ensure that the
pilots worked for him, not the reverse. It's unfortunate that Kraft
showed a tendency to assume malice even where none existed. The
incidents that arose following the second orbit attitude check over
Hawaii and third orbit preparations for retrofire may underscore the
value of using astronauts as capsule communicators, but also played a
key role in feeding Kraft's erroneous conclusion that he was being
snubbed.
Also, although it's well documented, very few people have appreciated
the significance of the problem with the intermittently malfunctioning
pitch horizon sensor that Carpenter faced as he prepared for retrofire.
Had he been aware of the problem at the time, Kraft's reaction to the
incident would likely have been far different.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Jonathan
<dmich...@ieee.org> writes
But in his chapter in "Into Orbit", Carpenter minimises the problem with
the horizon sensor and says that the depletion of fuel was his own fault
The same for most of the overshoot during re-entry.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
James Oberg
"Jonathan" <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> But in his chapter in "Into Orbit", Carpenter minimises the problem with
> the horizon sensor and says that the depletion of fuel was his own fault
> The same for most of the overshoot during re-entry.
This is inconsistent with the account given in 'For Spacious Skies' -- where
can i access the text you describe?
John Beaderstadt
"James Oberg" <james...@houston.rr.com> on Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:50:50
GMT, which said:
>Can anybody share any of their insights on
>allocating 'blame' versus 'misunderstanding' in this affair?
Speaking as the group's resident humanist, I come down on Kraft's
side, the side of the engineers, this time. I've seen interviews
where Carpenter flat-out admits that he was at least as interested in
the "experience" as in flying the spacecraft which, seems to me,
implies at the very least that his attention was not focused. At that
point in manned spaceflight, no one needed a tourist.
I think "blame" is the right word to use in this case.
---------
Beady's 9th Law of Social Harmonics: "Never dress better than the jury."
Jonathan
<james...@houston.rr.com> writes
I don't know, but here's the relevant bit (page 231)
"So I kicked the capsule around faster by using up more fuel and pushing
it all the way. It was an expenditure that I was to regret later on."
Page 232
"I was appalled at the end of the first orbit at the low state of my
fuel. I had not much more than about half my supply left for both the
automatic and the manual systems. And I was warned by the Control
Centre that I would have to come down at the end of the second orbit if
I was not more careful about conserving fuel".
Page 235
"My manual tanks were now very low. And here I made a mistake. When I
switched over to fly-by-wire, I neglected to shut off the straight
manual system. As a result, I was draining fuel out from both systems
every time I used the stick.
....
In other words, I had an error in yaw. I just had not been able to line
up the capsule on all three axes as precisely as I should have..... This
was mostly my fault, though it is difficult to judge yaw precisely by
day when you have no reference point to guide you, and it accounted for
about 175 miles of the 250-mile overshoot."
During the second orbit his temperature ran high enough to affect his
judgment.
It all seems a remarkably candid account. "Journey to Tranquillity"
describes him as admitting his errors 'as handsomely as a Communist
official repenting some deviation from the party line', but that's
typical of the book's sour tone.
Richard Glueck
about spaceflight than his colleagues were. All the transcripts and bio-med
data quoted by Wolfe indicates that the man was perfectly at home and
comfortable with the situation inside his capsule. I think that in the
interviews he's given, Scott is up-front with his performance and what he was
privileged to experience in his role as fourth American in space. Kraft on
the other hand, was a rigid engineer who had a Hell of a task facing him, and
didn't need or want anyone to deviate from his vision of the mission. Kraft
also was agreat one for over-reacting in order to maintain his control
(witness Cunningham and Eisele). Note also that Gene Kranz is pretty rough on
Scott Carpenter in his book. Michael Collins describes him as being a little
weird, "having backed wasp farming". Today, wasp farming is regarded as quite
a forward thinking look at pest control! I think it was a matter of the boys
on "the team" didn't like him, and told Scott he was out of the game. I still
would like to know (my copy of the book hasn't arrived yet) if any other
member of the astronaut corps stood up with Scott to defend him. I asked Scott
this directly and he wrote back that my questions would be answered in his
book. I hope the answer is worth the wait.
Richard
Dave Michelson
>
> Speaking as the group's resident humanist, I come down on Kraft's
> side, the side of the engineers, this time.
Kraft's main concern was preserving his authority as Flight Director.
> I've seen interviews
> where Carpenter flat-out admits that he was at least as interested in
> the "experience" as in flying the spacecraft which, seems to me,
> implies at the very least that his attention was not focused.
Umm, one of Carpenter's tasks was to "evaluate the new environment."
NASA, not Carpenter, made up the flight plan and solicited the various
experiments that flew aboard his flight.
> At that
> point in manned spaceflight, no one needed a tourist.
I've read the mission transcripts in detail. Carpenter was anything but
a tourist.
> I think "blame" is the right word to use in this case.
I disagree.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Dave Michelson
>
> But in his chapter in "Into Orbit", Carpenter minimises the problem with
> the horizon sensor and says that the depletion of fuel was his own fault
> The same for most of the overshoot during re-entry.
My sense is that Carpenter took the high road and accepted
responsibility, only to have this used against him.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Dave Michelson
>
> I still
> would like to know (my copy of the book hasn't arrived yet) if any other
> member of the astronaut corps stood up with Scott to defend him.
Against what? He was never accused of anything. The MA-7 post-mission
report states that the pilot performed well.
Did any of the astronauts privately tell Kraft to knock it off? I doubt
it, and would be very surprised had they done so. It's one thing for
the group to stand up to Max Faget or engineers at MacDonnell. It's
quite another to stand up to someone who was effectively their boss.
Did other senior managers dislike Carpenter? Not that we've seen. In
fact, by all accounts, he and Bob Gilruth got along very well.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Hallerb
ome mentioned part of his flight was classfied. In general terms what could
that have been?
Dave Michelson
The "Postlaunch Memorandum Report for Mercury-Atlas No. 7 (MA-7)" dated
15 June 1962 was originally classified confidential. ("This document
contains information affecting the national defense of the United
states....") Presumably this referred mostly to information concerning
booster performance. Only 225 numbered copies were published. It was
declassified on 11 Aug 1982.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no classified experiments or
other content to MA-7.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Terrell Miller
news:3DF4FA7C...@ieee.org...
> The evidence suggests that Kraft was very eager to ensure that the
> pilots worked for him, not the reverse. It's unfortunate that Kraft
> showed a tendency to assume malice even where none existed. The
> incidents that arose following the second orbit attitude check over
> Hawaii and third orbit preparations for retrofire may underscore the
> value of using astronauts as capsule communicators, but also played a
> key role in feeding Kraft's erroneous conclusion that he was being
> snubbed.
Kraft mentions in his book that Carpenter had already rubbed him the wrong
way as a CAPCOM by having lots of trouble figuring out how to use all the
knobs and switches on his console. So whatever opinion Kraft formed of Scott
was not to do with the Aurora 7 flight, that merely confirmed his existing
opinion.
But I agree that hte guy was probably very vicious in defending his fiefdom,
here and in many other places.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Maybe the price we pay for moving on in life is this very nostalgic,
bittersweet awareness of what we've left behind."
-Sela Ward
Dave Michelson
>
> Kraft mentions in his book that Carpenter had already rubbed him the wrong
> way as a CAPCOM by having lots of trouble figuring out how to use all the
> knobs and switches on his console. So whatever opinion Kraft formed of Scott
> was not to do with the Aurora 7 flight, that merely confirmed his existing
> opinion.
That anecdote has one major flaw: According to Gene Kranz, it never
happened.
Specifically, I'm told that both Gene Kranz and Michael Cassutt have
confirmed that the following account (posted to this newsgroup on
2001-03-31) is essentially correct:
>> I was talking with Gene Kranz last weekend, and he says the part
>> in Kraft's book about Carpenter messing up while working in
>> mission control is wrong. That it wasn't Carpenter- it was
>> Grissom - and that it wasn't the way it was portrayed in the
>> book- Grissom did the best job possible.
In fact, Carpenter apparently excelled at the "busy box" tests that were
conducted in support of the astronaut selection process. Mastering
complex console actions was one of his particular strengths.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Thejunkfile
writes:
>He was never accused of anything. The MA-7 post-mission
>report states that the pilot performed well.
Yeah, but a look at the actual data, such as fuel usage, strongly indicates
otherwise.
I got the impression that he got distracted a lot by the window and simply
didn't notice the problems. It *is* a nice view, after all.
Back when my dad was using his satellite dish, I would constantly crank it over
to whatever NASA TV was using at the time when a shuttle was in flight and
watch the pretty- and pretty silent- images of Earth. My dad just couldn't see
the entertainment value.
Some people don't see the entertainment value of a sunset, either.
There were also some mechanical problems, and towards the end of the flight he
did a bang-up job trying to recover. Still looking at the reentry fuel usage
chart and seeing it plummet to nothing while the capsule was still toasty is
ominous. I wish I'd copied the thing, I'd post it on my website.
I'll just have to pay to get a University of Florida library card now. They
have oodles of this stuff available.
Dave Michelson
>
> In article <3DF57BD2...@ieee.org>, Dave Michelson <dmich...@ieee.org>
> writes:
>
> >He was never accused of anything. The MA-7 post-mission
> >report states that the pilot performed well.
>
> Yeah, but a look at the actual data, such as fuel usage, strongly indicates
> otherwise.
Fuel usage was an issue, but it doesn't indicate that Carpenter wasn't
doing his job. This was an experimental craft and there were design
problems with many of its subsystems, including the RCS.
For one, operation of the ASCS mode while outside the required attitude
limits resulted in unnecessary use of the high thrust units and
consequent drain on fuel. The changes to Mercury after Carpenter's
flight included installation of a switch that allowed the pilot to
disable and reactivate the high-thrust units at his discretion.
Another was the lack of an interlock to prevent inadvertent double
authority control (manual and fly-by-wire).
Finally, the effect of the defective pitch horizon scanner on fuel usage
during turnaround can be clearly seen in Fig 6-3 of Results of the
Second U.S. Manned Orbital Space Flight - May 24, 1962, and is described
in the text.
> I got the impression that he got distracted a lot by the window
> and simply didn't notice the problems. It *is* a nice view, after all.
The air-to-ground transcript suggests otherwise. Carpenter was given a
rather full flight plan that included a plethora of science
experiments. As later Gemini crews would find, assembly and tear down
of experimental apparatus can be much more time consuming than expected.
This extract from "This New Ocean" (p. 453) confirms the notion that
Carpenter's performance was exemplary during the vast majority of the
flight:
"Until Aurora 7 reached the communication range of the
Hawaiian station on the third pass, Christopher Kraft,
directing the flight from the Florida control center,
considered this mission the most successful to date;
everything had gone perfectly except for some
overexpenditure of hydrogen peroxide fuel [largely
due to a spacecraft system malfunction that was not
diagnosed until after the flight]."
For reports of Carpenter's success in dealing with several serious
issues during the flight, please see the report on pilot performance
prepared by Helmut Kuehnek, William Armstrong, John van Bockel, and
Harold Johnson of the Flight Crew Operations Division in "Results of the
Second U.S. Manned Orbital Space Flight - May 24, 1962," p. 63-8.
Carpenter was briefly distracted by the fireflies during the third orbit
over Hawaii, but the unexpected and intermittent problem with the ASCS
and horizon scanner just five minutes and thirty seconds before
beginning of retrosequence was the real issue. Five minutes is not very
much time to analyze the problem, recheck the manual system, and take
corrective action. Note also that the automatic system failed to fire
the retrorockets. Carpenter was forced to command the system manually 3
to 4 seconds after the scheduled time. In all, had the pilot not been
aboard to take the effective corrective action that he did, Aurora 7
would surely have been lost.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Richard Glueck
I think Scott Carpenter got the "shaft" after his flight, but all things taken
into consideration, he was a man who recognized the artistic side of where he was
and not the engineering side exclusively. Had Deke commanded MA-7. as he well
might have, I'm sure the fuel usage would have been minimal and the piloting
spot-on. Deke wasn't geared to looking around and having a full report of the
greatest experience of a lifetime. Scott was interested in sharing the experience
of what being in space was about. He was excited by the environment, the images,
and the sensations. He was, after all, only the fourth American to go into space
and experience the new ocean. Neither Shepard nor Grissom were eager to report the
sensation of spaceflight, and Glenn was doing just wonderfully in simply having
survived. It's fair to say that Scott was off task to some degree, but he was
anxious to impart the experience at a different level that the others just didn't
understand. In a sense, Scott Carpenter was the only astronaut of the Original
Seven with any kind of vision for the future of humanity in space.
RDG
Dave Michelson
>
> Very interesting viewpoints.
The problem is that too many people base their opinions of Carpenter on
third-party comments and hearsay, and snippets from interviews conducted
twenty years after the fact.
It was only after reading Carpenter's account in For Spacious Skies and
reviewed the postflight mission reports in detail that I fully
appreciated the nature of the flight and the issues that Carpenter
faced.
IMHO, blaming Carpenter for the problems during his flight is somewhat
akin to blaming Cernan for the problems during his spacewalk. Both were
victims of NASA planners and their overconfidence. The main difference
appears to have been Kraft's reaction.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Thejunkfile
writes:
>It's fair to say that Scott was off task to some degree, but he was
>anxious to impart the experience at a different level that the others just
>didn't
>understand.
Excellent point.
It was also the most ambitious flight to date, and Carpenter suffered from
problems as a result. No doubt Carpenter's experience was at least partially
responsible for Schirra's adamant demands to reduce the changes in and
scientific load of the Apollo 7 mission.
Thejunkfile
<be...@mindspring.com> writes:
>I've seen interviews
>where Carpenter flat-out admits that he was at least as interested in
>the "experience" as in flying the spacecraft which, seems to me,
>implies at the very least that his attention was not focused.
That is the exact impression I got from reading the mission and engineering
reports.
Dave Michelson
Of course Carpenter's attention wasn't strictly focused on piloting.
His flight plan was chock full of other tasks. And NASA planners had
made evaluating the potential of man in the new environment an emphasis
of this mission. Carpenter has admitted that in hindsight such an
emphasis was likely a bit premature. But the emphasis was NASA's, and
to imply that Carpenter was acting like a tourist seems quite unfair.
I can understand why NASA planners would feel that Carpenter would have
enough cycles to do both science and piloting. According to the
original plan for Mercury, the astronaut was supposed to be just a
passenger. If nothing else, Carpenter's flight likely played a key role
in sweeping that misconception aside and helping planners understand
that the astronaut was a pilot first and foremost. They certainly had
the message by the time they planned Schirra's flight.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Dave Michelson
>
> It was also the most ambitious flight to date, and Carpenter suffered from
> problems as a result. No doubt Carpenter's experience was at least partially
> responsible for Schirra's adamant demands to reduce the changes in and
> scientific load of the Apollo 7 mission.
He fought hard to have the "science experiments" and other non-essential
activities removed from both MA-8 and GT-6, too.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
JimCook
If I read this correctly, Carpenter seems to be exonorated, 40 years after his
flight, based on people just reading the data and hearing Scott's account.
Gus Grissom was similarly exonorated regarding his blown Mercury hatch, also 40
years after his flight. In Gus's case, it was hearing of the NASA data that was
not publicized.
Do I have that correct?
If so, it's sad.
-J
Henry Spencer
JimCook <jim...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gus Grissom was similarly exonorated regarding his blown Mercury hatch, also 40
>years after his flight.
Uh, no. Grissom was exonerated soon after it happened, when a couple of
determined NASA engineers found multiple ways that the hatch *could* have
blown by itself, and it was observed that his hand was uninjured (where
everybody who blew the thing deliberately got a nasty bruise from it).
Witness the fact that he went on to command the first manned Gemini, and
was in training to command the first manned Apollo when he was killed in
the fire. This was not a man who was in disgrace.
--
Faster, better, cheaper requires leadership, | Henry Spencer
not just management. | he...@spsystems.net
Richard Glueck
Jim:
I'm not sure it's a matter of documents not being published. In the forty
years since Project Mercury quite a number of persoanl recollections have been
published and these have shed a great deal of light onto the personalities of
participants in those years. Gus bore the brunt of accusations simply because the
capsule was 3 miles down on the Atlantic floor and nobody was willing to just
accept the pilot's word. Gus got another flight inspite of those public comments.
Scott Carpenter's measured and skillful reply to Chris Kraft's harrangue has
done a great deal to turn opinion towards him. Carpenter was the unusual Mercury
astronaut, seeming not to fit in with the others at the time. In retrospect, Scott
was probably the first science mission specialist, and far ahead of his time.
Today, I think he'd be a natural for the shuttle flights. Again, other astronauts
give Scott the credit for making them feel welcomed, but don't identify well with
his motivations. In review of the mission data, it is pretty certain that
Carpenter was prepared and oriented during the flight. Kraft's need to discipline
people and look for places to place blame darkens his otherwise sterling
performance at the Cape and Houston. In the end, it's all history and the stuff of
which good discussions are made.
OM
wrote:
>In article <20030118193012...@mb-ch.aol.com>,
>JimCook <jim...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Gus Grissom was similarly exonorated regarding his blown Mercury hatch, also 40
>>years after his flight.
>
>Uh, no. Grissom was exonerated soon after it happened, when a couple of
>determined NASA engineers found multiple ways that the hatch *could* have
>blown by itself,
...Ah, which begs the question "just what were those multiple ways",
Henry! Shame on you for not listing them :-) :-)
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Richard Glueck
in disgrace. What I probably should have said was that Grissom was under a cloud of
suspicion even though the only hard evidence regarding the hatch lay on the Bermuda
Rise. 40 years later, it is Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" that brings
general agreement around to hold Gus in his rightful place amongst the Mercury
astronauts. I agree that Gus was innocent of intentionally blowing the hatch. He
was a test pilot's pilot. I also agree with your other comments regarding Gus's
place in Gemini and Apollo.
Carpenter's book quotes Grissom in a conversation with Rene Carpenter as saying that
"Kraft tried to hang the hatch thing on me!"
Dave Michelson
>
> 40 years later, it is Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" that brings
> general agreement around to hold Gus in his rightful place amongst the Mercury
> astronauts.
Huh? Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" briefly brought Grissom back
into the public spotlight, but it didn't change anyone's opinion of Gus
or his place amongst the Mercury astronauts.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Henry Spencer
Richard Glueck <glu...@maine.edu> wrote:
>...40 years later, it is Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" that brings
>general agreement around to hold Gus in his rightful place amongst the Mercury
>astronauts.
I see no indication of any change in Grissom's status whatever as the
result of the recovery of Liberty Bell 7.
OM
wrote:
...Maybe not of *our* opinion, but I'm sure it converted at least one
or two of the "Gus screwed the pooch" crowd. Somehow.
Stephen Bolton
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:H8z0I...@spsystems.net...
>
> I see no indication of any change in Grissom's status whatever as the
> result of the recovery of Liberty Bell 7.
> --
man to go into space twice?
Steve Bolton
Henry Spencer
Stephen Bolton <sbo...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>Apropos of nothing except the thread is Gus Grissom - was he not the first
>man to go into space twice?
Correct. Half a dozen astronauts had flown twice before the first
cosmonaut flew a second time... that being Komarov on Soyuz 1 (he flew
previously on Voskhod 1).
There had originally been talk of a seventh manned Mercury flight, which
would be up three days, and would necessarily involve a repeat flight for
somebody since Slayton was grounded. Shepard, who'd been Cooper's backup,
was first in line. That idea was canceled because Gemini was on the
horizon: Mercury had needed substantial modifications for Cooper's
one-day flight and would have needed more for three, and the effort didn't
look justified when Gemini was already designed for longer flights. So
Shepard was assigned to the first Gemini instead... but then he got
grounded due to medical problems, and his backup, Grissom, got it.
Jim Davis
>>Apropos of nothing except the thread is Gus Grissom - was he not
>>the first man to go into space twice?
>
> Correct.
This seems to be the general consensus, but how is it justified? If
you use the international definition of 100 km the first man to make
two space flights is Joseph Walker in the X-15. If you exclude
suborbital flights the first man to make two space flights is Gordon
Cooper (MA-9 and GT-5).
The only way Grissom gets the honor is if you exclude X-15 flights
but include the Mercury-Redstone flights. But again, how can one
justify that?
The inconsistency, acknowledging the X-15 flights as space flights
but giving Grissom the honor of being the first man in space twice,
has always puzzled me.
Jim Davis
MattWriter
As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights space flights,
awarding astronaut wings to anyone flying it over 50 miles high. The IAF,
IIRC, does not recognize that mark, and classes the X-15 flights as manned
aircraft flights.
Where does the 100km figure come from?
Thanks,
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
Neil Gerace
"MattWriter" <mattw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030119205509...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> Where does the 100km figure come from?
I think the IAF just picked it out of the air (so to speak), like the USAF
and 50 miles.
rgds
Neil
Henry Spencer
>you use the international definition of 100 km the first man to make
>two space flights is Joseph Walker in the X-15.
Hmm, right you are, I'd forgotten that the X-15's two >100km flights
were made by the same man.
>The inconsistency, acknowledging the X-15 flights as space flights
>but giving Grissom the honor of being the first man in space twice,
>has always puzzled me.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the long-standing confusion about
where space begins complicates sorting out the X-15 flight records. The
Mercury suborbitals are at least unambiguous.
Jim Davis
>>The inconsistency, acknowledging the X-15 flights as space
>>flights
>
> As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights
> space flights, awarding astronaut wings to anyone flying it over
> 50 miles high. The IAF, IIRC, does not recognize that mark, and
> classes the X-15 flights as manned aircraft flights.
But two X-15 flights, both by Walker, were over 100 km.
> Where does the 100km figure come from?
Presumably just a nice round number.
Jim Davis
Derek Lyons
>Ouch! Henry, don't put words in my mouth! I never meant to imply that Grissom was
>in disgrace.
Which implication is wrong, as Henry was trying to tell you.
> What I probably should have said was that Grissom was under a cloud of
>suspicion even though the only hard evidence regarding the hatch lay on the Bermuda
>Rise.
Which statement is *also* wrong....
D.
Peter Stickney
mattw...@aol.com (MattWriter) writes:
>>The inconsistency, acknowledging the X-15 flights as space flights
>
> As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights space flights,
> awarding astronaut wings to anyone flying it over 50 miles high. The IAF,
> IIRC, does not recognize that mark, and classes the X-15 flights as manned
> aircraft flights.
IAF? Since when does the Indian Air Force have anything to say about
it? The FAI, (Federation Aeronautique Internationale, pronounced
though the sinuses, and winged flight's equivalent to the Formula 1
Rules Commitee) does get to say what's what.
Astronaut Wings are a U.S. Air Force or U.S. Navy qualification badge,
and get awarded according to the criteria set by the Air Force or
Navy. ((The Marines, and Coast Guard, if it ever should so happen, do
their wings stuff to the Navy's standards. (Although you've got to
have been buying in the O-Club quite a while before a Marine Aviator
will admit it. Presumably the Army has their own standards, too, but
since the only Active Army Astronaut was on "I Dream of Jeannie", I
don't think it's a big deal)
The USAF and USN came up with their criteria before the FAI.
There is, of course, a bit of a double standard. You can get your
AstroWings for flying above 50 miles, _or_ by being tasked and trained
as an astronaut.
> Where does the 100km figure come from?
Somewhere in the warped asd twisted collective synapses of the FAI.
Since there's no real boundary to say "You are Now Entering Space",
the definition of what's Space or not is rather arbitrary. In order
to be credible, it's got to be at some bignum of feet or meters.
264,000' (50 Statute Miles) is pretty much as space-like as 328,000'
(100 km) or, for that matter 300,000' (50 Nautical Miles).
The FAI had to come up with some sort of threshold number that would
sound nice and metric, so 100 km was their choice.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Henry Spencer
Peter Stickney <p-sti...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>..Presumably the Army has their own standards, too, but
>since the only Active Army Astronaut was on "I Dream of Jeannie"...
Uh, nope, there have been at least three real live US Army astronauts,
starting (I think) with Bob Stewart on STS-41B and -51J.
(The astronaut list I have, about a decade old, shows him, Sherwood
Spring, and James Adamson.)
Henry Spencer
MattWriter <mattw...@aol.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights space flights,
>
>Where does the 100km figure come from?
Like any single number for the boundary of space, it's arbitrary. It's in
the right general ballpark, and is a nice round number.
There is overwhelming consensus among everybody *except* the US government
that if you must pick a specific boundary, 100km is it.
Pat Flannery
Henry Spencer wrote:
>
>There had originally been talk of a seventh manned Mercury flight, which
>would be up three days, and would necessarily involve a repeat flight for
>somebody since Slayton was grounded. Shepard, who'd been Cooper's backup,
>was first in line. That idea was canceled because Gemini was on the
>horizon: Mercury had needed substantial modifications for Cooper's
>one-day flight and would have needed more for three, and the effort didn't
>look justified when Gemini was already designed for longer flights. So
>Shepard was assigned to the first Gemini instead... but then he got
>grounded due to medical problems, and his backup, Grissom, got it.
>
I imagine having lost the chance at an orbital Mercury flight, then the
first Gemini flight, must have been quite annoying to him- he deserved
to have a little golf game somewhere interesting as a consolation....I
still think that must have really been rubbing salt in the Soviet's
wounds- they can't get their Moon rocket to the end of it's first stage
burn; and we are driving around in cars and playing golf up there.
Pat
jeff findley
> 40 years later, it is Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" that
> brings general agreement around to hold Gus in his rightful place
> amongst the Mercury astronauts.
Says who, the people who recovered Liberty Bell 7? The people filming
the recovery? The people putting up the money for the recovery? The
people promoting the TV show about the recovery? Note that all these
people are biased or are presenting events in such a way as to promote
themselves.
What unbiased person who has examined Gus's record, and the record of
the investigation of the sinking of Liberty Bell 7, hasn't come to the
conclusion that Gus didn't blow the hatch?
Don't confuse the well informed with the general public who gets their
"news" from the same "news shows" that contain story after story
that is much less news than self promotion.
Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
jeff findley
> ...Maybe not of *our* opinion, but I'm sure it converted at least one
> or two of the "Gus screwed the pooch" crowd. Somehow.
The "Gus screwed the pooch" crowd is uninformed. The most informed of
them get their "history" by watching TV. Note to the general public,
"The Right Stuff" is not the right place to learn about history, even
though it makes for an interesting TV show.
Gordon Davie
> In article <95cf0b...@Mineshaft.att.net>,
> Peter Stickney <p-sti...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> ..Presumably the Army has their own standards, too, but
>> since the only Active Army Astronaut was on "I Dream of Jeannie"...
>
> Uh, nope, there have been at least three real live US Army astronauts,
> starting (I think) with Bob Stewart on STS-41B and -51J.
>
> (The astronaut list I have, about a decade old, shows him, Sherwood
> Spring, and James Adamson.)
US Army astronauts who have flown:
James Adamson
Rich Clifford
Nancy Currie
Charles Gemar
Richard Linnehan
Sherwood Spring
Robert Stewart
Two more have not yet flown:
Timothy Kopra
Douglas Wheelock
And Tim Mace (Helen Sharman's backup on Soyuz TM-12) was a Major in the
British Army Air Corps.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Richard Glueck
Whether the public has television resources or movie resources, the
information depth is skin thickness! You know the inside history as well
as I do, and the public misery that Gus (and family) was put through spoke
eloquently for his public image prior to Gemini 3. He hated being tagged
as "the one who lost his capsule", but he owned up and went on like the
professional he was.
When the capsule was recovered, public media reconsidered that incorrect
image and made the first apology to his memory. "Gus Grissom who lost the
capsule" was erased and became "Gus Grissom who put his ass on the line
repeatedly and showed the rest of the world how dangerous this space
launch business really is". The capsule was unnecessary to redeem Gus,
but it was something positive to raise him before the public for the
singular adulation he was denied in life.
Recovering the capsule was a good thing for the memory of America's #2
spaceman.
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
wrote:
>Astronaut Wings are a U.S. Air Force or U.S. Navy qualification badge,
>and get awarded according to the criteria set by the Air Force or
>Navy. ((The Marines, and Coast Guard, if it ever should so happen, do
>their wings stuff to the Navy's standards.
There have been two Coast Guard astronauts: Bruce Melnick and Dan Burbank.
--
Michael R. Grabois -//- http://chili.cjb.net
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96
Neil Gerace
"Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:95cf0b...@Mineshaft.att.net...
> Astronaut Wings are a U.S. Air Force or U.S. Navy qualification badge,
> and get awarded according to the criteria set by the Air Force or
> Navy.
Are only pilot-astronauts eligible?
rgds
Neil
Mary Shafer
> Ouch! Henry, don't put words in my mouth! I never meant to imply that Grissom was
> in disgrace. What I probably should have said was that Grissom was under a cloud of
> suspicion even though the only hard evidence regarding the hatch lay on the Bermuda
> Rise. 40 years later, it is Newport's recovery of "Liberty Bell 7" that brings
> general agreement around to hold Gus in his rightful place amongst the Mercury
> astronauts. I agree that Gus was innocent of intentionally blowing the hatch. He
> was a test pilot's pilot.
Still, "Gus" is the callsign of choice for a pilot who has had any
sort of vaguely similar problem, from switchology to an vehicle fault.
He may have been redeemed in the space community, but he's still
framed in the fighter world.
Why do you think Chris Loria went from "CJ" to "Gus"?
Mary
Peter Stickney
To be honest, I don't know. Somewhere the rules are written down. (It
is the U.s. Givernment, after all) and if they are, I'll fin 'em, and
post 'em.
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
Because "CJ" was already taken by Rick "Call me CJ, don't call me Fredrick"
Sturckow?
Terrell Miller
Carpenter was in San Diego yesterday afternoon for a signing at the Science
Museum.
The event was at 2PM; my return flight was at 1:15. Damn! :(
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Winners never talk about glorious victories. That's because they're the
ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterward. It's only the losers
who have glorious victories"
-Terry Pratchett
Mary Shafer
MattWriter wrote:
>>The inconsistency, acknowledging the X-15 flights as space flights
>
>
> As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights space flights,
> awarding astronaut wings to anyone flying it over 50 miles high. The IAF,
> IIRC, does not recognize that mark, and classes the X-15 flights as manned
> aircraft flights.
As if we did it for IAF, You're kidding, right?
> Where does the 100km figure come from?
It's a nice round number with a low qbar. I don't know what
the qbar is there, having hidden the only unpacked standard
atmosphere, but I might unpack one in the next day or two.
Mary
Mary Shafer
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:36:37 -0800, Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>>Why do you think Chris Loria went from "CJ" to "Gus"?
>
>
> Because "CJ" was already taken by Rick "Call me CJ, don't call me Fredrick"
> Sturckow?
Nope. There are no rules against duplicates. I once knew three
Torches.
Mary
OM
wrote:
>Nope. There are no rules against duplicates. I once knew three
>Torches.
...and did they have a trilogy of songs too?
Peter Stickney
p-sti...@adelphia.net (Peter Stickney) writes:
> In article <3e2cba90$0$14...@echo-01.iinet.net.au>,
> "Neil Gerace" <ger...@iinet.net.au> writes:
>> Are only pilot-astronauts eligible?
>
> To be honest, I don't know. Somewhere the rules are written down. (It
> is the U.s. Givernment, after all) and if they are, I'll fin 'em, and
> post 'em.
And, true to my word, here we are. Unfortunately, these passages are
only what the current regulations show - I haven't been able to find a
revision history.
Naval Astronaut Wings qualification:
The Naval Military Personnel Manual states the criteria for
designation as Naval Aviator (Pilot). A Naval Pilot may wear the
Naval Astronaut(Pilot) wings upon designation by the CNO or Commandant
of the Marine Corps after meeting the following qualifications:
a. Currently on flying status as a Naval Pilot in either the Navy,
Marine Corps, or their Reserve components.
b. Trained, qualified, and certified to fly a powered vehicle designed
for flight above 50 miles from the earth's surface.
c. Completed a minimum of one flight as a pilot ormission specialist
aboard an extraterrestrial vehicle in a flight above 50 miles from the
earth's surface.
The badge was fist awarded to Alan Shepard in Dec. 1961, (Gus Grissom
got the first Air Force Astronaut Wings at the same ceremony), and the
qualification criteria were inserted into the regulations in
Dec. 1962. In 1984, the Navy added a Naval Flight Officer (Astronaut)
qualification to cover Mission Specialist Astronauts.
So, I guess that for the Navy, the answer is that before 1984, there
weren't any non-pilot astronauts.
The Air Force regs were written by Madison Avenue-trained Lawyers, but
here's a distillation from AFI 11-402
A USAF Rated Officer who is qualified to perform duties in space (50
miles above the earth's surface) and completes a minimum of one
operational mission is eligible for the astronaut's qualifier (Pilot
Astronaut, Navigator Astronaut, Observer Astronaut, Flight Surgeon
Astronaut)
When an Air Force member qualifies for the Astronaut qualifier, they
may wear the rated badge they are eleigible for, with the Astronaut
Qualifier symbol superimposed upon it. Astronaut is not a separate
USAF rating.
This is a bit more open-ended. For example, there haven't been any
Observer Wings handed out for quite a long time. (Maybe some FTEs?
Mary would know)
--
Pete Stickney - Cruise Missile Pilot, 2nd Class.
Neil Gerace
> And, true to my word, here we are. Unfortunately, these passages are
> only what the current regulations show - I haven't been able to find a
> revision history.
Thanks Pete, it appears that although Navy and Marine MSs are eligible now,
they weren't when they first started.
rgds
Neil
Stuf4
> MattWriter wrote:
> > Where does the 100km figure come from?
>
> It's a nice round number with a low qbar. I don't know what
> the qbar is there, having hidden the only unpacked standard
> atmosphere, but I might unpack one in the next day or two.
There are lots of std atm tables available on the internet, but let's
be clear that there isn't any single qbar associated with any single
altitude (std or otherwise). There's a very good reason why no table
will list average dynamic pressure versus altitude: because it is
dynamic. Even for a standard atmosphere, qbar is not a fixed number
at 100km. The value will be much lower for a suborbital X-15 at 100km
vs a space shuttle at 100km (and if you are doing a hyberbolic gravity
assist slingshot around the Earth with a perigee of 100km, the qbar
will be higher still).
~ CT
Peter Stickney
That's certain, and the Air Force reg is a bit ambiguous. (The Air
Observer rating was, IIRC, initially applied to folks like the
Bomb/Nav/EWOs who rode in the noses of B-47s)
Of course, the AIr Force had intentions of their own space program,
and while Dynasoar would most likely have been a "Pilots Only" seat,
MOL could quite conceivably use non-pilot specialists.
Stuf4
> The Air Force regs were written by Madison Avenue-trained Lawyers, but
> here's a distillation from AFI 11-402
>
> A USAF Rated Officer who is qualified to perform duties in space (50
> miles above the earth's surface) and completes a minimum of one
> operational mission is eligible for the astronaut's qualifier (Pilot
> Astronaut, Navigator Astronaut, Observer Astronaut, Flight Surgeon
> Astronaut)
>
> When an Air Force member qualifies for the Astronaut qualifier, they
> may wear the rated badge they are eleigible for, with the Astronaut
> Qualifier symbol superimposed upon it. Astronaut is not a separate
> USAF rating.
(Here is the link for anyone who cares to read the source document:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afi11-402/afi11-402.pdf)
> This is a bit more open-ended. For example, there haven't been any
> Observer Wings handed out for quite a long time. (Maybe some FTEs?
> Mary would know)
Of all the USAF rated navigators, there are a sum total of two who
have been hired as astronauts. Yet non-pilot USAF astronauts wear the
same wings as USAF navigators instead of the non-rated aviator wings
that FTEs wear. This mystery is solved by reading the regulation
closely...
from
Table 2.1. Mandatory Requirements for Award of Aeronautical Ratings.
Rating Rated Service
----------------------------------
Observer Graduate of NASA Mission Specialist training
...then if you look at the badges on p69, you will see that the second
row of wings has the label "NAVIGATOR OR AIRCRAFT OBSERVER". So nav
wings and mission specialist wings are one and the same for the USAF.
Why they are called "aircraft observer" wings has to be a matter of
heritage.
Page 73 of this regulation has the application form for requesting the
astronaut qualifier symbol after you've made it to over 50 miles high.
Now this regulation leaves a hole with regards to non-rated USAF
payload specialists who never earned any flight rating. The reg
addresses the astronaut symbol only in terms of rated crewmembers and
says nothing of non-rated crewmembers (both AF payload specialists,
Payton and Pailes, happened to have been rated pilots, but this was by
no means a requirement).
*
On an interesting side note, here is a website that lists the contents
of one shuttle crew's choices for PPKs, with wings being a common
selection:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-040402b.html
Commander Michael J. Bloomfield
1. Gold STS-110 Tie Tack
2. Gold STS-110 Tie Tack
3. Wooden /Copper Cross
4. Cloth with Footprints (14" x 16")
5. STS-110 Gold Pendant
6. STS-110 Gold Medallion
7. STS-110 Gold Medallion
8. Silver St. Christopher Pendant w/chain
9. STS-110 Silver Medallion
10. STS-110 Silver Medallion
11. STS-110 Silver Medallion
12. STS-110 Silver Medallion
13. STS-110 Silver Medallion
14. STS-110 Silver Medallion
15. STS-110 Silver Medallion
16. STS-110 Silver Medallion
17. STS-110 Silver Medallion
18. STS-110 Silver Medallion
19. STS-110 Silver Medallion
20. Picture
Pilot Stephen N. Frick
1. STS-110 Gold Pendant
2. Silver Shuttle Pendant
3. Gold Shuttle Pendant
4. Gold Shuttle Pendant
5. Silver Shuttle Pendant
6. Silver Shuttle Pendant
7. Silver Shuttle Pendant
8. Silver Shuttle Pendant
9. Silver Shuttle Pendant
10. Silver Shuttle Pendant
11. Silver Shuttle Pendant
12. Silver Shuttle Pendant
13. Silver Shuttle Pendant
14. Silver Shuttle Pendant
15. Silver Shuttle Pendant
16. Silver Camera Charm
17. Gold Class Ring w/purple stone
18. Platinum Wedding Ring
19. STS-110 Silver Medallion
20. Eagle Scout Patch
Mission Specialist Rex J. Walheim
1. STS-110 Silver Medallion
2. STS-110 Silver Medallion
3. STS-110 Silver Medallion
4. STS-110 Silver Medallion
5. STS-110 Gold Medallion
6. Gold Child Profile Charm
7. Silver Angel Medallion
8. Gumby Figurine
9. Silver Pilot Wings
10. Silver Promise Ring w/onyx stone
11. Gold Locket with Blue Background
12. Gold Berkeley Class Ring w/blue stone
13. Gold Ring w/blue and green stones
14. Jade Buddha w/ Gold Trim
15. Ivory Women's Face Cameo w/gold trim
16. Gold Bear Tie-Tack
17. Silver Norwich University Class Ring
18. Gold Twin Child Charm
19. Gold Leaf Brooch with Pearl
20. Gold Wedding Ring
Mission Specialist Ellen Ochoa
1. STS-110 Silver Medallion
2. STS-110 Silver Medallion
3. STS-110 Silver Medallion
4. STS-110 Silver Medallion
5. STS-110 Silver Medallion
6. STS-110 Silver Medallion
7. STS-110 Silver Medallion
8. STS-110 Silver Medallion
9. STS-110 Silver Medallion
10. STS-110 Silver Medallion
11. STS-110 Silver Medallion
12. STS-110 Silver Medallion
13. STS-110 Silver Medallion
14. STS-110 Silver Medallion
15. STS-110 Silver Pendant
16. STS-110 Patch
17. STS-110 Patch
18. Silver Air Force Wings
19. Engineering Ring
20. Silver Air Force Wings
Mission Specialist Lee M.E. Morin
1. Gold Egypt Figure Pendant
2. STS-110 Gold Medallion
3. STS-110 Gold Medallion
4. STS-110 Silver Medallion
5. STS-110 Silver Medallion
6. STS-110 Silver Medallion
7. STS-110 Silver Medallion
8. STS-110 Silver Medallion
9. STS-110 Silver Medallion
10. STS-110 Silver Medallion
11. STS-110 Silver Medallion
12. STS-110 Silver Medallion
13. STS-110 Silver Medallion
14. STS-110 Silver Medallion
15. Silver Engraved Bracelet
16. Silver Pearl Tie Clip w/silver leaf
17. Gold Astronaut Tie-Clip
18. Rose Quartz
19. Silver Astronaut Pin
20. Gold Wedding Ring
Mission Specialist Jerry L. Ross
1. Silver Necklace w/diamond & Sapphire stones
2. Gold Necklace w/cross pendant w/diamond
3. Gold Ring w/diamonds
4. Silver Shuttle Pendant w/silver chain
5. Gold Rose Brooch
6. Gold Astronaut Charm w/necklace
7. STS-110 Gold Medallion
8. STS-110 Silver Medallion
9. STS-110 Silver Medallion
10. STS-110 Silver Medallion
11. STS-110 Silver Medallion
12. STS-110 Silver Medallion
13. STS-110 Silver Medallion
14. Leather Name tag
15. Silver Diamond Earrings
16. Green Ribbon Pendant w/gold trim
17. Cross Pendant w/flowers
18. Gold Astronaut Charm w/necklace
19. Gold Astronaut Charm w/necklace
20. Gold Bar
Mission Specialist Steven L. Smith
1. Heart Shaped Stone
2. Gold STS-110 Pendant
3. Silver Casio Watch
4. Expired Passport
5. Gold Shuttle Pendant
6. Orange Letter (4" x 6")
7. Gold EVA Pendant
8. Gold Shuttle Tie-Tack
9. Gold Religious Medal
10. Gold Religious Medal
11. Gold Religious Medal
12. Silver Army Chaplin Insignia
13. Silver Bracelet w/charm Crucifix
14. Gold Locket w/diamond
15. Silver Picture Frame Charm
16. Silver Picture Frame Charm
17. Silver Fossil Watch
18. Silver Picture Frame Charm
19. Silver and Gold Seiko Watch
20. Silver and Gold Seiko Watch
------
~ CT
Stuf4
> MattWriter <mattw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >As I understand it, the US Air Force declared the X-15 flights space flights,
> >awarding astronaut wings to anyone flying it over 50 miles high...
> >
> >Where does the 100km figure come from?
>
> Like any single number for the boundary of space, it's arbitrary. It's in
> the right general ballpark, and is a nice round number.
There's lots more to that story besides simply writing it off as
arbitrary...
The 100km boundary of space can be traced back to an old concept
referred to as the "Karman line". Aside from being a nice round
SI-kinda number, this limit was justified as being a reasonable
altitude where orbit could be considered established without excessive
atmospheric drag.
(Here's an old post on this topic:
news:<2cf0acb0.01073...@posting.google.com>)
If you want the word straight from fai.org, check out the section from
this webpage titled "The Separation of Aeronautics and Astronautics":
http://www.fai.org/astronautics/100km.asp
(And several people here may want to take note that FAI and IAF refer
to two *different* organizations: Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale and International Federation of Astronautics.)
Excerpt:
"...in Astronautics, lower and lower orbital flying led to encounter
more and more dense atmosphere, so much that it would be impossible to
keep the orbit for a number of turns around Earth without a
significant forward thrust (thus making the free fall, or orbiting,
concept meaningless). A lot of calculations were made, and finally it
was reached the conclusion, accepted by all scientist involved, that
around an altitude of 100 Km. the boundary could be set. By the way,
most calculations, which I could see at the time, were using nautical
miles for altitude. That was probably because it was the only unit of
length more or less common at the time (in fact, less common; even
British and U.S. nautical miles, both at the time defined in feet,
differed; European nautical mile, defined in meters, was also
different; but the differences were small). So the altitude decided
upon had a very uneasy number to remember. It was apparently Von
Karman himself who realised, and proposed to the rest, the very round
number of 100 Km (very close to the calculated number). The rest of
the people eagerly accepted it.
The 100-Km altitude, ever since named the "Karman Line", came thus
into existence as the boundary separating Aeronautics and
Astronautics."
> There is overwhelming consensus among everybody *except* the US government
> that if you must pick a specific boundary, 100km is it.
It's understandable that the FAI speaks about their standard being
"eagerly accepted" and "accepted by all scientists involved", but that
doesn't mean that there is serious objection to this definition (both
FAI and US).
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space" needs to be
tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit. The view I've expressed
repeatedly here is that the vacuum of space occurs well below
50nm/100km.
History shows that Ivan Kinchloe was honored as the first in space
after reaching an altitude in excess of 125,000ft in the Bell X-2.
Some references:
http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2000/AS/ftup.html
Air Force Captain Iven Kincheloe had already been dubbed
"Mr. Space" by the press for piloting the Bell X-2 rocket
plane to a world's record of 126,200 feet in 1956.
http://www.xb-70.com/wmaa/x2/
Magazines and newspapers around the world dubbed him "The
First Spaceman" and the name fit.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/korea/kc14.htm
On September 7, 1956, he piloted the Bell X-2 rocket-powered
research airplane more than 2,000 mph and to 126,200 ft., the
highest altitude to which man had ever flown. For this
spectacular
flight, he was awarded the Mackay Trophy and nicknamed "America's
No. 1 Spaceman".
~ CT
Chris Jones
[...]
I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space" needs to be
tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit. The view I've expressed
repeatedly here is that the vacuum of space occurs well below
50nm/100km.
Of course, "space" doesn't need much of anything, else it wouldn't be
space, would it? However, even if space doesn't need to be tied to the
concept of an orbit, space exploration of the sort I and (I presume)
most of the people frequenting this group are interested in requires
that at a minimum. I find myself less and less interested in arguments
about whether "space" begins at 50 statute miles or 100 kilometers or
any other number that implies you're tied to the earth. While studying
and understanding the earth is very interesting and important, so is
studying and understanding what lies beyond (and knowledge gained from
the latter can aid our understanding of processes taking place on
earth).
It's sort of like sailing down a river out into the ocean. Everyone
knows that at some point along the way you've left the river and are in
the ocean, and while it might be interesting to define exactly where
that point is, it misses the point that there's a whole ocean out there
to be explored.
OM
wrote:
>tdadamemd-...@excite.com (Stuf4) writes:
...Who cares? You were killfiled en masse by the group on 10/01/02.
Begone!
>Of course, "space" doesn't need much of anything, else it wouldn't be
>space, would it?
...Chris, CT is nothing but a troll, and a very lame one at that. As
stated above, the group killfiled him en masse last October, and since
then the signal-to-noise ratio of sci.space.history has gone up
significantly. Please assist us in this by killfiling him immediately.
If you do not have killfile capabilities, just simply ignore him.
Thanks!
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"OM" <om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote in message
news:a6703vsikhqpcuk0t...@4ax.com...
Or folks can respond to any threat they want.
Stuf4
I agree. But in the spirit of Icarus, spaceflight will invariably be
driven by ego and arrogance, therefore people (such as myself) will
focus on superlatives. Where it not for this fundamental human flaw,
we might find ourselves perfectly content to live our lives without
straying outside of "the garden".
So where does that leave the "Von Karman Line"?
Yes, it is a matter of trivia. But is it possible for us to find
substance within the noise? The argument regarding separation of
aeronautics and astronautics is valid. The qualitative change is even
more significant that the river/ocean analogy.
There is solid agreement that 100km above the Earth is enough of a
vacuum to be considered "space". What strikes me as bogus is the idea
that this limit is a *dividing line* between aero and astro. Was
Theodore Von Karman (and the 'unanimous others') really proposing that
flying at 99km altitude was the realm of _aero_nautics? Even after
reading that FAI webpage, I still find this difficult to fathom.
If anyone knows of a solid argument that 99km alt *is* the realm of
aeronautics, I would like to know about it. But to me, the Karman
limit establishes an upper boundary of where space begins, with the
lower boundary of where aeronautics ends remaining undefined to this
day.
As a start, we can establish that aeronautics ends somewhere above
FlightLevel 1000 (100,000ft, std day).
Here are articles about two Brits who are planning an attempt to fly a
balloon above 130,000' (FL1300):
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/QinetiQ1_balloon_020828.html
"They'll Ride A Balloon Into Space"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,48436,00.html
And here's an article that states that the altitude for an unpiloted
balloon is 53km:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/29/balloon.record/
So if anyone wants to stick to the concept of a "dividing line"
between aero and astro, I would put it somewhere between 53km and
100km.
...or we can learn from Icarus and focus on more important matters.
~ CT
MattWriter
>> tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit.
As RLV flights spend more time in the region between FLight Level 100 and
orbital altitudes, there is goign to have to be soem legal line drawn between
where nationally-sovereign airspace ends and free transit begins. Everyone
agrees that orbit is free space, and that airspace (re the Chicago Convention)
is soveriegn, but a line which is detectable and enforceable will have to
emerge eventually.
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
john_thomas_maxson
news:20030124105300...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> > I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space"
> > needs to be tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit.
>
> As RLV flights spend more time in the region between FLight
> Level 100 and orbital altitudes, there is goign to have to be soem
> legal line drawn between where nationally-sovereign airspace ends
> and free transit begins. Everyone agrees that orbit is free space,
> and that airspace (re the Chicago Convention) is soveriegn, but a
> line which is detectable and enforceable will have to emerge
> eventually.
You've done well to introduce the legal aspects, in my opinion. I
have a memory of lawyers considering the Chicago Convention
with regard to Challenger settlements (prior to the "death on the
high seas" proclamation by NASA).
I don't know if you have met CT's criteria of "tied to the concept
of maintaining an orbit" (since I'm not abreast of RLV plans); but
you've made a good point, Matt. How about AOAs or ATOs?
Conceivably, wouldn't getting to these fall in this "twilight zone?"
JTM
Stuf4
Trivial Pursuit:
(snip)
> Of all the USAF rated navigators, there are a sum total of two who
> have been hired as astronauts.
(snip)
...but moving beyond trivia, we could ask why there have been many
more non-rated FTEs hired out of the Air Force than rated navigators.
Graduation from TPS isn't the bottleneck. Navy NFOs seem to do much
better than their AF counterparts. We might guess that the
discrepancy is due to the fact that most AF navs have worse eyesight
than Navy NFOs (which is ironic in itself since Navy NFOs don't have
flight controls while AF WSOs do). But here is a quote from a NASA
website that says the vision cutoff for Mission Specialists is 20/200:
"...distance visual acuity - 20/200 or better uncorrected..."
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/factsheets/asseltrn.html)
I expect that the vast majority of AF navs would meet this, so vision
doesn't seem to explain the FTE/nav disparity. Perhaps the problem is
within the Air Force itself and their attitude toward their own
navigators. There is a sense that "navigator" is a dirty word. Even
for the two who made it into NASA, I expect that they would tell you,
"I am a whizzo" long before they could be pressed to admit, "I wear
*navigator* wings".
It would be interesting to hear from Duane Ross at the Astronaut
Selection Office to learn NASA's official explanation. If they ever
decide to revise Standard Form 181 to help compensate "underprivileged
groups", the new version might look like this:
A__ American Indian or Alaskan Native
B__ Asian or Pacific Islander
C__ Black, not of Hispanic origin
D__ Hispanic
E__ Navigator
(http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/astronauts/aso/forms/sf181.htm)
~ CT
Stuf4
> "OM" <om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote
> Or folks can respond to any threat they want.
- threat/thread -
I'm not sure whether that was intentional or Freudian!
~ CT
Chris Jones
> > I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space" needs to be
> >> tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit.
>
> As RLV flights spend more time in the region between FLight Level 100 and
> orbital altitudes, there is goign to have to be soem legal line drawn between
> where nationally-sovereign airspace ends and free transit begins. Everyone
> agrees that orbit is free space, and that airspace (re the Chicago Convention)
> is soveriegn, but a line which is detectable and enforceable will have to
> emerge eventually.
Actually, what you're describing is not a line (i.e. defined by two
points and all that). It seems to be a condition. If something is high
enough and fast enough, it's in space.
Stuf4
> > I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space" needs to be
> >> tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit.
>
> As RLV flights spend more time in the region between FLight Level 100 and
> orbital altitudes, there is goign to have to be soem legal line drawn between
> where nationally-sovereign airspace ends and free transit begins. Everyone
> agrees that orbit is free space, and that airspace (re the Chicago Convention)
> is soveriegn, but a line which is detectable and enforceable will have to
> emerge eventually.
A key point is that at the time when Von Karman drew his line, there
was no such global agreement. It even predated Ike's "Open Skies"
proposal. It was the Sputnik precedent that established the freedom
of overflight in space. We can conclude that the reason Eisenhower
didn't put more effort into being first in orbit was because he didn't
want to start a war by violating what was then considered sovereign
"airspace".
After the Cold War, the Open Skies Treaty was revived with annual
overflight quotas and now even the grasp on national sovereignty of
airspace has been relaxed, for a handful of nations at least.
And to say that "orbit is free space" needs to be qualified, because
what you do in orbit can be extremely sensitive (consider one fact
that the very existence of the NRO was kept classified until 1992,
after 30+ years in the black).
But yes, structure is emerging internationally. Here is even a
proposal for the UN operate to surveillance satellites:
"Open Skies from Space"
http://www.wfs.org/stauffer.htm
*
As a side note, you may have heard about the imaging sensor, X3,
invented by Carver Mead's company Foveon. It is expected to
revolutionize digital photography as CCDs did back in the early spy
satellite days.
~ CT
Steven James Forsberg
: MattWriter <mattw...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20030124105300...@mb-fi.aol.com...
:> > I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why "space"
:> > needs to be tied to the concept of maintaining an orbit.
:>
:> As RLV flights spend more time in the region between FLight
:> Level 100 and orbital altitudes, there is goign to have to be soem
:> legal line drawn between where nationally-sovereign airspace ends
:> and free transit begins. Everyone agrees that orbit is free space,
:> and that airspace (re the Chicago Convention) is soveriegn, but a
:> line which is detectable and enforceable will have to emerge
:> eventually.
: You've done well to introduce the legal aspects, in my opinion. I
: have a memory of lawyers considering the Chicago Convention
: with regard to Challenger settlements (prior to the "death on the
: high seas" proclamation by NASA).
This comes up from time to time on this newsgroup. Currently,
there is no widely accepted legal definition for where "space" begins
(or ends, for that matter). Official U.S. government policy is to
discourage the establishment of any such definition. The argument is that
there is "no need", sort of the way judges say "the question is not ripe".
But I agree that sooner or later there is going to be a big squawk over
the issue (big question: can you fire a missile "over" another nation
if it never reaches orbit? How low can it go before it 'violates sovereignty'
? etc.).
regards,
---------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Mary Shafer
> This comes up from time to time on this newsgroup. Currently,
> there is no widely accepted legal definition for where "space" begins
> (or ends, for that matter). Official U.S. government policy is to
> discourage the establishment of any such definition. The argument is that
> there is "no need", sort of the way judges say "the question is not ripe".
> But I agree that sooner or later there is going to be a big squawk over
> the issue (big question: can you fire a missile "over" another nation
> if it never reaches orbit? How low can it go before it 'violates sovereignty'
> ? etc.).
You might check out the recent North Korean IRBM that went
over Japanese territory for some answers to your questions.
Mary
MattWriter
>over Japanese territory for some answers to your questions.
Japan did protest the overflight, but I have not been able to find any text of
the protest. Did they claim it was an infringement of sovereign airspace, or
were they complaining about the issues of safety and false attack alerts which
arose becuase they were not notified in advance?
Stuf4
> Trivial Pursuit:
>
> (snip)
> > Of all the USAF rated navigators, there are a sum total of two who
> > have been hired as astronauts.
> (snip)
For anyone interested, feel free to jump in with the names (it would
serve to double check my count).
~ CT
Steven James Forsberg
:>You might check out the recent North Korean IRBM that went
:>over Japanese territory for some answers to your questions.
: Japan did protest the overflight, but I have not been able to find any text of
: the protest. Did they claim it was an infringement of sovereign airspace, or
: were they complaining about the issues of safety and false attack alerts which
: arose becuase they were not notified in advance?
I don't recall seeing an official text. The press reports all
have Japanese officials complaining about lack of coordination/cooperation,
no one mentioned sovereignty.
I recall back in 89(?) when a Soviet missile overflew some of the
small outlying islands of the Hawaiin Islands. A CinCPAC PAO protested the
launch as "violating US sovereignty" -- and got shut down pront. Then, as
now, the US government has no central "official" policy guiding how it wants
the 'limits' of space defined. After all, the more the vague the rules the
more we can bend them too. :-)
The DoD gives astronaut status to those who get above 50 miles. A lot
of aerospace engineers define the 'entry interface point' as approximately
400,000 feet. A lot of international law (but the US government has not
weighed in officialy) points towards a definition like "the lowest perigee
attainable by an orbiting satellite", which could be about 90 some miles.
On the other hand, according to many 'standard' international law texts
"aircraft, missiles, and rockets" are in a nations airspace *regardless* of
altitude. (I.E. it appears only 'payloads' can be in space). The US is
unlikely to like this definition. Even saying the current 'space shuttle'
is not an "aircraft", what about the proposed "space plane" or similar?
Basically, little countries that get flown over by big ones want
space to be "high", while nations that launch a bunch of stuff (the US and
Russia being good examples) want as much freedom as possible. Typical. It
BTW, according to NORAD, if an orbital period drops below 86 minutes a
satellite is classified as 'de-orbiting', thought that does not necessarily
tell precisely when it is no longer in space.
regards,
---------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Stuf4
Here are the bios of the two USAF navigator/astronauts:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mullane-rm.html (RF-4C WSO)
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/good-mt.html (F-111 WSO)
Again, if anyone has a clue why there have only been two, I would be
interested to hear any ideas.
~ CT