Armstrong Biography by James R. Hansen
John Pelchat
Last summer there was some discussion of a new biography of Neil
Armstrong by James R. Hansen. Some of the discussion indicated that
the book would be coming out now. Anyone have any more information on
the book or its release date, perhaps something suitable for printing
out and leaving about the house as a hint for a Christmas present?
Take care all of you . . .
John
w9gb
news:cea4c469.04120...@posting.google.com...
John -
Very timely posting.
I was talking to Donald Boggs at Boggs SpaceBooks on Wednesday (placing my
Christmas book orders - of course) and I asked him about the status on James
Hansen's book. They are taking pre-orders for the book (autographed by
James Hansen). It is still expected for early 2005 release.
http://www.boggsspace.com/mall/first_man.asp
g. beat
Scott Hedrick
> Armstrong by James R. Hansen. Some of the discussion indicated that
> the book would be coming out now. Anyone have any more information on
> the book or its release date, perhaps something suitable for printing
> out and leaving about the house as a hint for a Christmas present?
You mean you haven't read it *yet*????
Bill the Cat
news:o57sd.195265$R05.169426@attbi_s53:
According to collectSPACE, it's October 2005 now:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-013003b.html#120404
December 4, 2004 -- Simon & Schuster, Inc. has updated their book catalog
to include First Man, The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, the authorized
biography by James Hansen, setting a release date of October 2005. The 608
page hardcover will include 16 pages of black-and-white photographs and
will retail for a list price of $28.00.
Simon & Schuster describes First Man as follows:
What A. Scott Berg did for the life of Charles A. Lindbergh, James R.
Hansen does for Neil A. Armstrong in the first and only definitive,
authorized biography of one of America's most celebrated heroes.
On July 20, 1969, the world stood still to watch thirty-eight-year-old
American astronaut Neil Armstrong become the first person ever to step on
the surface of another heavenly body. When he returned to earth, Armstrong
was honored and celebrated for his monumental achievement. He was also - as
James Hansen reveals in this fascinating and important biography -
misunderstood. Armstrong's accomplishments as engineer, test pilot, and
astronaut have long been a matter of record, but Hansen's unprecedented
access to private documents, interviews with more than 125 subjects
(including more than fifty hours of interviews with Armstrong himself and
twelve hours with his first wife Janet), and unpublished sources yield the
first in-depth analysis of this elusive American celebrity.
In a riveting narrative filled with revelations, Hansen vividly recreates
Armstrong's career in flying, from the heights of honor and recognition
earned as naval aviator, test pilot, and astronaut to the dear personal
price paid by Armstrong - and even more so by his wife and children - for
his dedication to his storied vocation.
Hansen addresses the rumors that have swirled around Armstrong for thirty-
six years and provides a penetrating exploration of American hero worship -
of astronauts and of Armstrong, in particular. In First Man, the personal,
technological, epic, and iconic blend to form the portrait of a great but
reluctant hero who will forever be known as history's most famous space
traveler.
James R. Hansen is a professor of history at Auburn University. A former
historian for NASA, Hansen is author of eight books on the history of
aerospace. He lives in Auburn, Alabama.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
Neil's less-than-stellar handling of Gemini 8, or how a man who clearly
"screwed the pooch" ended up being the first man to walk on the
Moon...and for that matter, how Buzz Aldrin found the courage to fly
with such an individual! :-)
Herb Schaltegger
"hpywi...@yahoo.com" <hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, look who's back!
You never did provide those emails you claimed I had sent you, liar.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
<http://www.angryherb.net>
hpywi...@yahoo.com
topic at hand. Good to see you, too, Herb!
hpywi...@yahoo.com
Herb Schaltegger
"hpywi...@yahoo.com" <hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Singing the same old refrain, I see, and as usual not addressing the
> topic at hand. Good to see you, too, Herb!
If by "refrain" you mean, "Pointing out LaDonna's lies and personal
slander," why then yes, I'm still "singing the same old refrain."
MasterShrink
...
How did he handle GT 8 in a "less than stellar fashion"?
-A.L.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
cut the Agena loose, but let's pretend that was necessary, and let's
further pretend that he was in imminent danger of blacking out and had
no time to isolate the stuck thruster. I have a dumb question for
Neil: Isn't there ANOTHER thruster aboard Gemini that if you fired it
up and did a little (cough) FLYING you could regain attitude control,
stabilize the ship, and buy yourself the time you need to FIND the
stuck thruster?
I'm sure Gus had an even better solution, which is why he said (after
reviewing the Gemini 8 tapes) that Neil "does not know how to fly," but
since he's not here to ask him that's my question for Neil.
Jim
(and not just in some theoretical "I'd have done this or that" way, but
in a life or death situation way as Armstrong and Scott had to do). I
definitely do not see any serious mistakes on Armstrongs part in that
situation, handling a rapidly deteriorating situation with logical
steps as a test pilot would do. He did not know it was a stuck
thruster on the Gemini and given the record of the Agena, it made sense
to cut the Agena loose to help isolate the problem (which may well have
been on the Agena given their knowledge at that instant). After
further consideration, shutting downt he main thrusters and activating
the reentry thrusters was a brilliant solution and after that, they
were able to diagnose the problem further by reactivating individual
thrusters.
In short, there were plenty of thrusters onboard the spacecraft, but
which one was causing the problem was not immediately obvious.
Jim.
Herb Schaltegger
"Jim" <jim_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'd sure like to see how you would have handled the Gemini 8 situation
(snip)
I know I was guilty of it myself the other day, but please don't feed
the troll.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic
oscillations tear apart bridges."
~Hop David
<http://www.angryherb.net>
hpywi...@yahoo.com
isolate the thruster that was causing the problem, he at least knew
which DIRECTION the thruster was pushing him, and with that information
he should have been able to fire up the opposing thruster(s) to
counter-balance the stuck one, null it out, and buy himself the time he
needed to find the problem.
I'm hard-pressed to argue with EXPERIENCED astronauts who said Neil
screwed up, and in fact my own assessment of his reactions is he did
screw up.
OM
>I'd sure like to see how you would have handled the Gemini 8 situation
...No, you wouldn't. Please don't feed the psychotic crack whore of a
troll.
Thanks.
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
Kevin Willoughby
hpywi...@yahoo.com says...
> There are those who say
Can you be more specific? Can you name *who* says this??
> he shouldn't even have cut the Agena loose
Armstrong is typically considered one of the best engineers of the
astronaut corps. One of the first things a *true* engineer does when
faced with an important but not well-understood problem is to determine
where the problem resides. Separating the Agena and Gemini was a quick
way to determine which half of the system had the problem, with the
benefit of resolving the issue if the problem was in the Agena.
Especially given the less than perfect reputation of the Agena, cutting
free was, with 20-20 hindsight, exactly what a good engineer should have
done.
Let's speculate on what would have happened if Armstrong hadn't cut free
of the Agena. Most likely, the problem wouldn't have been resolved in
time, and the crew would have perished, with the Agena tumbling
uselessly, unable to be used as part of the latter Gemini X mission.
Perhaps, maybe, Armstrong and Scott could have isolated the bad
thruster. Would the reentry RCS have had the command authority to bring
the tumbling Agena/Gemini under control? Maybe. If not, the crew dies.
If so, at best, a lot more fuel is required due to the greater mass of
the combined system.
My conclusion: Armstrong reacted exactly as a first-rate engineer/pilot
should have reacted.
> let's further pretend that he was in imminent danger of blacking out
ooo, let's make it even more interesting by pretending he was cooped up
in a tiny spaceship in low orbit over the Earth, out of radio range of
Mission Control.
*-ploink-*
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@acm.org.invalid
The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Kevin Willoughby" <KevinWi...@acm.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c219bdb...@news.rcn.com...
> In article <1102461651....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> hpywi...@yahoo.com says...
> > There are those who say
>
> Can you be more specific? Can you name *who* says this??
>
>
> > he shouldn't even have cut the Agena loose
>
> Armstrong is typically considered one of the best engineers of the
> astronaut corps. One of the first things a *true* engineer does when
> faced with an important but not well-understood problem is to determine
> where the problem resides. Separating the Agena and Gemini was a quick
> way to determine which half of the system had the problem, with the
> benefit of resolving the issue if the problem was in the Agena.
> Especially given the less than perfect reputation of the Agena, cutting
> free was, with 20-20 hindsight, exactly what a good engineer should have
> done.
>
I'll counter with one line of thought:
Keeping Agena meant a longer moment arm, which kept the rate of rotation
from increasing to quickly.
By seperating he risked (and in fact this is what did occurr) shortening the
moment arm and if the problem was Gemini, increasing the rate of rotation.
However... it's not clear to ME from what I know if there was a way to
eliminate Agena as the source of the problem other than separating from it.
And of course as you say, in cases like this, you go with what you know.
Agena was error-prone..
I think one could argue that keeping Agena attached longer and possibly
slowing your rate with that is a possibly valid one.
But I think ultimately, he made the right decision. "Simplify the problem
as quickly as possible."
> Let's speculate on what would have happened if Armstrong hadn't cut free
> of the Agena. Most likely, the problem wouldn't have been resolved in
> time, and the crew would have perished, with the Agena tumbling
> uselessly, unable to be used as part of the latter Gemini X mission.
> Perhaps, maybe, Armstrong and Scott could have isolated the bad
> thruster. Would the reentry RCS have had the command authority to bring
> the tumbling Agena/Gemini under control? Maybe. If not, the crew dies.
> If so, at best, a lot more fuel is required due to the greater mass of
> the combined system.
I believe the option would have been to use Agena's thrusters to stop the
tumbling.
>
> My conclusion: Armstrong reacted exactly as a first-rate engineer/pilot
> should have reacted.
>
Having said all that, I think Armstrong did the right thing. Reduced the
variables and when that didn't produce the desired effect, moved on to
options that did work.
As for the criticism from other Astronauts, as Cernan notes, they were
highly competitive. "Monday morning quaterbacks with perfect hindsight,
astronauts who had been on the gruond whiel Neil and Dave were fighting to
survive in space were brutal.... Who knew if the criticism might reach
Deke's ears and change future crew selections in favor of the person doing
the bitching? Nobody got a free pass whcn criticism was remotely possible.
Nobody."
In the end quite obviously the incident didn't hurt Armstrong or Scott's
career.
OM
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>However... it's not clear to ME from what I know if there was a way to
>eliminate Agena as the source of the problem other than separating from it.
...Which begs the question: considering the positionings of the
thrusters on both the Agena and the Gemini, could the Agena have been
ruled out right off based on the direction of spin? Which thruster was
it on the Gemini, and where was it located with respect to the docked
orientation? Furthermore, was the docking collar on the Agena as such
that relatively precise orientation along the radial axis was
required, or could the Gemini dock regardless of whether the
centerline was at 12, 2 or somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock?
[Cue Henry :-)]
OM
<KevinWi...@acm.org.invalid> wrote:
>*-ploink-*
...You should have done this *before* responding to her, Kev.
John
easy to Google up some imagery to confirm (or not) what I am about to
write.
I remember that there was a indexing bar on the dorsal forward portion
of the Gemini vehicle . . . that fit into a V-shaped notch in the
Agena's docking adapter . . . which would require proper orientation on
the vehicle's roll axis relative to Agena.
As I recall, there were a number of connections made between the Gemini
and the Agena at the time of docking. My guess (Henry, please help) is
that the various hard connections between the vehicles would require a
fairly precise orientation to ensure the two sides connected properly.
take care all . . .
John
Robert Conley
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:46:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>
> ...Which begs the question: considering the positionings of the
> thrusters on both the Agena and the Gemini, could the Agena have been
> ruled out right off based on the direction of spin? Which thruster was
> it on the Gemini, and where was it located with respect to the docked
> orientation? Furthermore, was the docking collar on the Agena as such
> that relatively precise orientation along the radial axis was
> required, or could the Gemini dock regardless of whether the
> centerline was at 12, 2 or somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock?
>
The Gemini had a docking bar which ensured correct position for the
interconnects between it and the agena. The agena had T projections which
had the cold gas thrusters used for attitude control. You could in theory
tell the difference by the change in rate. The agena thrusters were closer
in to the centerline so there may have been a difference then. But I doubt
that the rate indicators aboard would have helped enough based on working
with my Gemini sim for Orbiter. I can't give a precise answer because the
isp and thrust for the GATV's thrusters are currently not known.
Ground Control would have the charts and indicator needed to figure this out but then
they were out of ground communication when they had to make these decisions.
Rob Conley
Robert Conley
> I'm hard-pressed to argue with EXPERIENCED astronauts who said Neil
> screwed up, and in fact my own assessment of his reactions is he did
> screw up.
Ok download the gemini familization guides and tell us the procedure
Armstrong and Scott should have used to isolate the problem without the
help of ground control.
Rob Conley
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>ed
>orientation? Furthermore, was the docking collar on the Agena as such
>that relatively precise orientation along the radial axis was
>required, or could the Gemini dock regardless of whether the
>centerline was at 12, 2 or somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock?
>
Gemini did have that rod mounted on its nosecone that went into the
triangular notch on the Agena's docking collar to get everything lined
up right. The real problem with having the Gemini/Agena combo spinning
was that the Gemini was experiencing G forces in the opposite direction
from what it was designed to take- instead of the connections between
the capsule and its retro and equipment modules being compressed, as
they were during launch, they are now being _stretched_, with the
possibility that they would rip free from the capsule; and the crew is
pulling positive G's as the the center of rotation is near the front on
the capsule. Once Agena was detached, the center of rotation would move
back to around where the crew was sitting, so dizziness would be a
problem, but at least they wouldn't get glued to their seats.
Pat
Henry Spencer
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote:
>...Which begs the question: considering the positionings of the
>thrusters on both the Agena and the Gemini, could the Agena have been
>ruled out right off based on the direction of spin? Which thruster was
>it on the Gemini, and where was it located with respect to the docked
>orientation?
It was a roll thruster, if I recall correctly, and an Agena roll thruster
could have had much the same effect, so that doesn't help much...
>Furthermore, was the docking collar on the Agena as such
>that relatively precise orientation along the radial axis was
>required, or could the Gemini dock regardless of whether the
>centerline was at 12, 2 or somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock?
The roll angle did have to be correct, so that things like electrical
connectors would mate properly. (That was how the Gemini crew could issue
commands to the Agena.) There was a V-notch in the docking collar, and
the "docking bar" sticking up from the Gemini's nose went into the notch
to get the alignment exactly right.
The earlier suggestion of perhaps using the Agena's thrusters to try to
fight the roll doesn't work too well, by the way. The Agena control
system didn't hook up to the Gemini's; you couldn't maneuver the Agena
with the joystick. Commands were sent to the Agena as numeric codes:
enter a three-digit code on (I think) a set of thumbwheel switches, and
then press the SEND button. Unless there was a "zero out rotation rates"
command -- possible but I don't know the command list -- this would have
been impossibly clumsy. Even looking up and issuing one command in a
rapidly-spinning spacecraft would have been quite a circus. Backing off
from the Agena was the right thing to do: the Agena might have been the
problem and it probably wasn't going to contribute to the solution.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | he...@spsystems.net
Derek Lyons
>> he shouldn't even have cut the Agena loose
>
>Armstrong is typically considered one of the best engineers of the
>astronaut corps. One of the first things a *true* engineer does when
>faced with an important but not well-understood problem is to determine
>where the problem resides.
Heck. Even a half competent tech does the same thing, no 'true'ness
or 'right stuff required'. It's Troubleshooting 101.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Kevin Willoughby
says...
> Heck. Even a half competent tech does the same thing, no 'true'ness
> or 'right stuff required'. It's Troubleshooting 101.
While "isolate the problem" is Troubleshooting 101, doing it in a
tumbling spaceship threatening to kill you does require a bit of Right
Stuff.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
shouldn't he have been able to demonstrate at least a LITTLE of "the
right stuff?" I agree it is troubleshooting 101.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
this one sounds pretty intelligent. I readily gave Neil the "gimmie"
that Agena had to be undocked (although that is ONLY based on others
who said it didn't have to be; I haven't examined it.) If you examine
my hypothetical once again, I gave him that the Agena had to be
undocked, he was about to black out, and he had no time to isolate the
thruster in question. SO, the question remains: WHY didn't he simply
counter-thrust to reorient the spacecraft and hold it there so he could
troubleshoot and FIND the thruster?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102652576.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Do the research.
But my guess is among other problems, he couldn't counter-thrust and hold it
there. Generally thrusters like that have burn limits due to overheating.
So he'd have to thrust, stop, wait for it to cool, thrust again, etc. In
the meantime the stuck thruster continues thrusting.
And I believe he did in fact attempt what you suggest at first.
>
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102652343.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I agree with you 100%. However, as the first man to walk on the Moon,
> shouldn't he have been able to demonstrate at least a LITTLE of "the
> right stuff?" I agree it is troubleshooting 101.
>
He got the crew home safely. That's demonstrating the right stuff.
Scott Hedrick
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:JN9ud.41122$1u.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Do the research.
Gee, why should she start now?
Consider the results of her "research" of Apollo 1- her inability to provide
even a single verifiable cite, even with a "team" (none of the members of
said team having a name, nor were they willing to publically admit
associating with her) working the problem.
Derek Lyons
>In article <41bbe3d5...@supernews.seanet.com>, fair...@gmail.com
>says...
>> Heck. Even a half competent tech does the same thing, no 'true'ness
>> or 'right stuff required'. It's Troubleshooting 101.
>
>While "isolate the problem" is Troubleshooting 101, doing it in a
>tumbling spaceship threatening to kill you does require a bit of Right
>Stuff.
<nods> There you have me.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
commander, he had more than one objective. It's not like his O2 tank
exploded. :-)
Herb Schaltegger
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not to mention lying about receiving emails from people when she
hadn't.
Psychotic troll.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
AFTER they disconnected from Agena? I'm not second-guessing the
decision to do that (although veteran astronauts DID!), but once
disengaged, was his only option REALLY to forfeit the mission and fire
up the Reentry Control System? All indications are he had other
options, and THAT's my point.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
people who would NEVER question a journalist's need to keep a source
private...you would even march at the rallies demanding the guy's
release after a contempt of court citation...but you cannot understand
that divulging sources before it's time can jeopardize the overall
goal. You are not NEARLY as intelligent as you like to think you are.
OM
<herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <dcaud.129064$jE2.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
>> news:JN9ud.41122$1u.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> > Do the research.
>>
>> Gee, why should she start now?
>>
>> Consider the results of her "research" of Apollo 1- her inability to provide
>> even a single verifiable cite, even with a "team" (none of the members of
>> said team having a name, nor were they willing to publically admit
>> associating with her) working the problem.
...Actually, there was one who *did* admit to working with her, and
was eventually revealed to have been an even worse troll.
>Psychotic troll.
...Duh. Now please, kids, just killfile the AIDS-ridden excuse for
trailer trash and be done with her.
Paul.R...@sierrafoot.org
hpywi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> He jumped the gun, A.L. There are those who say he shouldn't even
have
> cut the Agena loose, but let's pretend that was necessary, and let's
> further pretend that he was in imminent danger of blacking out and
had
> no time to isolate the stuck thruster. I have a dumb question for
> Neil: Isn't there ANOTHER thruster aboard Gemini that if you fired
it
> up and did a little (cough) FLYING you could regain attitude control,
> stabilize the ship, and buy yourself the time you need to FIND the
> stuck thruster?
That's an obvious response, it's basically the first thing he did and
it didn't work. If you recall the situation, the folks on the ground
ordered them to come back early because they used about 2/3 of their
RCS propellant after deactivating the OAMS to shut down the stuck
thruster. (2/3 is quoted from memory, cross checks by others would be
welcome.)
If they had attempted switching to RCS while docked it seems VERY
unlikely that they could have dissipated the angular momentum of the
Agena without exhausting RCS propellant. The result would have have
been essentially zero chance for a successful reentry.
The key here is that Neil Armstrong needed to think first as an
engineer, then execute an engineer's plan as a pilot. He did exactly
that because he himself is an engineer first, a pilot second.
In case any readers don't immediately recall the acronyms, OAMS is
Orbital Attitude and Maneuvering System, RCS is Reentry Control System.
____________________________
Paul Raveling
Paul.R...@sierrafoot.org
Web site: http://www.sierrafoot.org
Scott Hedrick
> hpywi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> FIND the
> > stuck thruster?
OM and I were just talking about old crack whores, and look who show up.
You couldn't find it if it were up your ass.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
They were ordered back because, by firing up the Reentry Control
System, mission protocol DICTATED they scrub the mission. So, I repeat
my complaint: Neil should NOT have jumped the gun and fired up the
RCS. He did so prematurely, and it cost the mission.
Wally Anglesea™
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I see, and you were there, and are an expert at RCS because.....?
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
MasterShrink
Actually a call out to the sane guys around here...as I recall reading, you
couldn't just isolate and shut down one thruster...the case with GT 8 was the
whole system needed to be shut down. Armstrong and Scott could counter-act with
the other thrusters all they wanted...the sucker would still keep firing.
-A.L.
OM
<wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
>I see, and you were there, and are an expert at RCS because.....?
...She's not. She's a psychotic troll. Just killfile the skank and put
her out of our misery, please.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"rk" <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95BD67...@216.196.97.136...
> hpywi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > He jumped the gun, A.L. There are those who say he shouldn't even have
> > cut the Agena loose, but let's pretend that was necessary, and let's
> > further pretend that he was in imminent danger of blacking out and had
> > no time to isolate the stuck thruster. I have a dumb question for
> > Neil: Isn't there ANOTHER thruster aboard Gemini that if you fired it
> > up and did a little (cough) FLYING you could regain attitude control,
> > stabilize the ship, and buy yourself the time you need to FIND the
> > stuck thruster?
>
and
> what you claim to be Armstrong's lack of knowledge about his craft and
ability
> to fly it. From Kranz' book:
rk,
It's apparently not only Gene that had no problem, neither apparently did
Lovell, Cernan or Collins since none of them made hay of it and Cernan in
fact basically said any criticism of Armstrong's handling of it was simply
self-serving attempts to get ahead.
But, I suppose we can take their collective word, or hpywife's word.
Derek Lyons
>Hmmm ... perhaps the scale will tilt a bit if we add in the fact that B.
>Aldrin consented to fly with him in two spacecraft on one mission.
hmm... Did any astronaut ever refuse to fly with another? At least
once a commander refused a crewman, but would have Buzz been able to
refuse to serve on a crew? (Setting aside the obvious attraction of
being assigned to the first landing attempt.)
Scott Hedrick
> "All indications?" How about this one?
All indications are that LaToya is completely ignorant of technical matters,
does not have the skills an elementary school child receives on research,
and apparently does not even know how to operate a calculator.
Henry Spencer
Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>hmm... Did any astronaut ever refuse to fly with another? At least
>once a commander refused a crewman, but would have Buzz been able to
>refuse to serve on a crew? (Setting aside the obvious attraction of
>being assigned to the first landing attempt.)
My understanding is that it's been known to happen, although X's
unwillingness to serve with Y generally becomes known before formal crew
assignment rather than after. A case in point is that apparently it's not
an accident that Al Shepard's Apollo crew was him and two rookies -- few
of the experienced astronauts could stand him, and those few weren't
willing to play second fiddle to him. McDivitt reportedly told him "if
you want to be my LMP, that's fine, but I'm not being yours".
Of course, this may hurt your chances of being selected for a later crew,
especially if (like Aldrin) you aren't really in management's good books
to begin with.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | he...@spsystems.net
Pat Flannery
rk wrote:
>
> The Gemini was now rolling and tumbling. Using every test pilot
> skill, Armstrong and Scott fought for survival as the spacecraft
> completed a turn every second. As the orbit propellant dropped
> below 25 percent, there could be no doubt that the problem was
> in one of the Gemini thrusters.
>
You don't realize just how fast it was rotating till you see the film of
the view out of the spacecraft's window; I'm surprised that the thing
didn't start coming apart from the G forces it must have been experiencing.
Pat
hpywi...@yahoo.com
know mission rules for Gemini, and turning it on automatically scrubbed
the mission. He should have held off and done what I said. And by the
way, I'm not the only one who says that. You could ask some other
astronauts and pilots--which I have. They agree with me he should not
have done it; in fact, one flat-out said he should never have cut Agena
loose. So, you may stubbornly defend Neil to the death if you like,
but the fact remains, he screwed the pooch.
hpywi...@yahoo.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
person in here said that is PRECISELY what Neil supposedly TRIED to do
before he panicked. :-)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102901474....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I never said I was an "expert" on the Reentry Control System. I just
> know mission rules for Gemini, and turning it on automatically scrubbed
> the mission. He should have held off and done what I said. And by the
> way, I'm not the only one who says that. You could ask some other
> astronauts and pilots--which I have. They agree with me he should not
> have done it; in fact, one flat-out said he should never have cut Agena
> loose.
Not a single source anyone here has referenced, including autobiographical
and semi-autobiographical accounts of fellow astronauts agree with you.
So either start naming names and verifiable references or shut up.
>So, you may stubbornly defend Neil to the death if you like,
> but the fact remains, he screwed the pooch.
Not according to any reference anyone here has cited.
Compare Armstrong's career vs. Carpenter's. After his problems, Kraft made
it clear he'd never fly again. If Armstrong had screwed the pooch, you can
be sure Armstrong would not have been, "one of the men in this room will
walk on the room."
>
OM
<stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
>> You don't realize just how fast it was rotating till you see the film of
>> the view out of the spacecraft's window; I'm surprised that the thing
>> didn't start coming apart from the G forces it must have been experiencing.
>
>Haven't seen that, is it digitized and on-line anywhere?
...I've heard that the speed of the film might have been accellerated
a bit when made as a public-accessable source, so what's in shows like
"Moon Shot" and some of the Pee-BS shows, may in fact be a bit faster
than what was actually experienced. I haven't seen the entire film,
tho.
OM
<din...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All indications are that LaToya is completely ignorant...
...You could have stopped there and still been accurate. How about
killfiling the bimbo and put her out of our misery once and for all?
Pat Flannery
rk wrote:
>Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>>
>>You don't realize just how fast it was rotating till you see the film of
>>the view out of the spacecraft's window; I'm surprised that the thing
>>didn't start coming apart from the G forces it must have been experiencing.
>>
>>
>
>Haven't seen that, is it digitized and on-line anywhere?
>
I don't remember where I saw it; I think it was in a multipart
documentary about space exploration...Moonshot?
Pat
Derek Lyons
>In article <41bc94d0...@supernews.seanet.com>,
>Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>hmm... Did any astronaut ever refuse to fly with another? At least
>>once a commander refused a crewman, but would have Buzz been able to
>>refuse to serve on a crew? (Setting aside the obvious attraction of
>>being assigned to the first landing attempt.)
>
>My understanding is that it's been known to happen, although X's
>unwillingness to serve with Y generally becomes known before formal crew
>assignment rather than after. A case in point is that apparently it's not
>an accident that Al Shepard's Apollo crew was him and two rookies -- few
>of the experienced astronauts could stand him, and those few weren't
>willing to play second fiddle to him. McDivitt reportedly told him "if
>you want to be my LMP, that's fine, but I'm not being yours".
The Shepard crew may be an anomaly, because (IIRC) in addition to the
personality issues, there was considerable resentment over his leaping
directly into an Apollo command slot. (Original Seven or no.)
Jonathan Silverlight
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
"Manned Spacecraft Log" (my usual source for this stuff) says "up to 360
degrees a second". Was that the roll or the tumble?
Pat Flannery
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
> "Manned Spacecraft Log" (my usual source for this stuff) says "up to
> 360 degrees a second". Was that the roll or the tumble?
The view on the film shows the sun going past the window about once a
second, but it's hard to know the exact dynamics of what's going on in
regards to the spacecraft's orientation from the view shown. According
to this (thanks RK):
http://home.comcast.net/~stellare/gemini/gemini_thrusters.jpg
Thruster number 8 would generate a simple roll (the spacecraft would
rotate on its axis of symmetry) if the thruster is fired in concert
with thruster 4; (or 2, 4, and 6 if you wanted a fast roll to port) fire
it on its own, and you get a combined roll/yaw/pitch effect due to its
location far aft of the CG, and its direction of thrust (Apollo's SM
thruster quads were a lot better design in this regard, as they were
located near the spacecraft's CG, so that even firing one would generate
a motion primarily in one direction). So it's rather like the crew got
thrown back into the dread MASTIF trainer in regards to the the
movements they had to damp out.
Pat
Jonathan Silverlight
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
>
>
>Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
>>
>> "Manned Spacecraft Log" (my usual source for this stuff) says "up to
>>360 degrees a second". Was that the roll or the tumble?
>
>
>The view on the film shows the sun going past the window about once a
>second, but it's hard to know the exact dynamics of what's going on in
>regards to the spacecraft's orientation from the view shown.
So the film's being shown at about the right speed, then. 'Scuse me
while I throw up (which is one of the differences between me and a test
pilot :-) "Manned Spaceflight Log" also notes that they got badly
seasick waiting to be picked up.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41bebe51...@supernews.seanet.com...
> he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
(IIRC) in addition to the
> personality issues, there was considerable resentment over his leaping
> directly into an Apollo command slot. (Original Seven or no.)
I'm not sure you can separate those two. I think his personality sort of
forced the issue. :-)
Pat Flannery
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
>
> So the film's being shown at about the right speed, then. 'Scuse me
> while I throw up (which is one of the differences between me and a
> test pilot :-) "Manned Spaceflight Log" also notes that they got badly
> seasick waiting to be picked up.
Remember all the astronauts appalled by the evil puke-inducing MASTIF?
The MASTIF was _exactly_ the right training for this particular
emergency situation. :-D
I'm still trying to figure out why they did that particular thruster
set-up on Gemini, when they could have just mounted four thruster quads
around the exterior of the retro module in a set-up very similar to the
Apollo CM (both spacecraft had a total of 16 thrusters in their orbital
maneuvering system, BTW) which would have removed some tumbling
possibilities if a single thruster had stuck in the "on" position- at
least when the Gemini wasn't docked to the Agena.
What's really strange is that the Soviet's replaced the oddball RCS
setup on the original Soyuz with one that bears a striking resemblance
to Gemini's on the Soyuz TMA: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html
(Check out the service module tab, then highlight them via the DPO line
of text)
They get a stuck roll thruster, and the same thing that happened to the
Gemini is going to happen to them.
Pat
Henry Spencer
Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>I'm still trying to figure out why they did that particular thruster
>set-up on Gemini, when they could have just mounted four thruster quads
>around the exterior of the retro module in a set-up very similar to the
Don't know for sure, but they may have been concerned about aerodynamic
heating on exposed thruster quads, given Titan II's rather more aggressive
acceleration (and hence higher velocities in thicker air).
Mike Flugennock
jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid wrote:
> In message <10rs01q...@corp.supernews.com>, Pat Flannery
> <fla...@daktel.com> writes
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Manned Spacecraft Log" (my usual source for this stuff) says "up to
> >>360 degrees a second". Was that the roll or the tumble?
> >
> >
> >The view on the film shows the sun going past the window about once a
> >second, but it's hard to know the exact dynamics of what's going on in
> >regards to the spacecraft's orientation from the view shown...
If this is the footage I think it is, wasn't that actually shot from a
window-mounted camera aboard an early unmanned Gemini flight, of re-entry?
I could be wrong. PBS' "Spaceflight" runs this clip as the narration
describes the GT8 ordeal, though those episodes carried the disclaimer
"certain events are depicted by footage of similar events" or something
like that...
--
"All over, people changing their votes,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
___________________________________________________________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org
Pat Flannery
Henry Spencer wrote:
>Don't know for sure, but they may have been concerned about aerodynamic
>heating on exposed thruster quads, given Titan II's rather more aggressive
>acceleration (and hence higher velocities in thicker air).
>
You could have put them in some aerodynamic fairings if that were the
case- either permanently attached, or jettisonable once orbit was
reached, as the top heatshield on the parachute compartment was. Of
course, more thrusters on the retro module means more mass for the
retros to decelerate, plus more plumbing between the thrusters and their
propellant supply back in the equipment module. And one thruster would
end up exhausting right over the crew compartment; maybe they were
concerned about the possible effects on the spacecraft's hatches of
blast and propellant contamination, especially given that EVAs were part
of the program goals.
Pat
Pat
Pat Flannery
Mike Flugennock wrote:
>If this is the footage I think it is, wasn't that actually shot from a
>window-mounted camera aboard an early unmanned Gemini flight, of re-entry?
>I could be wrong. PBS' "Spaceflight" runs this clip as the narration
>describes the GT8 ordeal, though those episodes carried the disclaimer
>"certain events are depicted by footage of similar events" or something
>like that...
>
No, this isn't the famous reentry roll footage used for every spacecraft
reentry ever since... I just dug it up on "Moonshot", and the film is
out the port spacecraft window. It starts with the spacecraft attached
to the Agena and starting to roll, then the whole scene turns from space
downwards toward Earth as the Agena is undocked (very violently
undocked- virtually hurled off the nose of the Gemini), and then back up
spacewards as it goes tumbling away- that's the last you see of the
Earth, and from that point on it looks like the spacecraft is primarily
in a fast oscillating roll....a very fast roll, rapidly gaining speed.
Pat
Herb Schaltegger
rk <stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
> No.
>
> You made technical claims you could not back up about AS-204. Your
> explanations showed a lack of even a fundamental understanding of what you
> were talking about. You showed that you had not done even the most basic
> technical research into the topic at hand. You ignored or evaded technical
> questions.
>
> You relied on anonymous experts as your only support. That was found to be
> insufficient.
>
> Your technical work on Apollo 13 was a repeat of your work on Apollo 1.
>
> And to date, your technical work on Gemini 8 matches that of AS-204 and
> Apollo
> 13. No substance, ignoring work that is verifiable, and a reliance on
> authorities that remain anonymous, in this case playing "the astronauts
> support me in e-mail" theme.
>
> I hear an echo.
>
Worse than that, she's an out-and-out liar, claiming I sent her
emails, something I never did and something she has never provided
proof of because such proof does not exist. LaLiar is just holding
true to form with G8, the form she established with her "work" on
AS-204 and A13.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Wow! This is like saying when engineers get involved, harmonic
oscillations tear apart bridges."
~Hop David
<http://www.angryherb.net>
hpywi...@yahoo.com
I was lying about it! I could quote names all day long, and NASA
apologists would make up some way of discrediting it. That's what
mindless loyalists do.
MasterShrink
And any historian or journalist worth a damn is willing to cite their sources
to determine the credability of the arguement being presented.
-A.L.
Scott Hedrick
> hpywife927 wrote:
> >LMAO RK. If I WERE to divulge my sources, you would proceed to tell me
> >I was lying about it!
Actually, we would proceed to contact them to verify your claims, and to
provide them with contact information about you should they then want to
litigate.
OM
<stel...@nospamplease.comcast.net> wrote:
>I hear an echo.
...Which is really surprising, as sound doesn't travel in a vacuum
such as the one between her ears.
OM
wrote:
...The truth is, of course, is that if the poster child for why
truckers should be required to be sterilized before having sex with
crack whores they pick up on the side of the road *actually* divulged
her sources, every single one -including- the two hobos she slept with
in a railroad yard last week would all deny they ever had any dealings
with her whatsoever.
Bottom Line: You can't divulge sources you don't have.
OM
<herb.sch...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Worse than that, she's an out-and-out liar, claiming I sent her
>emails, something I never did and something she has never provided
>proof of because such proof does not exist. LaLiar is just holding
>true to form with G8, the form she established with her "work" on
>AS-204 and A13.
...Herb, since you're a lawyer, might I suggest you take the skank to
court and sue her for slander and/or defamation of character?
hpywi...@yahoo.com
to provide his home phone number? :-)
hpywi...@yahoo.com
journalists go to jail citing the First Amendment in order to protect
the sources you would readily sell on Ebay? And how in the world would
an idiot such as yourself ever expect to get another one to speak with
you again???
hpywi...@yahoo.com
**checking to see if the Earth has stopped spinning** :-)
MasterShrink
Welp, the issue you are presenting is Neil Armstrong screwed up on GT 8. You
have cited astronauts stating he screwed the pooch. As a counter, specific
astronauts, who have written accounts have argued Armstrong did the right
thing: namely, Slayton, Cernan, Collins and Lovell.
What astronaut accounts have you read that state otherwise? Or, what astronauts
stated directly to you that Armstrong screwed up?
I do not see that as an unreasonable situation to ask for a source as this is a
case of a more historical nature.
And for the record, I'm a bloody historian (or at least working on becoming
one). I live off of who, what, when, where, why and hows that I can verify. I
apply that to the news I see on TV or read in the paper. Only an idiot would
take "Secret Conspiracy killed Astronaut! (yet to be proven)" or "Clinton gets
blowjob from intern! (proven)" without asking, who is saying this, what are
they saying, when did they witness this, why might they be saying this, and how
they might know.
-A.L.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103342900.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Those journalists are also expected to verify and confirm their sources.
Yes, Woodward and Bernstein have their Deep Throat, but they managed to back
up enough of his facts with other sources.
There's no way in hell the editor of the Washington Post would have printed
anything otherwise.
And now of course they have a reputation. So I'm more apt to believe them
when they claim to be repeating what an anonymous source tells them.
Your reputation around here lends me to do just the opposite, distrust it.
>
Dave Michelson
>
>> hpywife927 wrote:
>
> Or put out facts and analysis that can be checked -- she decided to
> go with "the astronaut lurkers support me in e-mail" and personal
> attacks.
Is there any chance y'all could just killfile the troll and be done with
it? It's a little disheartening to watch this troll keep putting out
bait and y'all keep snapping it up.
Thanks.
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Mary Shafer
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>It's apparently not only Gene that had no problem, neither apparently did
>Lovell, Cernan or Collins since none of them made hay of it and Cernan in
>fact basically said any criticism of Armstrong's handling of it was simply
>self-serving attempts to get ahead.
Dave Scott thinks Neil is the best, smartest, greatest pilot in the
whole world. I remember him telling me about how they were rolling
faster and faster and Neil was calmly trying things one after another.
Dave said his main job was staying out of Neil's way.
>But, I suppose we can take their collective word, or hpywife's word.
I'd go with Dave's opinion, since I respect him quite a bit.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired flight research engineer
shafe...@gmail.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
hpywi...@yahoo.com
Scott: I respect Gus Grissom "quite a bit," and his opinion was the
antithesis of yours and Dave Scott's. I think I'll go with the man who
WOULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN the first man to walk on the Moon. :-)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:d43fs0h1bso93d3n4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:59:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >It's apparently not only Gene that had no problem, neither apparently did
> >Lovell, Cernan or Collins since none of them made hay of it and Cernan in
> >fact basically said any criticism of Armstrong's handling of it was
simply
> >self-serving attempts to get ahead.
>
> Dave Scott thinks Neil is the best, smartest, greatest pilot in the
> whole world. I remember him telling me about how they were rolling
> faster and faster and Neil was calmly trying things one after another.
> Dave said his main job was staying out of Neil's way.
Yet one more name we can add to the list. And more importantly, the name of
the only other man who was there.
>
> >But, I suppose we can take their collective word, or hpywife's word.
>
> I'd go with Dave's opinion, since I respect him quite a bit.
I'd tend to agree.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103597724....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> **zipping lip on Dave Scott**
Boy, you are doing wonders for your cerdibility here. I didn't think it was
even possible.
>
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
<hpywi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103598145....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The problem is, Gus isn't around. We can't ask him his opinion. And I
don't know any place where it was recorded. I'm open to being shown it.
As for being the first man on the Moon. While Deke had a soft spot in his
heart for Gus, the fact is, when he did finally make the assignments, it
still wasn't clear who would be first. As it was, many thought Neil only
had a 50/50 chance of being "the one".
It's quite possible that Gus could have been on Apollo 11 and Apollo 11 not
made it.
>
MasterShrink
Let's delve into the possibility and shoot. Okay, Grissom thought Armstrong
fucked up. There is one Astronaut.
Slayton, Lovell, Cernan, Collins and now Dave Scott (the man whose ass had as
much to lose in that tumbling capsule as Neil) all approved of Armstrong's
call.
In a good old historical case study we'd say there are five astronauts then who
approved of Armstrong's call on GT 8 and one who did not.
I'd be inclined to go with the majority of astronauts in this case, versus the
minority in an assessment of Armstrong.
Also, on the "Gus would have been first!" note. Slayton makes it clear why Gus
would have been first in his book. Because he felt Grissom was the only one of
the original seven remaining who was capable enough and seemed willing enough
to stick it out long enough to make that first landing. I got the impression
the only reason Deke didn't tag Schirra for such a flight was because he could
tell Wally wasn't planning to hang around that long.
He had other guys he was confident could handle the job of the first landing,
Borman, McDivitt, Armstrong, Conrad and Stafford seem to be that group. Grissom
was put to the top of that list it seems because:
"Bob Gilruth and headquarters and I agreed on one thing, prior to the Apollo
fire: if possible one of the Mercury astronauts would have the first chance at
being first on the moon."
"And at that time Gus was the one guy from the original seven who had the
experience to press on."
Both from Deke! (p. 191)
Quit trying to diminish the accomplishments of the other astronauts here. I
find that insulting to Gus's memory. I think the man would be damn proud that
the job was done, despite his death. These people were his collegues and
friends.
In other words, quit dragging his corpse out. It won't get you a free coffee.
-A.L.