Talk:Gus Grissom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 1st to go twice?
Joseph A. Walker's flights of the X-15's flights 90 and 91 was in 1963-07-19 (106 km) and 1963-08-22 (108 km). Gus' Mercury 4 and Gemini 3 was on 1961-07-21 and 1965-03-23. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t12:27z
[edit] To the flaming moron who posted the above
<Note: A section denying moon landing was deleted for massive POV with no references> A not so brief answer to the "10 proofs we didn't land on the moon" on the above Web site: 10. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: • First man-made satellite in earth orbit… • First man in space… • First man to orbit the earth… • First woman in space… • The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… • The first space walk… • The first to have two spacecrafts orbiting simultaneously… This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.
RETORT: True, all. But after 1964, when Kruschev was overthrown, Soviet space and missle spending dropped precipitously. They tried to get back into the game in 1967 but a fatal Soyuz accident set them back too far to recover). And that doesn’t count all the Soviet failures that never got off the ground and were never reported.  9. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?  RETORT: (he shows two photos, one seeming to show a large C on a rock, indicating that it’s a prop. It’s strictly a lighting trick.) As for why they’d update the photos - well, a good cinematographer should know that photographic techniques have improved by leaps and bounds since 1969.
8. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander’s 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere.
RETORT: What was discovered by the moon landing is that the moon has a fairly thin surface of loose soil covering a very hard surface. The astronauts had serious problems pounding objects and drilling into it. That’s why there was no major crater.
7. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon’s surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
RETORT: The photo shows an astronaut, shadow straight, with what seems to be a shadow at another angle. Dismissing intentionally retouched photograph, explanations could include equipment hidden behind the camera or reflected light from the Lunar Module. Light behaves differently on the moon with no atmosphere to refract it.  6. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, “You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention.” Armstong replied, “No, I just don’t deserve it.” Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.
RETORT: Armstrong is noted for being near-reclusive in his inevitable fame; his view is that the landing, which included the work of Buzz Aldrin, was the hard, untested part. Aldrin was probably sensible in refusing this guy permission to twist his words, and Collins has gone over the story enough times (read “Carrying the Fire, it’s excellent).  5. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth’s magnetic field traps the solar wind.
RETORT: The shuttle is not designed to fly to the moon. This is like saying that no one has gone to Paris because taxicabs can’t cross the ocean. At least two Gemini flights also flew into the Van Allen belts, one up to 830 milss above the earth. In addition, the spacecraft walls do a good job of shielding the astronauts.  4. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.
RETORT: And if you test it, a bumblebee can’t fly. The man forgets this is a craft designed to fly solely in space. This "proof" is just pure disbelief and has nothing to do with logical explanations.  3. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.
RETORT: The LM was covered in reflective materials to deflect the heat. And 250 degrees is bearable; I’ve been in a sauna at 190. Add the multiple cooling systems and it’s certainly possible.It’s interesting he can deny this but admit spacecraft returned through the atmosphere at 17,500 mph with outside temperatures of thousands of degrees.  2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?
RETORT: It’s a thing this bozo has never heard of called hard work. The government decided it was actually going to do something and it did. That sort of dedication is lacking today.
I might add this bozo - and I mean the filmmaker, as well as the above anonymous poster - also tries to prove that Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 was intentionally killed by NASA or the government as part of a coverup. This is beyond humbuggery and into slander. (And if they really wanted to kill him, all they had to do was sabotage his sports car. Why kill two other men?)  1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in (name of film) and explained in (name of another film) proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.
RETORT There is also footage of a rehearsal for Doug McArthur wading ashore in the Phillippines in World War II, The astronauts were expected to participate in television broadcasts during the trip and did some rehearsal for them. No big whoop. This is like saying Tiger Woods never won the Masters as he had sone all his swinging before on the practice range.
Sorry about the long post, but I just felt I had to say something.DrBear 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bravissimo. Except, I wish you hadn't. These vacuum-brained dolts shouldn't be refuted, they should be ridiculed, just like the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy lunatics. Trekphiler 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Gusmobile" and the thruster joystick
I'm adding a note that I read in a Smithsonian magazine profile of Grissom, he was the chief innovator (with NASA engineers, presumably) of the 3-axis (4-axis?) joystick which allowed one-handed control of the Gemini thrusters. Another reason the Gemini was nicknamed the Gusmobile. If anyone can find an online link, much appreciated. I have only my memory. - David Spalding 14:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Shut the pod bay door, Gus."
I've heard (but can't source...) the Apollo spacecraft door was modified to open inward after Mercury IV, & had Mercury IV not blown, the 012 door would have opened outward & none of them would have died... Can anybody confirm & include? ALEX 7000 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The link article you referenced has your answer, I think. "... However, the two-piece hatch was of a design which required that the crew undo several bolts in order to remove the inner section, and was impossible to open quickly. Furthermore, the inner portion of the hatch opened inwards, an intentional design feature intended to exploit the cabin's air pressure in order to further tighten the hatch seal during spaceflight. The hot gases produced by the fire held the hatch shut, and within a few seconds the air pressure had risen enough to prevent the crew from escaping (and, in fact, the air pressure rose so high as to rupture the capsule)." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Nice catch, but I was thinking of a specific ref to Gus' flight. Know of 1? Trekphiler
-
[edit] Why hasn't...
Why isn't there any mention of the official NASA investigation with Astronaut Frank Borman as a member? There is no mention of it which leads to a appearance of bias. --AdmShiloh - Hawk 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main reason is because that should appear in the article about Apollo 1. This article is more of a biography of Grissom; as with the bios of White and Chaffee, it's a side issue that is better handled in the article about the planned flight itself rather than the individuals. DrBear 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gus Grissom and Gil Grissom
In a January 20, 2002, interview with CSI star William Petersen in USA Weekend Jeffery Zaslow lists this under "Clues about CSI": "Why Gil Grissom? Petersen's character was to be named Gil Scheinbaum. He changed the name because of his affinity for astronaut Gus Grissom and the alliteration. 'His job is grisly, gruesome.'" I hope this reliable reference to an interview with Petersen, not merely a random article with uncertain sourcing, will put this matter to bed once and for all. - Dravecky 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GT-3 Mission Emblem
Note that the emblem that is currently on the page for Grissom and Young's GT-3 mission wasn't the official mission patch, as such things didn't exist at the time. The first official mission patch was for Cooper and Conrad's GT-5. Mission patches for GT-3 and GT-4 (and the Mercury missions) were made later for the collector market. There is at least one other mission patch for GT-3, but neither are official. Perhaps a photo of the mission might be more appropriate?--Voodude 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have it at hand, but I read that Grissom had medallions with this design made up as souvenirs, and when NASA went backwards to "create" insignia for the flights before Gemini V it used Grissom's medallion. If I can find where I found that information, I'll do a graf saying the flight had no insignia, but...DrBear 17:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Thorough cleanup, more detail, factoring, link and cite checking. This is now at least a readable article and a steadfast skeleton for growth and no, I don't think Gus blew the hatch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New section "Family"
Not being American, I'm not confident about deleting the new section as those people may be notable although I've not heard of them. If nobody objects, I think the section should be deleted. --Whoosher (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
BUT I AM RELATED :[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.195.205 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notability seems to be the relevant WP guideline. --Jtir (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
