"blow the hatches" on Gemini

In article ,
lid says...
One minor annoyance is a flurry of minor vocabulary errors. That makes
it hard for me to belive some of the minor factual points in the book.

I finished the book this afternoon. The biggest howler was that Al Bean
flew the Lunar ascent, from T=0.

The reason for the sloppiness became obvious reading the
Acknowledgements. The hired-gun writer is also a Hollywood movie script
writer, claiming Space Cowboys on his resume.

This also explains the weird structure and priorities in the book. A
"once around the world" trip is a friend's Learjet gets several chapters
scattered throughout the book. The 1.5 pages devoted to Gemini 11 start
with the EVA -- apparently firing a captive Agena isn't worth even a
sentence. Little is made of the first lunar precision landing in Apollo
12. This book isn't as bad as Angle of Attack, but it does read a bit
like a roughly cut movie script.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

Peter Stickney wrote:

Could the Gemini hatches be blown, or is this a confusion with Mercury?
(The original does say "hatch" -- singular. Presumably, both hatches
were nearly identical save for mirror-image symmetry.)



Yes. absolutely. How else do you think the ejection seats were going to
work?



Lookie what I found: http://www.ejectionsite.com/emakers.htm
Scroll down toward the bottom on the left side until you reach the
"NASA Ejection Seats" blue hypertext; they have info on the early
X-planes, X-15, lifting bodies, and Gemini ejection seats.

Pat

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

The reason for the sloppiness became obvious reading the
Acknowledgements. The hired-gun writer is also a Hollywood movie script
writer, claiming Space Cowboys on his resume.



Ah, yes... the Soviet satellite in imminent danger of orbital decay and
reentry from its 1000 mile high orbit.

Pat

In message , Pat Flannery
writes


Kevin Willoughby wrote:

The reason for the sloppiness became obvious reading the
Acknowledgements. The hired-gun writer is also a Hollywood movie
script writer, claiming Space Cowboys on his resume.


Ah, yes... the Soviet satellite in imminent danger of orbital decay and
reentry from its 1000 mile high orbit.


I have no intention of watching it again, but wasn't that just the cover
story? It's the bombs that were the real problem.

Peter Stickney writes:

Gemini weight, about 4500#, very, very do-able, even with some water sloshed in)

Heck, a friend owns a 120ft ex-RN patrol boat, (Redbird, now the
Badtz Maru) and it has an aft deck crane that can lift 2 metric
ton..


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:



I have no intention of watching it again, but wasn't that just the
cover story? It's the bombs that were the real problem.


Once was quite enough for me also, but the way they said it in the movie
IIRC was that it was going to decay in the next few weeks with the bombs
onboard; if it wasn't going to decay, there was no reason to go get it.
About the only way out of this is if it's in a 24 hour Molniya orbit
with the low point over the U.S..
If that's the case, they should of explained it better.

Pat

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ah, yes... the Soviet satellite in imminent danger of orbital decay and
reentry from its 1000 mile high orbit.

Hey, at least it ain't 'Spacecamp'...

Mark

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
[...]
Or they could blow
the hatch, climb out, and let the frogmen help them into the harness to
be pulled up like a gaffed tuna. Looks fun. Isn't."

Could the Gemini hatches be blown, or is this a confusion with Mercury?
[...]

Why "blow" the hatches in the sea when you can just open them, as in
this pic of Armstrong and Scott, so I guess the author is over-egging
the drama pud for pizzazzy effect.
http://www.farthestshots.com/img/S66-18602.jpg

And the "Looks fun. Isn't." style of writing makes me feel this is an
author I'd quickly weary of no matter how fascinating the subject.

--
Nick

wrote:



Hey, at least it ain't 'Spacecamp'...




Considering that NASA once almost launched a Shuttle with insufficient
propellant onboard to make it to orbit, is the premise of "Spacecamp"
completely 100% unbelievable? :-P

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in news:127s3rh1acj9hf4
@corp.supernews.com:

Considering that NASA once almost launched a Shuttle with insufficient
propellant onboard to make it to orbit, is the premise of "Spacecamp"
completely 100% unbelievable? :-P

Got a source for that?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.