Apollo 16 Flight Journal

David Woods wrote:

I would like to bring to the group's attention the first installment of the
Apollo 16 Flight Journal now online at.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj


What I don't understand is the order in which they are being done, as
the interesting (non surface portion of) missions is not the same as
the interesting (surface portion of) missions.

In other words, they should be ranked in order of interest and
usefulness based on their *non surface* activities, not their surface
activities.

My prime candidates for the AFJ (in publication order, with
justification) would be;
8 - First translunar flight.
9 - LM testing in earth orbit
12 - lightning + representative LM ops.
15 - SIM bay ops, landing anomaly.
17 - Launch anomaly
14 - T&D problems
13 - Well covered elsewhere, but needs to be here.
16 - SPS problems

And finish with the 10 & 11 which are essentially textbook flights
during the non surface portions.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
David Woods wrote:

I would like to bring to the group's attention the first installment of the
Apollo 16 Flight Journal now online at.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj


What I don't understand is the order in which they are being done, as
the interesting (non surface portion of) missions is not the same as
the interesting (surface portion of) missions.

In other words, they should be ranked in order of interest and
usefulness based on their *non surface* activities, not their surface
activities.

My prime candidates for the AFJ (in publication order, with
justification) would be;
8 - First translunar flight.
9 - LM testing in earth orbit
12 - lightning + representative LM ops.
15 - SIM bay ops, landing anomaly.
17 - Launch anomaly
14 - T&D problems
13 - Well covered elsewhere, but needs to be here.
16 - SPS problems

And finish with the 10 & 11 which are essentially textbook flights
during the non surface portions.

Oh, c'mon. Let the people who do it decide their order. If you
are keen onto an A9FJ and it is not already in the pipeline, then
join David and do it.
And for those who need some quotes: The scanned original transcripts
are available online as PDFs. Not as convenient as a journal,
but available.
I'll welcome any upcoming journal and cheer David and his team
whichever order they publish.

I've only one question to David: How are the chances, that when a journal
is finished, that you can go through it with the mission's astronauts
to get their comments?

Harald

On 10 Aug 2003 23:37:59 -0700, (Harald Kucharek)
wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Let the people who do it decide their order. If you
are keen onto an A9FJ and it is not already in the pipeline, then
join David and do it.

....It's not wrong to question the order, or at least ask for
clarification as to which flight has priority over the other.

I've only one question to David: How are the chances, that when a journal
is finished, that you can go through it with the mission's astronauts
to get their comments?

....Hopefully he'll get the chance to do so soon, because as we've see
way too many times recently, they're not dropping like flies, but
they're not immortal either.


OM

--

"No ******* 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 ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:02:45 -0600, OM wrote:

On 10 Aug 2003 23:37:59 -0700, (Harald Kucharek)
wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Let the people who do it decide their order. If you
are keen onto an A9FJ and it is not already in the pipeline, then
join David and do it.

...It's not wrong to question the order, or at least ask for
clarification as to which flight has priority over the other.

It's not wrong at all. I started with 15 because, at the time, I didn't
know whether I would do more than one FJ. I considered A15 as being the
epitome of an advanced Apollo flight and if I only got to describe one,
that was a good one to do. I was also lucky that the commander and CMP were
willing to help out for that mission. Apollo 8 was chosen next because it
was the opposite of 15 as a flight: pioneering, with procedures that were
crude in comparison.

I'm still working on A8 and other missions are being done as good folk out
there choose to help out with them. The work is completely voluntary with
zero budget. What gets done, gets done.


I've only one question to David: How are the chances, that when a
journal is finished, that you can go through it with the mission's
astronauts to get their comments?

...Hopefully he'll get the chance to do so soon, because as we've see
way too many times recently, they're not dropping like flies, but
they're not immortal either.

Nothing would delight me more than to be able to go through all the flights
with all the crews. Dave Scott gave me just excellent support. As I live on
the wrong side of the Atlantic, getting others to even match his input is
going to be difficult.

Cheers

David




--
David Woods. Editor: Apollo Flight Journal

The work is so good that for a while I thought it was an official NASA
project.

I'll take what I can get and be grateful for it.

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.