{ "slug": "nasa-uap-d017", "title": "NASA-UAP-D017 Preliminary-Gemini-4-Crew-Debriefing Part2 1965", "agency": "NASA", "year": "1965", "page_count": 290, "source_page": "https://wearenotalone.space/document/nasa-uap-d017/", "original_file": "https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/061226/release_03/documents/NASA-UAP-D017_Preliminary-Gemini-4-Crew-Debriefing_Part2_1965.pdf", "license": "U.S. Government work — public domain. Text is machine OCR from the original scan; the page image is authoritative.", "pages": [ { "n": 1, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p01.jpg", "text": "•\nAuthority:\n65\nNW 91526\nl\nI\nTo\nurtfFj~fr{ft~E\n-----------\"-==-----~\nBy authority of-E---'-:---'--'-=--::....-~-=-__,___.c.....:::=---1\nCha nged bY--..£:::%:.:~~!l\"~~==--\nPRELIMINARY\nGT-4 FLIGHT CREW DEBRIEFING TRANSCRIPT\nPART II\nPrepared By\nSpacecraft Operations Branch\nFlight Crew Support Division\nJune 18 , 1965\nThis material contains information affecting the\nnational defense of the United States within the\nmeaning of the Espionage Laws, Title 18.\nU. S. c.\nSection 793 and 794, the transmission or revela­\ntion of which in any manner to an unauthorized\nperson is prohibited by law.\nGroup 4:\nDowngrade at 3 year intervals\nDeclassified after 12 years\nNOTICE: This document may be exempt from\npublic disclosure under the Freedom of Infor­\nmation Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Requests for its re­\nlease to persons outside the U.S. Government\nshould be handled under the provisions of\nNASA Policy Direct:ve 1382.2." }, { "n": 2, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p02.jpg", "text": "•\n•\nI" }, { "n": 3, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p03.jpg", "text": "PREFACE\nThis preliminary transcript was made from voice tape -recording3\nof the GT-4 flight crew debriefing conducted aboard the recovery ship,\nthe USS Wasp, on June~' 1965, and concluded at the Manned Spacecraft\nCenter on June 12, 1965.\nAlthough all the material contained in this transcript has been\nedited , the urgent need for the preliminary transcript by mission\nanalysis personnel precluded a thorough editorial review prior to its\npublication. Errors in this transcript will be corrected as soon as\npossible and an official transcript will be published at a later date.\nThia document contains a transcript of the second part of the\ntotal debriefing.\nA preliminary transcript of the first part was\npublished on June 16, 1965, and it contains the crew' s description\nof the mission from an operational standpoint." }, { "n": 4, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p04.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 5, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p05.jpg", "text": "itit 4Fl8E!I ◄ • I Jlt'&'\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nParagraph\nPage number\n8.0\nSYSTEMS OPERATION\n8. 1\nPla tfo:r,n ................................................ . 1\n8 . 2\nO..AMS ....... ............ .........• ...... ...............• .5\n8 . 3\nRCS ................................................ , ... 17\n8.4\nEnvironmental Control System •••·················••••···22\n8.5\nCoDlDlunications ........................................ .68\n8.6\nElectrical System ...................................... 82\n8 . 7\nComputer ............................................... 87\n8.8\nCrew Station .......................................... . 93\n8 . 9\nBio-Medicat ........................................... 134\n9.0\nOPERATIONAL CHEDKS\n9. 1\nApollo Landmark Identification (D- 6) .................. 144\n9. 2\nApollo Yaw Orientation •••·•··•·•••·•··••·•••···•·•·•••168\n9. 3\nOne Attitude Thruster Failure Check ... ......... ....... 171\n9.4\nHorizon Scanner Track Check •·•••·•• ••·• · •• · •••• ·•·•••• 172\n9.5\nHorizon Scanner Check ....................... ...... ~ ... 173\n9.6\nHF Transmission Reception Check ....................... 181\n9·. 7\nOrbit Navigation Check ................................ 182\n9.8\nRelative Humidity Test ................................ 185\n9.9\nZodiacal Light Check .................................. 186\n10.0 VISUAL SIGHTINGS\n10.1\nCotllltdo\\.lll .................•.•........................ . 188\n10. 2\nPowered Flight . ........................ ..... ... ... . .. . 188\n10 . 3\nOrbital Flight . ............................... ........ 191\n10.4\nReentry .................... . ......................... . 213\n11 .0 EXPERIMENTS\n11 . 1\nTwo-Color Earth-Limb Photography (MSC-10) ............. 217\n11 . 2\nSynoptic Terrain and Weather Photography (S- 5 and S-6) . 219\n11. 3\nSimple Navigation with the Sextant .... ................219\n11.4\nElectrostatic Charge (MSC- 1) .. .. ......... .....·........229\n11.5\nProton- Electron Spectrometer and Tri-Axis Flus-Ga.te\nMagnetometer (MSC- 2 and MSC-3) ........................ 229\n11 .6\nRadiation ( D-8) ........... ... ......................... 230\n11 . 7\nInflight Exerciser (M-3) . ........ .. . . ................. 230\n11 .8\nInflight Phonocardiogram (M-4) . . ...................... 232\n11 . 9\nExtravehicular Activity . ............ .. .......... ...... 232\n11 . 10 Miscellaneous ................. . ....................... 232" }, { "n": 6, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p06.jpg", "text": "12. 0 PRE-MISSION PLANNING\n12.1\nMission Plan (Trajectory) ....... .......... ...... .. .... 234\n12 . 2\nFlight Plan ..................... ... .. .. ............... 234\n12 . 3\nSpacecraft Changes ............. ... . . .................. 239\n12 . 4\nMission Rules ........... ..... ... . ....... . . . .... . ...... 240\n12.5\nExperiments ........................................... 241\n12 . 6\nTraining Activities ................. .... . . ............ 245\n13. 0 MISSION CONTROL\n13.1\nGO/NO GO ' s ............. .. .............. .... ........... 249\n13. 2\nPLA and CLA Updates ...................... . ............ 249\n13. 3\nConsumables ............... ... ............... .. ........ 249\n13.4\nFlight Plan Changes ....................... .. .......... 250\n13. 5\nSystems ............................................... 254\n14.0 TRAINING\n14.1\nGemini Mission Simulator ..... . . .. ................ .. .. . 255\n14. 2\nLTV Simulation .................. . ...... . ........ .... .. 260\n14.3\nCentrifuge ...................... .. .......... . ... ...... 261\n14.4\nTranslation and Docking Trainer ...... .. ............ ... 262\n14.5\nPlanetarium ..................................... .. . ... 263\n14.6\nSystems Briefings ................................ .. ... 266\n14. 7\nFlight Experimen ts ............ ... .............. ... .... 267\n14. 8\nSpacecraft Syst ems Tes t .. . ...... ... ... . . .. .... ... .. ... 273\n14. 9\nEgress Training ........................ .. ..... : .... . .. 274\n14. 10\nParachute Training ................... . . ... ............ 275\n14. 11\nLaunch Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . 276\n14.1 2\nNetwork Simulation . .... . ............ . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..... 277\n14. 13\nZero \"G\" Flight ........ . .......... ... . .. . .. . ... . ...... 278\n14. 14\nFlight Plan Traini ng .................... . ............. 279" }, { "n": 7, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p07.jpg", "text": "8. 1 Platform\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n8.0 SYSTEMS OPERATION\nActually, the first portion of any alinement is\nto cage the thing.\nThe case of caging the thing\nis much more important than the alinement itself.\nIn the daytime I felt that I could cage the plat­\nform to a reference with an error plus or minus\nabout 3 or 4 degrees in all axes.\nDid you think\nwe could do that wel l?\nOnly in the daytime.\nThe yaw was a little problem. It took longer\nto get it, but if you kept after it for awhil e,\nI felt that you could get down to just a few\ndegrees.\nWithin a couple of degrees.\nThe big thing is that you have to stop your yaw\nrates, and then sit there and look outside for\nawhile and see which way you're going, straight\nahead or sideways.\nIf you are going sideways\nyou rotate around for awhil e and stop the rate\nand then look out again.\nRi ght? I felt you could\nget the thing caged quite well.\nWe. didn ' t do it\nBEF at all, did we?\nWe never did cage in BEF." }, { "n": 8, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p08.jpg", "text": "2\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n--,\nI ' m not sure.\nThe caging of the thing with small- end-forward in\nthe daytime was relatively easy.\nAt night I don't\nthink it would be quite that simple.\nI think what\nyou would have to do at night time is to point\nthe spacecraft down at the ground pretty much so\nyou can see the track across the ground,\nI could\nsee which way the land was moving under me .\nI\nfelt--although I never did this--that if I could\ndo that and then roll around to where I had no\nbank angl e , and face in my yaw direction, either\nsmall-end or blunt-end-forward , stop t he rol l t her e\nand pitch up to the horizon I could cage there\nwithin plus or minus 10 degrees for sure. It was\nmuch less accurate at night, I felt, than in the\ndaytime .\nYou aren' t kidding!\nWe both felt that on those\ndark nights when you really couldn ' t see anything\non the ground, pure star reference for yaw was\npretty rough.\nPure star reference for yaw was almost impossible\nto use.\nThat was the only place where that thing\nwe decided not to take with us--the view of the\nstars through the window--might have been of some" }, { "n": 9, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p09.jpg", "text": "3\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nuse to us.\nWe knew the stars along our track but\nyou couldn't see enough of them.\nThe quickest\nway to get the yaw reference was to look down at\nthe ground.\nOnce we got the platform caged, aline­\nment was quite simple.\nAll you had to do was just\nhold the needles at zero and the platform alined\nitself. Of course you had to have the scanners\non,\nThe modes--the SEF and the EEF wer e identically\nthe same except the spacecraft is pointing in\ndifferent directions .\nYou tended to null the\nneedles by using pulses and just hold the needles\nvery close to null and the platform alined itself\nthrough the horizon scanners.\nOrbit Rate was a\nsatisfactory mode, I thought.\nAs a matter of fact,\nit was very good.\nI liked that Orbit Rate,\nYes, because we finally had a reference where we\ndidn't have to look out and see the ground. It 's\nlike having the old altitude indicator back in an\nairplane.\nThe only thing was, we had the wrong\norbit rate in the spacecraft because it was set\nfor an orbit rate t hat was to take care of, I\nthink, a 60 nautical mile circular orbit. This\nwas to take care of the short period of time between\n~~ SQ -lii4Q\"itsll-lM.-." }, { "n": 10, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p10.jpg", "text": "4\nWhite\nMcDivitt\ngoing to Orbit Rate at T- 5 and firing the retros\nat TR.\nWe wanted to have exactly the right rate\nin there so when we did our closed-loop reentry\nwe wouldn' t have an error.\nAs I said , I had the\nmost accurate platform in the world with nothing\nto do with it .\nI think the displays were adequate\nand the controls were adequate.\nAfter the first\ncouple of revs I really didn ' t have any confidence\nat all in the platform.\nI had done nothing to\nestablish any confidence in it.\nI really didn't\nget the chance to get the thing alined, and I\nreal ly didn ' t have the view out the window to check\nit with.\nWe were hurrying and scurring through\nthere.\nWe finally shut the thing down before I\nreally got a chance to use it very much.\nWhen we\npowered it up there on the third day and we saw\nthat thing coming around there• -and cage properly,\nwe compared the out- the-window attitudes and that\nold attitude reference was right there. That's\nwhen I got some confidence in the platform.\nThis is where we lost a couple of bets.\nThat ' s right.\nWe lost a couple of beers on that\nplatform.\nAt retrofire I had a lot of confidence\nin the platform, but the first two and a half to" }, { "n": 11, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p11.jpg", "text": "5\nWhite\n8.2\nOAMS\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthree days I really didn't have anything with\nwhich to establish any confidence. It was just\nan unknown.\nJim did the majority of the work in this area and\nI think his comments reflect my opinion also.\nOn the pad we did the thruster check that we\nwanted to. We went around one whole cycle and\ngot nothing.\nWe went around another whole cycle\nand got nothing until we got to the last one.\nWe were going yaw left pitch-down, yaw right\npitch-up, yaw left pitch-down, yaw right pitch­\nup.\nWhen we got to that second pitch-up, I heard\nthe thrusters fire for the first time. ·\nYou can hear them. It was very distinct.\nThat's right.\nAnd then we went around and yawed\nleft and they fired again.\nWe -waited 20 seconds\nand fired a yaw left again, and they fired again.\nThese were the bottom manifold jets. We said,\n\"Okay, we're ready to go.\", and that was the end\nof it. So, it -was a pretty straightforward check.\nThe inflight checks--I got my operational checks\non the OAMS systems while chasing the booster\naround.\nI had Direct, Pulse, and Rate Command in\nLe !~FllffiPMxMii ta J" }, { "n": 12, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p12.jpg", "text": "6\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthere as I chased it around, and those were the\nonly modes I intended to use right then.\nLater\non, I checked out the Reentry Rate Command and I\nchecked the Rate Command before we thrusted.\nIt\ndid seem to be operating fine .\nWhy don ' t you go\nthrough the next part , Eli?\nAll right .\nWe're going to get into the source\ntemperature and pressure , the regulated pressure,\nand the propellant quantity.\nLet ' s take the\ntemperature first .\nThe temperature of our OAMS\nwas 75 degrees all the way down the line .\nThe\ni nit ial indications on the pressures were approxi­\nmately 2800 psi for the source and 320 psi for the\nregulated pressure.\nThe quantity gage operated all right except that,\nas I mentioned earlier, the thing seemed to wander\nup and down somewhere between 2 and 4 percent ,\ndepending upon where you were in the mission.\nYou ' d read it one time and it would be 60, and\nyou'd read it a little while later and it would\nbe 62, and you 'd r ead it a little while later and\nit 'd be back about 60.\nThe greatest variation in\nthat thing that ever occurred was when I went to\nsleep one time with it reading 60 and woke up and" }, { "n": 13, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p13.jpg", "text": "7\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nit was reading 56.\nAnother hour or two after that\nit had climbed slowly back up to 60 again.\nI\nhad a long time to look at it in the same position.\nWhen we ended the cha.sing-around at the end of the\nfirst hour, we were down to 70 percent indicated\nand we never got below 50 percent in four days.\nI'll tell you, the position it seemed to stay\nfor days and days was 59 to 60 percent.\nWe fired\nin Pulse Mode for a long time with the gage at\nthat position, and all of a sudden that one time\nit dropped down to about 55 percent .\nBut then it came back up to 60.\nI guess it did , didn ' t it? The temperatures all\nstayed fairly constant. If I recall .right, they\ndropped down to around 70 degrees. It seemed to\nme they continually decreased throughout the\nflight.\nI noticed this particularly in the RCS,\nbut I guess we'll get to that later. The propellart\nquantity though, I think we mentioned earlier,\nended up on our gaging at about 3 percent at the\nend.\nWe got a little bit of ground information on\nthe 0AMS propellant.\nI felt a little suspicious\nof the gage when it kept staying there at 59 to 60" }, { "n": 14, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p14.jpg", "text": "8\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\npercent for so long.\nWe were pretty miserly with that OAMS fuel .\nWe\nset out to save the fuel and we sure did it.\nI think that in future missions , if they permit\nthe crew to use the Pulse Mode in a saving-manner\nthey could do a lot more with the mission--if you\ncould use Pulse Mode instead of just free-drifting\naround.\nIn other words, line yourself up so you\ncan make some decent observations.\nShoot!\nWe were in Horizon Scan Mode when we got\nthe last data, and I don ' t think we used any more\nfuel than we were when we were in free drift.\nThat ' s right. We certainly got more out of the\norbit than we did when we were just drifting free.\nI 'll tell you one record that we ought to hold.\nWe've looked at the earth from more different\nangles than anybody else in the world.\nWell,\nmaybe not.\nI guess the Russians did , but we sure\ngot a lot of different views of that earth as we\nrotated around.\nI think the ground information that they called up\non the status of our OAMS wasn't as much as they\ncould have called up to us, but I 'm really satis­\nfied that our OAMS was staying pretty constant." }, { "n": 15, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p15.jpg", "text": "9\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nSo did I. The way I felt was that I knew that we\nhad to be as miserly with the fuel as we possibly\ncould, so we got as much out of as little fuel as\npossible.\nThere wasn' t going to be anything to\nchange that velocity.\nWe just went along and I\nreally didn't care how they were plotting that fuel\non the ground.\nI knew that we were starting to\nget ahead of the schedule, because I was plotting\nit roughly onboard the spacecraft .\nI could see we\nwere ~p above the line that we needed to remain\nabove to handle our OAMS retrofir~.\nActually, we followed the profile rather closely,\nWe leveled off there at first, and then when we\nstarted using it , we we~c right down the profile,\nWe were a little below the line and we just held\nthe same fuel level until we walked out across it\nand got up on top of i+\nThen, we went on down\nabove it.\nI think the controls and the switches were all\nsatisfactory.\nI think so too.\nThe attitude controller worked\nfine and dandy.\nWe didn't have any trouble with\nit. The stick forces weren't too high.\nWe didn't\nget a chance to use it in any other mode besides" }, { "n": 16, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p16.jpg", "text": "10\nI\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nPulse. It seemed to work all right in Pulse.\ndon't really have any comments to make on the atti­\ntude controller.\nAs a matter of fact, I didn't ~se any Rate Command .\nDidn't you really?\nWe didn't use the Rate Command.\nI got to use\nDirect a couple of times . I used Pulse a lot .\nEverytime you'd go to sleep, I ' d really have a bal]\nI could tell that by the wiggling.\nNo. That was real ly great--flying that spacecraft .\nThat ' s right, and I think Pulse is the mode.\nYou\nca.n do a lot with it.\nWith a little bit of planning\nyou could get to the attitude--if you start out 5\nor 6 minutes ahead of time.\nThat's what we were\ndoing.\nAt 10 minutes before I was supposed to be\nat a certain atti tude I ' d start, and one or two\nlittle pulses and you'd--boop, boop, boop, boop-­\nth€ bad thing was if you were in an attitude where\nyou couldn ' t see the horizon and didn ' t know where\nyou were.\nYou would give it a couple of pulses\nand nothing would happen, and you ' d have to give\nit a couple of more pulses. It ' d take a long time\nsometimes before you would get to where you could\nsee.\nAs a matter of fact, if at 5 minutes before\n@i~FfDENTI>4ct" }, { "n": 17, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p17.jpg", "text": "11\nWhite\nNcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nwe were supposed to be at a certain attitude we\nweren't approaching it, I 'd start pulsing a little\nharder.\nYou'd hear a series of about five quick pulses.\nIt was a very economical control mode.\nThe ma.ne·,..;ver controller worked the way it was\nsupposed to.\nWhat about the deadband? Did you think the dead­\nbands and breakouts were all satisfactory?\nYes, just like the one we used in the simulator.\nYou've got a lot of slop in it when you're making\ngross maneuvers because you're not fixing your\nelbow and manipulating around tmt point. You're\nfixing your shoulder and your whole arm, and\nit's just like shoveling coal--you've got about\nthat much finesse to it .\nI don't think there's\nmuch you can say about it. The controls weren't\ntoo gross and they weren't too minor.\nThe whole\nthing was adequate.\nWe did have an inflight mal­\nfunction, or irregularity.\nWe were in Horizon\nScanner Mode one time and Fd wanted to yaw around.\nHe started to yaw and the thing rolled.\nThe\nHorizon Scanner Mode fired the roll thrusters to\nlevel it back off-­" }, { "n": 18, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p18.jpg", "text": "12\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nMcDivitt\nI couldn ' t get the yaw.\nWe had a circui t breaker\noff.\nFinally, after you did that a couple of times I\nlooked up and saw we had knocked a circuit breaker\noff.\nThat was one thing that we didn't cover in\nEVA that I should have mentioned.\nEd was a real\nhazar d to the switch positions in that he was all\nover with his feet, arms , and hands - - .\nI don't think I threw any though.\nDid I? Come\non now.\nYou' re not guilty until you ' re convicted .\nI don ' t know.\nYou kept putting your foot on the\nHF Reentry Antenna Switch and stepping on it.\nHa. Ha. Ha.\nAs for the atti tude control modes--I mentioned\nthe Rate Command in OAMS seemed to be tighter than\nthe Rate Command i n RCS , al though they use the\nsame electroni cs, the same gyros , and the i,,rhole\nthing. It might ha.ve just been my imagination,\nbut I felt that the Rate Command system in RCS was\na lot looser than it was in OAMS.\nThe Reentry\nRate Command operated just the way it should . It\nhad a 4 degree deadband , and handled the spacecraft\nvery well during reentry.\nDirect had a lot more\nauthor ity than I thought it would, but it was" }, { "n": 19, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p19.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDiYitt\n13\n~IDE►~llM.\npretty straightforward.\nI think Pulse was the\nbest mode on the spacecraft for the orbit phase .\nWe were able to save all kinds of fuel, it worked\nfine, and it was just about what the doctor ordered.\nWe didn't use the Horizon Scan Mode during about\nthe first three days of flight, except for the second\norbit when I think I \\\\18.S in Horizon Sca.n so that I\ncould have the freedom to help Ed prepare for his\nEVA.\nThe last day we used the Horizon Sca.n Mode,\nand I found it to be an excellent mode.\nThere was\nonly one case when it broke lock and didn ' t recover.\nWasn't that it, F.d.?\nYou've got it in the book.\nWe've got in the book and we'll check on that.\nThe Ho~izon Scan Mode worked essentially for 24\nhours without any problem ~and I think it' s an\nexcellent control mode,\nIt seemed to be very\neconomical on fuel .\nWe were doing a lot of\nyawing around and right at sunrise a.nd sunset it\nseemed to get a l ittle nervous , especially if we\nhad the horizon scanner pointed within about plus\nor minus 45 degrees of the sun.\nThe moon didn ' t\nseem to affect it at all. I noticed that, occa­\nsionally, we would ~et some thruster blips with the sun\nn&Q·tslfiO EtslltAIA ·" }, { "n": 20, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p20.jpg", "text": "14\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhi te\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n:iObJFIDE1'4 Tf,t(ilfr\npointed toward the hori zon scanner although we\nnever got an unlock light.\nWe wouldn ' t get an\nunlock light, but we 'd ~et a bunch of maybe four\nor five thruster blips right there.\nParticularly at sunrise.\nIt would hold.\nI thought the Horizon Scan-­\nIt was definitely getting some spurious signals\nthrough but not enough to break it out all the way.\nI thought the Horizon Scan Mode was an excell ent\nattitude-hold mode.\nDid you notice the water boiler venting, Jim?\nYes, I did.\nWe kept yawing around to the left .\nI believe it was left. I did notice the fact\nthat we were yawing, but not very much.\nWe were\nyawing a t rates that wer e extremely low and it just\ntook a pulse every once in a while to handle the\nthing.\nAs a matter of fact, when we were chasing\nthe booster around a lot at the beginning, I never\neven noticed. It was when we were i n the Pulse Con­\ntrol Mode for a period of time,when we didn ' t do much\nthrusting in yaw, that I noticed we did start drifting\noff in yaw.\nSo I did notice the water boiler venting." }, { "n": 21, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p21.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\n•\n15\nI didn't think you noticed it earlier when we\nwere working.\nWell, I did notice it a little bit in that first\norbit, but it wasn't distracting at all. It would\njust drift off a little bit and I'd whop it and\nit would be back.\nAt SEX:;0 + 30, I used the trans­\nlation thrusters to damp the booster-spacecraft\nrates .\nOne of them was a little higher than the\nother, although they were both down in the order\nof a half of a degree/second.\nI did fire one\nthruster one time or possibly two times to damp\nthe rate.\nI don't know if it was pitch or yaw.\nYou know, you are working in spacecraft pitch and\nbooster yaw and spacecraft yaw and booster pitch.\nI was getting my coordinate system transformed\naround in my mind, going from booster coordinate\nsystem to the spacecraft.\nI don't remember\nwhether it was yaw or pitch, but I did thrust\nonce or twice.\nBy the way , I could hear those\nthrusters fire. At\nSEC0 + 30 I said, \"Thrusting, \"\nand I started thrusting.\n\"Separate\" , and Fd\npunched the SPACE.CRAFT SEPARATE.\nWe were in Direct\nand I thrusted straight ahead for about 5 seconds.\nThen I went back into Rate Command.\nSeparati on was" }, { "n": 22, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p22.jpg", "text": "16\nWhite\nMcDivitt\njust smooth--we didn ' t come off with a rotational\nrate.\nI think one of the things you mi ght commant on , Jim,\nis that you fired most of those thrusters during\nthat initial time.\nI 'm sure I fired the upward-firing thrusters a\nnumber of times .\nThat isn ' t any more difficult\nto control than t he other one.\nActually you can\nfire these thrusters whether you are in Rate\nCommand, Direct or even in Pulse .\nWhen you fire\nthem, you get a rate and you just damp the rate\nout with the attitude controller.\nWhen you are\nfiring the translation thrusters , th0 things t hat\nyou r eally hear are not the translation thrusters,\nbut the attitude thrusters.\nThose translation\nthrusters are really tough to hear, but the atti­\ntude thrusters are very easy to hear.\nI doh ' t\nunderstand why.\nThey must be mounted differently\nbecause their location isn't that much different.\nI think I fired the aft-firing thrust ers a couple\nof times and they didn ' t make any more noise than\nthe forward-firing thrusters, that I could tell.\nThe up and down and left and right ones were just\nas easy to fire as t he other ones.\nOur OAMS retro" }, { "n": 23, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p23.jpg", "text": "I\n•\n17\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n8.3 RCS\nMcDivitt\nwas 127 feet/second which, incidently, happened\nto come out exactly 2 minutes and 40 seconds.\nsuspect that we selected OAMS retrofire on the basis\nof time, rather than on the basis of t::,.V.\nVery convenient , wasn't it?\nVery convenient. It -was obvious there is no more\ndifficulty in timing 2 minutes 40 seconds during\nour OAMS retrofire than it is during any other\nthing.\nWe had no trouble with it .\nI was convinced\nthat when we got through with it, that was really\nthe proper conversion factor between t::,.V\nand t::,. T.\nWe had exactly 127 feet/second, and we sure had\nthe time nailed down.\nThe operational checks that we did on the RCS\noccurred at about TR minus an hour.\nWhen I checked\nthe system out it seemed like I had a lot less\nauthority and a lot sloppier Rate Command than I\nhad in OAMS .\nThe operational check consisted of\npitching up and down , yawing left and right,\nrolling lef+ and right on each ring in Rate Command\nand Direct. Direct worked as I expected it to.\nIn Rate Coremand, however, as I pitched up and down\nI noticed that my top left yaw thrus ter was doing" }, { "n": 24, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p24.jpg", "text": "18\nWhite\na lot of firing, too.\nI started out checking the\nRate Command , so I thought I might possibly have\none bad pitch thruster that was causing a rolling\nmoment that was bei ng counteracted by the yaw-roll\njets. When I did it in Direct, however, it wasn' t\ndoing that . It wasn't rolling either, so I felt\nthat it must just be a very tight deadband that\nwas trying to hold us in there.\nSo, the operational\nchecks were all right.\nThe only thing we had to\nmonitor on the system was the temperature and the\npressure of the propellant.\nIt seemed to hold\npretty well.\nI have some comments on that.\nI kept a running\nlog of them as we went along.\nThe temperature\nstarted out at 75 degrees and 3000 pounds.\nIt held\nthat way pretty well until about the 65th hour, when\nthe temperature gradually went down.\nThe temperature\ndecreased to a point where we started getting the\nRCS heater lights that we noted earlier.\nWe got\nabout eight series of RCS heater lights . It took\nabout 5 minutes to extinguish the light.\nIt was\nt he A-ring,then the B-ring, and then the A-ring.\nI t seemed to alternate each time back and forth and\nit came on for about 15 to 20 minute periods of" }, { "n": 25, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p25.jpg", "text": "19\nMcDivitt\nWhite\ntime. It started right after a night cycle. It\nseemed rather natural to me that there wasn't\nreally something wrong, but that we actually had\na cold RCS thing out there and it did need some\nheat . After heat was applied it did appear to go\naway.\nI decided to go ahead and set up a slow roll\nrate in the daytime, and I kept that roll rate in\nfor several orbits. Whether this actually helped\nto get the light off or not, I don't know.\nWe\ndidn't get anymore lights after this time. I think\nthere ought to be one other comment on the RCS ,\nand that is the temperatures and the pressures\nstayed up pretty well except when we actuated the\nsystem.\nThe pressures then went down further than\nwe had expected them to go.\nThey went down to\n2400 to 2500 p~i.\nThis was a little lower than I\nexpected to see.\nI think the pressures in the RCS A and B dropped\nby about 100 pounds throughout the four-day period.\nThey were slightly over 3000 pounds and they got\ndown to slightly under 3000.\nThe lowest temperatures I noted were in the neigh­\nborhood of about 63 to 64 degrees.\nThey started\nout at 75 degrees." }, { "n": 26, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p26.jpg", "text": "20\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDiv.itt\nLet me ask you a question?\nYes.\nWhen you turned on the RCS heaters , did you turn\non the heater s on both r ings , or did you turn on\nthe RCS Heater Switch and then turn off the cir cui t\nbreaker on the other ring?\nI turned the heaters on and then I checked to see\nwhich ring it was that was actually heating up by\nusing the circuit breakers .\nThe first time I went\nahead and left them on and then the other ring\ncame on .\nI fel t that one of them was about as\ncold as the other, so I left the heaters on both\nrings throughout the heating cycles.\nGood.\nThey were in perfect sequence--A and B, A and B,\nand about 15 minutes apart .\nThe regularity was\nsurprising.\nThe temperatures at the time when\nthese lights came on were indicating about 63 or\n64 degrees and it seemed like it would come up a\nlittle bit, and then come right back down and pop\nback on again.\nI felt it was not an actual\ntemperature problem .\nI used Rate Command, Reentry Rate Command and Pulse\ncontrol modes.\nI didn ' t use Direct.\nThey a ll" }, { "n": 27, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p27.jpg", "text": "-\n'-OtslF-tD-E~.l lA:L:;;.\n21\noperated as I thought they should.\nI've already\nmentioned I thought Rate Command was a little\nsloppier in RCS than it was in OAMS . It certainly\ndid a fine job of holding the retro attitude during\nretrofire. Retrofire attitude control was excellent.\nWe didn ' t deviate more than about a degree from\nthe attitude we were supposed to hold, and I had\nplenty of authority there.\nFrom my standpoint\nit couldn' t have been any better.\nI was really\nhappy about it. I used the Reentry Rate Command\nwith roll rate gyro off, so that I had essentially\nDirect in roll and Reentry Rate Command in pitch\nand yaw axes. It had the typical 4 degree deadband\nthat it was supposed to have. It did do rate damping\nas it was supposed to. It performed just the way\nit should.\nFd, you want to cover that heater-lights\nthing again? I think you've already got that thing\npretty much in detail.\nWhite\nI have the precise times at which the lights came\non. It started at about the 64th or 65th elapsed\ntime hour.\nAt 06:47, the first light, in the A-ring,\ncame on.\nAt 08:23 the A-ring light came on again.\nThat was the last time.\nDuring that period of time\nthe A and the B-rings cycled on and off inter­\nMWfiO,ftSl;QAJ•" }, { "n": 28, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p28.jpg", "text": "22\nmittently.\nMcDivi t t\nDuring descent , we turned the power off to see if\nt he drogue chute was unstable. It wasn ' t .\nWe\nturned the power back on and the propellant valves\nof f and burned up al l of t he fuel i n the manif olds .\nWe had no fumes after impact .\n8.4 Environmental Control ~ystem\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhit e\nMcDivitt\nI thought the suit mobility was as good in the\nspacecraft as it is anywhere else.\nI think these\nsui ts are pretty good suits .\nI didn' t fi nd any\ntrouble with them whatsoever i~ the spacecraft\nthat I wasn' t already awar e of.\nThe pressure held\nup good.\nI did a pressure check on the suit. It\nbled down about 0. 2 or 0. 3 psi in about 30 seconds ,\nwhich really wasn ' t too bad.\nThe temperature was\nalways good. It ran between about 50 and 55\ndegr ees diring the entire flight except when we\nreally worked hard.\nI don ' t think it ever got up\nover 60 .\nDo you , Ed?\nNo.\nWe had reasonably good temperature control .\nThe cabin temperature got up pretty high one time\nand then it came back down.\nYes , on about the first orbit .\n__ w,f_.., .....\nI\n'" }, { "n": 29, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p29.jpg", "text": "23\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nThat's r ght.\nIt got up to about 90.\n100, it was.\nWe turned the cabin heat exchanger\non for just a short time and it went right back on\ndown to 80 degrees.\nIt stayed in the area of 82 to 83 degrees the whole\nflight.\nThe humidity in the suit must have been pretty dry\nbecause rrry foot dried out.\nI didn't take any wet­\nbulb readings inside the suit. The CO2 stayed at\nzero all the time. It never did go up except when\nwe'd go to o High Rate, when it would bound off\n2\nthe top peg and fall back down again.\nThe comfort\nand suit controls were pretty reasonable.\nThe o2\ndemand regulator seemed to work all right .\nMy\numbilicals were short.\nMy fingertip lights were\nlousy. Before_launch I only had one that worked.\nOn rrry right-hand glove one of the bulbs obviously\ndidn't work.\nOne of them did work.\nOn rrry left­\nhand glove the switch on the batteries would only\nturn the lights on if it was in one exact position,\nvh.ich wasn't full throw in either direction.\nSo I\nfound out I had only one fingertip light that\nworked.\nHowever, during the flight I didn't use\nmy' fingertip lights except one time when I used ·" }, { "n": 30, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p30.jpg", "text": "24\nthem for a flashlight. I had my gl oves off and I\nreached over and got my gloves and turned the\nfingertip lights on and shined the gloves on some­\nthing.\nI didn't use them a lot.\nI do want to\ncomment on one thing , though , since we ' re talking\nabout the suits here.\nI launched without the plug\nthat goes in the blood pressure port in the suit .\nI don ' t feel we should launch these things with\nno plug to plug up the blood pressure port in the\nsuit , especially when we ' re going EVA .\nI think\nthat was a mistake.\nThe only pressure points I had\nin the suit were in the helmet .\nThose were just\nabove my ears where I tended to move my head back\nand forth within the helmet.\nI finally rubbed up\nall the hair so that it was going in the wrong\ndirection.\nWhen you press against hair for a long\ntime in the wrong direction it becomes very uncom­\nfortable.\nAt about the end of 2 3/4 days I took\nmy helmet off for a couple of hours, and it felt a\nlot better.\nThe only problem is that when you have\nyour helmet off there is no place to stow it. We\nhad the foot wells full of gear, so when I had the\nhelmet off I just let it float around on my lap,\nand over in Ed' s lap.\nThere wasn ' t any place to" }, { "n": 31, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p31.jpg", "text": "25\nput it. The micro-meteroid blanket that I had\nstrapped under my right leg wasn't a detriment.\nAs a matter of fact since we had no place to stow\nit , I just left it strapped to my leg until reentry.\nThen, I felt that if we had to get out in the water\nI didn't want to have any straps hanging off me\nthat I didn't need.\nSo, I took it off and threw\nit on the floor along with Ed's sleeves.\nI don't\nhave anymore comments on my suit.\nWhite\nI wore the ENA suit.\nI think the mobility of the\nsuit was about what I had expected. Actually, I\nthink the mobility in some respects was a little\nbetter, and in some respects it was a little less\nthan I had expected. I wasn't able to get into the\nright-hand aft food box as well as I had thought\nI was going to be able to in zero g. In fact, the\nposition that I had figured out to use, which was\nleaning forward and reaching in backwards with my\nleft arm, didn' t work out well at all. I had to\nactually turn around 90 degrees in the seat and\nreach in with my right arm.\nThis worked out all\nright.\nI was able to get hold of things in the\nbox.\nThe surprise that I got though, was that I\ncould get into the right-hand aft refuse box much" }, { "n": 32, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p32.jpg", "text": "26\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\neasier than I had thought I ' d ever be able to. It\nturned out t ra t I was able to get into that box\neasier while in orbit, by far, t han-­\nIt ' s a rubber covered box.\nIt's a rubber covered box on the right hand side .\nI think that box does have the capability of stow­\ning refuse in it and stowi ng some things prior to\nl aunch in it , too .\nDid you try that box during flight , Jim?\nYes , I did.\nI didn ' t find it easy to get into.\nI thought the things we had stowed in it wer e\nreal good things--items that we didn ' t need at all\nin flight and possibly might not need-­\nI used all four defecation bags that I h~d on my\nside .\nI used them up during flight .\nIn fact , you\nused one of them.\nThat ' s right , we did have a bag of those defeca­\ntion bags out .\nIt just happened to be over on my\nside where you could get to it.\nYou were asleep.\nI had to get them or wake you up.\nI pressure- checked rey suit .\nI checked it at 8. 5\nand it bled down several tenths of a psi.\nI was\nsatisfied with the pr essure-holding of rey suit ." }, { "n": 33, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p33.jpg", "text": "27\nThere was one thing though with the suit that I\nwasn't too happy with.\nI was hot all the time\nin the suit. It got so that after a while I got\nused to the normal temperature as being warm.\nI could incr ease the temperature, which seemed\nrather strange to both Jim and me, by putting out\nzey gloves and closing zey faceplate .\nI could go\nto sleep.\nAt that time zey temperature would go\nup considerably inside the suit .\nIt seemed like\nI coul d stay in there only an hour or an hour and\n15 minutes and rest before I had to either open\nup the faceplate or do something else. So, the\ntemperature got uncomfortably warm in about an\nhour or an hour and fifteen minutes with the face­\nplate closed, the sleeves on and the gloves on.\nThe humidity in the suit, I thought , was quite\ndry.\nI had quite a tendency for zey lips to crack\nand nzy- nose to get very dry.\nIn fact, I noticed\nzey nose was itching considerably. This was an\nindicator to me every time I would go to sleep.\nI would wake up with zey nose itching and feeling\nquite hot and uncomfortable.\n}zy- lips got to the\npoint where I thought they were going to crack," }, { "n": 34, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p34.jpg", "text": "28\nand I was trying to be very careful and keep them\nfrom cracking and getting anymore uncomfortabl e\nthan they were .\nJim mentioned the CO\nsensors\n2\nstayed on zero, which I was happy to see .\nI\nthink one thing that I was fairly happy about was\nthat the suit , as bulky as it was , wasn ' t depres­\nsingly uncomfortable.\nI felt that I did have a\npretty heavy suit on most of the time , and I was\na little bit constrained in my mobility.\nThe\ni dea to have the detachable sleeves that I could\ntake off after the EVA work was , I felt, a very\ngood decision.\nI felt much more comfortable ,\nand I had a much higher degree of mobility around\nwith my arms in the spacecraft. It was not as\ntiring to move around as it had been when I was\ninside the heavy sleeves .\nSo , I was quite happy\nto take them off.\nWe took them off, I believe,\nshortly after my first sleep.\nI slept with t hem\non the first time, and then we took them off.\nthink they were quite easy to take off.\nAs a\nmatter of fact, I think if you went EVA at a\nlater time you could take those sleeves onboard,\nand if they were made just a little aasier to\nslip on and off over the wrist, you could take\n@e 14 rte Et<4,t,\\ t\nI" }, { "n": 35, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p35.jpg", "text": "29\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nthem on and off in flight if you wanted to.\nI don ' t know.\nI'd hesitate to recommend putting\nthem on in flight .\nIt might get pretty tricky.\nI think if you put them on in flight , you'd want\nto put them over all the harness, rather than\ni.mder the harness.\nThat ' s exactly what I was going to sey.\nI think\nif you took the life preservers off, you could\nactually make the sleeves big enough so that you\ncould slip them on and velcro them across the\nback over the harness. This might be for the\ntype of operation of throwing equipment in and\nout .\nI think in the future , though , a suit as\nheavy as this might not be required.\nThe controls\nand the switches in the suit , I felt , were satis­\nfactory.\nThere wasn ' t anything that I couldn' t\nget at in the spacecraft . It was easier under\nweightless conditions for me to operate certain\ncontrols. In fact, I think I was able to get\ndown and unscrew the bellows in the gun hose as\nwell and maybe a little easier than you could,\nJim.\nAt least initially, I was able to get down\nthere.\nOf course you weren ' t really particularly\ntrying to do it at that time.\n@8 ~ •••i-EM-liaJ.;;" }, { "n": 36, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p36.jpg", "text": "30\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nI suspect I probably could have gotten down there\nas easy or easier than you if I had really gotten\naround to trying.\nI don ' t remember, but , anyhow, I was surprised\nwith the ease which I had in getting down .\nWe were trying to dump the pressure in the bellow\nbefore we went EVA with it .\nRight .\nThe demand regulator was satisfactory.\nIvzy­\numbilical,I thought,was very easy to use and\ndisconnect .\nI was quite happy to have the micro­\ndot in there.\nOne comment on the micro-dot--the\nfirst time we exercised the micro- dots on our\nsuit , they were pretty hard to operate.\nMine got\nprogressively easier to use each time I used it .\nThe fingertip lights that I had were better than\nJim' s .\nI ha:l lights with Lexan tops on them.\nAll my lights worked, and r felt that their\noperation was quite satisfactory.\nWe had decided\nto put my lights between the first and second\njoints for several reasons.\nWe thought the EVA\ngloves would be easier to don and there'd be less\ntendency to break them.\nI think, though, the\nposition of the lights was still a little too far\nforward if it was intended to put them back between" }, { "n": 37, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p37.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n31\nthe first and second joints, because the lights\nwere resting right on top of my first joint.\nI\nthink if I had worn my gloves anymore, I would\nhave gotten a very sore first knuckle.\nIf you\nare going to move them back, I think they should\ndefinitely be moved back behind the first knuckle.\nWhere were they getting you, .fili?\nRight on the top of the knuckle.\nYou think they ought to be back?\nIf they are going to be anywhere, they ought to be\nback here, and I'm not too sure that is necessary.\nIn fact, I think the best place is behind the\nfingertip and in front of the first joint.\nBut, with the pl astic covers over the gloves.\nWith the plastic cover on the glove, and I think\nwe've got the right position for the lights .\nI\ndon't think they should be back behind the first\nknuckle.\nI think they should be in front of that\nfirst knuckle and behind the fingertip, That's a\ngood place for them.\nThat's where we've been using\nthem in the past.\nI think thf'\nLe::mn cover\non the light bulb is a darn good idea,\nYes, I think so.,. too .\nShoot!\nI checked my lights\nbefore launch and found out that I already had one" }, { "n": 38, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p38.jpg", "text": "32\nof them out on my right hand.\nI wasn ' t too happy\nabout it.\nWhite\nI was a little disappointed.\nI think the only\ndiscrepancy I found in my suit was that I had no\nblood pressure plug either.\nA point that I was\npretty happy with was that I had no pressure points\nfrom my suit at all on my body.\nI had one set of\npressure points from my helmet pressing down on the\nfront forward part of my head.\nI lmew why this\nwas.\nI 'd had Joe Schmitt adjust my cables so that\nI could pull my helmet down to a maximum amount\nfor the EVA work.\nI felt that I just bought this\ndiscomfort by having my cables adjusted in this\nmanner.\nIt was pretty uncomfortable though. I\nchecked out the use of the emergency bottles on\nthe EVA equipment and they worked as they were\nsupposed to .\nI was able to regulate the flow.\nIncidently, before I went out the reading on the\nEVA bottles was full-scale, 3400 pounds . I was\nhappy to see that.\nAll in all, I was quite happy\nwith the suit.\nI think it was a very well designed\nsuit and it met the requirements that were levied\nupon it. It was a heavy suit and a big suit to\nwear for four days, but I felt the auit wasn ' t as\n€ ~~f-~L" }, { "n": 39, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p39.jpg", "text": "33\nbad as I had expected it was going to be.\nI have one more comment.\nI'd like to comment on\nthe inner liner.\nWe decided to go with the inner\nliner. in and I felt this was a good decision.\nThe inside of the suit was comfortable, and I\ndidn ' t get any pressure points.\nI think one reason\nwhy neither Jim nor I got any particular pressure\npoints from the suit was that we had worn these\nsuits a heck of a lot of time.\nI had over 50\nhours on my flight suit.\nI don't know how many\nhours Jim had on his." }, { "n": 40, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p40.jpg", "text": "34\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nActually Ed had just finished talking about his\ninner liner.\nI 1d like to comment about the inner\nliner too .\nI thought about it when he was talking\nabout his .\nI think that was one of the really\nwi se decisions •-\nto go with that inner l iner.\nI felt that it offered a lot more comfort than\nwearing that rubber suit up against my body, or\nup against my underwear.\nI sort of felt that I\nwas really quite comfortable in this suit .\nI\ndidn ' t find my mobility limited by my inner l iner\nat all, and I had made sure that it fit .\nI think\nthat has a l ot to do with it.\nI worked the suit once for about a four-'hour\nperiod with just the rubber insi de .\nI\ndid no­\ntice it sticking to me, and I didn ' t feel as com­\nfortable . After I got inside the suit with pres­\nsure on my body, the suit felt pretty darn good.\nI had the knees cut out of my suits .\nThe knees\nare still too short .\nHaving been in it for four\ndays , I know the dimensions are wrong.\nThe di­\nmension from my knee down to my foot is not long\nenough.\nI t ' s not just the inner line~ but the\n1f¥18~4AL\n··~" }, { "n": 41, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p41.jpg", "text": "35\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivit-'­\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nlink net in itself just isn't long enough.\nYou wouldn ' t say you had a pressure point though?\nNo, it was just a constant pull on there all the\ntime.\nDid it bother you very much during the flight?\nYes, it bothered me a little bit .\nSo you really did have sort of a pressure point\nthen?\nYes, to some extent in that area.\nI had had that\none so much before. It had been so extreme in\nsome cases that it really didn't bother me too\nmuch .\nBoth of us should mention something about the\nvisors .\nI thought you ought to mention something about\nyour visor problem, your EVA visor or the other\none.\nWell, I have briefed the visor on the EVA pretty\nwell. The one that I will mention now is the\nvisor that I had on my regular helmet .\nI thought\nthat the vision through it was quite good.\nI\nnoticed no distortion at all through it, but I\ndid immediately put a couple big scratches on it" }, { "n": 42, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p42.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nin the beginning when I was unstowing equipment .\nI continued to scratch it throughout the mission.\nWhen I finished , the visor was considerably\nscratched up as you would pr obably notice if\nyou looked at my suit .\nI don ' t know what there is\nto do about this other than to accept a scratchy\nvisor.\nIf you 've got the visors down in front of your\nface, you don ' t tend to scratch it up as much.\nI think it was really worn out because you\nstarted opening up your visor and leaving it up\nover your head a lot earlier than I did. At about\nthe two and a half or three day mark, I looked at\nyour visor and it was really a mess .\nI took the\nhelmet off and cleaned the visor because it was\ndirty on the inside and the outside.\nI looked at\nmy visor and had very few marks on it .\nI had a\nfew l ittle scratches , but very minor.\nThen I\nstarted putting my vi sor up more and mor e be­\ncause t hey wanted us to stay open.\nBecause I ' m\na lot taller than you are, I really started beat­\ni ng mine up. In the last day, I think I caught\nup with you and maybe even surpassed you in the" }, { "n": 43, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p43.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n37\namount of marks on it . I'll say another thing.\nI'm sure glad we didn ' t go in for those Lexan\nvisors that they wanted us to fly with, cause the\ndistortion woul d have driven me batty in about\nthe first six hours .\nI think you must insist on perfectly optically\nclear visors .\nThat ' s right .\nYou 've got to have good optics .\nI took my helmet off about three times , and I\ndidn ' t leave it off very long.\nI took mine off about two times .\nI took it off\none time for an hour because my hair right above\nmy ears was really bothering me .\nI didn ' t bother\ngetting a light- weight headset out , and when any­\nbody called me , I had the thing sitting in my\nl ap and I could hear it .\nI took one of the • ~ . ~\nand pulled it back and I hollered into the mike,\nHa , ha.! 1 till I could hear it .\nI s~id, \"I 've got\nmy helmet off.\nUnless you've got something im­\nportant to tell me , don't bother me .\" .Ha, ~a!\nAnd he said, \"Okay .\" It was one of those passes ,\nyou know , where you only talk to one guy for about\nan hour . Then I took it off one other time for\nabout a half hour to rub my ears .\nI was quite\ns€0►~ ~t8l!lttfif1Aif:r:\nJ" }, { "n": 44, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p44.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\ncomfortable with my helmet on for two days.\nDo you want to know something that ' s kind of\nstrange? I was more comfortable with my helmet\non than off. In fact, I kind of got used to\nthose pressure points on the top of my head with\nthe helmet on.\nWhen I took the helmet off and\nmoved my head around, I felt a little dizzy from\nnot having these restraints. I didn ' t feel as\ncomfort able as I did with my helmet on.\nThe times\nI had my helmet off were when I was running D-9.\nI ran the D-9 Experiment several times with my\nhelmet off so I'd have better use of my sextant .\nI took it off one other time near the end when\nthey indicated they would like to have every­\nthing off .\nI didn' t feel particularly comforta­\nble with my helmet off any more.\nI got so used\nto having that thing on that I put it on so I\ncould talk better with the stations .\nThey were\ncalling me from time to time, and I thought it\nwould be a little better. Before I forget, I\nthink the portable headset is really a lousy\ndesign.\nI concur.\nI think it ought to be thrown out .\n-" }, { "n": 45, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p45.jpg", "text": "39\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nI've seen the ones they've got in the MCC and\nthey're good plain old headsets. I don't see\nany reason why we can't get one that stays on\nyour head and stays in your ear.\nYou put this\nthing on and it pops off about two minutes later.\nIt's not built to stay on my size head and I\nnoticed it didn't stay on Jim's very well eit~er.\nI think the portable headset idea is a good\nidea, but we ought to have a good headset for\nit . Okay.\nAs we mentioned earlier the cabi n\npressure relieved at about 5.5 and held that\nway during launch. It went back down to 4.9\nor 4.8 and this is where it stayed for the re­\nmainder of the mission.\nI think that they prob­\nably overshot their zeal to correct the cabin\npressure that John and Gus had had on GT-3 and\nput ours down so that it was actually relieving\nlower and sealing lower than it would have been\ndesirable. I was expecting it to seal up around\n5.5 or 5.7 like it was advertised.\nI checked my suit gage against the cabin pres­\nsure g-age and my suit €8,ge read higher than:\nthe cabin pressure gage by about .3 of a pound." }, { "n": 46, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p46.jpg", "text": "40\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nYes, mine was right on it though.\nI know .\nYou checked your suit gage against\nthe cabin pressure and yours read just about on\nit, didn ' t it? Was it a tenth of a pound higher\nor was it right on it?\nRight on.\nOkay.\nSo mine was reading a little higher,\nindicating to me that possibly the cabin pres­\nsure was higher.\nBut since Ed's read with it,\nI don't know where we were .\nWell, the pr essure at which it relieved at went\nright into the problem of the temperature- pres­\nsure relief in the cryogenic oxygen system so\nt hat those two problems kind of lashed together.\nThe venting in the o2 system was set at around\n970.\n967, I think the poop sheet said.\nWell, it was about 967 or 970.\nWe had the pos­\nsibility of losing oxygen in a steady manner\nout of the spacecraft if we let the pressure\nrise up above- -well, the ground felt 960, and\nI concurred with that figure .\nSo throughout\nthe flight we had to keep venting our o system\n2" }, { "n": 47, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p47.jpg", "text": "41\nMcDivitt\nWhite\ndown so the pressure woul d remai n down below\n960. They initially told us to vent it to keep\nit at 930 to 960. Then they told us to vent it\non down to about 890.\nFrom then on, we vented\nit down in the neighborhood of between 890 and\n93, depending upon who was asleep and who wasn't\nasleep. It sure seemed to be an unsatisfactory\nsolution to two problems--one of the cabin hold­\ning at a higher pressure than they wanted it to\non GT-3 and also the problem of the o system\n2\nventing outside of the pressure gage.\nIn the\noxygen system I think the solution to putting\nthe venting down at 967 was a poor solution to\nthe problem of having a poorly designed gage .\nI think the gage was agai n poorly designed and\nit should be designed to read about 1200 pounds.\nRel ief should be up in that area.\nI f they really went ahead and jacked down the\nrelief pressure, to get it on the gage, I think\nthat is one heck of an approach to an engineer­\ning problem.\nI think that ' s a gross thing to do and if they\ndid that deliberately, I thi nk they deserve a" }, { "n": 48, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p48.jpg", "text": "42\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nvery black star for that one.\nThey need their heads examinedt\nI guess we beat that one around pretty well,\ndidn 't we?\nYes~\nThe way that we were venting the cabin\nwas by going to o High Rate and venting the\n2\noxygen out through the cabin vent or going to\ncabin repress and using up the oxygen through\nthe cabin and through the cabin vent valve\nthat way.\nI was quite satisfied with the cabin temperature .\nIt started out and got pretty hot at one time\nearly in the flight and went up to 100 as you\nnoted,and then it went back down into the 80's.\nI think it actually dropped into the 70's a time\nor two.\nThat ' s right. It was in the 70's most of the\ntime.\nRight.\nLet's get the data book,\nThe dry bulb tempera­\nture was 80; 80, the first time we tood it.\nThen it was 79, 79, 79.\nThen it was 75, 75,\n75, and then they stayed between 75 and 77,I\nOQ\\ilIi~L" }, { "n": 49, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p49.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthink,.the rest of the flight .\nNo, here it is\ndown as low as 72.\nSo it got down to around\n72 late in the flight, and here we are with a\nwhole bunch of 70's to 73's and a couple of 76 1s.\nSo I guess that 75 was the average temperature\nthroughout the whole flight.\nI think our cabin temperature gage was reflect­\ning a little higher temperature than these.\nNo, let's see. It was down around 75.\nIt went down to 74 at one time, I remember.\nYes, I think 75 was a good average cabin temp­\nerature for the whole flight.\nI thought this was a pretty satisfactory cabin\ntemperature. The suit temperatures were also\ndown.\nThey stayed down from about 52 to 54\nmost of the· flight. I thought that was a pretty\nsatisfactory temperature there. I believe that\nthere was a difference in suit temperatures be­\ntween Jim and me because I was continually\nhollering about being hot.\nI think that temp­\nerature-wise Jim was relatively comfortable.\nI was vecy comfortable, and as a matter of fact,\nwhen I went to sleep, I tended to get just a" }, { "n": 50, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p50.jpg", "text": "44\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nlittle bit cool , especially if I had urinated\nall over myself.\nI don' t remember one time during the flight\nduring which I was cool in the suit .\nI think\nI was hot most of the time in the suit .\nI got\nused to i t after a while. The only time that\nit was not satisfactory, as far as I was con­\ncerned, was when I was trying to sleep.\nThe\nhumidity data that we got doesn't go along with\nwhat everybody was expecting.\nNo, not by a l ong shot .\nNo, not at all . Our l i ttle gage seemed like\nit was working properly.\nWe didn ' t have any\nvisible moisture at any time at any place in\nthe spacecraft . It seemed to be indicating\ndown around 62 to 63 percent relative humidity\nwhich was a big surprise to myself.\nWith this\ntype of data, I began going open faceplate and\nopen gloves fairly early in the flight, about\na day or a day and a half, and continued in this\nmanner just about throughout the flight .\nWe\nused the wrist dams quite a bit of the time.\nBut I had my faceplate open with my wrist dams '\nCiO t◄ F10E._ffd +b" }, { "n": 51, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p51.jpg", "text": "'\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\non a great deal of time also.\nI think you had\nyour faceplate closed a little more than I\ndid.\nThere at the end we were both going to an\nopen-faceplate and open- gloves all the way .\nYes, we were especially going open-faceplate\nat the end just to see if we could jack up\nthe humidity.\nI actually preferred to have\nmy faceplate closed, as opposed to having it open.\nI went ahead and left it open trying to get\nthe humidity up.\nWe never really did get it\nup over 60 percent.\nThat seemed to be where\nit was going to stay.\nWe were happy to see that the CO2 sensor\ngage stayed down low the whole flight . It\nwould pop up any time we turned the o High ·\n2\nRate on and go up to a pretty high reading,\nand then settle back down to zero. I didn't\nnotice any particular discomfort versus day\nversus night .\nNo, as a matter of fact, I didn't either.\nWe\ntook some temperature readings on the cabin\nwindow frame and they varied by about 6 or\n8, 10 degrees at the very most ." }, { "n": 52, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p52.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nYes, I don' t think there was any discomfort\nassociated with the day-night cycle.\nWe didn't\nuse the cabin fan as we planned during the\n.,\nflight.\nWe did neglect to turn it on initially\nduring the preparation for retro.\nWe noticed\nthat we weren ' t cooling off in the cabin as\nmuch as we would have liked to .\nSo, we turned\nthe fan on and immediately the temperature\ndropped down about 10 degrees,if I remember\nright .\nYes, that cabin heat exchanger and that cabin\nfan really do the job.\nIt really cooled it off.\nEarly in the flight when we got the tempera­\nture up to 100, we turned the fan on and the\ntemperature went down to below 80 in about\n20 minutes, or so. It really did the trick.\nThe cabin pressure relief valve was venting\njust a hair abouve 5.4.\nWe checked this out\nvery many times. Every time we filled the\ncabin up with o High Rate, it vented,or if\n2\nwe used the repress l•ever the cabin would\nvent ." }, { "n": 53, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p53.jpg", "text": "47\nMcDivitt\nf\n'3@>rNfff)EttlIM:·\nHere we had an environmental control system\nthat was supposed to protect us .\nWe found\nout that the darn thing was overpressurizing.\nThe first couple of times, to keep the ECS o2\nbottle from venting, we vented the cabin it­\nself.\nI found myself sitting in there vent­\ning this thing with my gloves off and my face\nplate open. It began to dawn on me that the\npressure went down inside the cabin at a tre­\nmendous rate. If this thing ever stuck open\nand I had my gloves off and my faceplate open,\nI would be a dead man.\nSo we made it a proce­\ndure to suit up when we were going to dump\nthis thing. This meant that every four hours\nwe had to put our gloves on and put our face­\nplates down and lock them and get all suited\nup just in case this vent valve didn ' t reseat.\nFrankly, as much of an inconvenience as it\nturned out to be, I think that was a wise\nmaneuver.\nI would never suggest that anyone\nvent that cabin again without being fully suit­\ned.\nI thi nk there is such a risk involved\nthat you would be fool-hearty to do it .\nFor" }, { "n": 54, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p54.jpg", "text": "48\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nGO~ ifli itl..l,tct 0\nthat reason I think that we ought to make an\neffort to get the ECS o tank vent and the\n2\nECS o tank pressure gage compatible and at\n2\na l ot higher pressure than they are. This\n'\nsuiting up and unsuiting every four hours is\nfor the birds.\nI thoroughly agree with you, Jim.\nThere are\ntwo things I want to know.\nI want to know if\nthey deliberately lowered the venting pressure\nfor the o2 system down to 967 to solve the\nproblem on GT-3.\nI would also like to know\nif they deliberately lowered the cabin venting\ndown to 5.4. I'd like to know the answer to\nthose two questions. I think the combination\nof those two situations make what I feel is an\nunsatisfactory situation in our flight. It\noccupied far more time-­\nThat's right, we were screwing around with\nthat ECS o . That's something we never had\n2\ntouched. It was a eage that we should have\nmonitored, instead of a thing that we manipu­\nlated all the time.\nRight,\nOkay, the cabin pressure regulator." }, { "n": 55, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p55.jpg", "text": "49\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nI didn't have any comment on that.\nNeither did I. It seemed to be doing a good\njob.\nI felt the cabin vent valve was set lower\nthan I had thought it was going to be.\nI\nthought it was supposed to be set up around\n5.7. I'd like to know if it was cha.l'lged in­\ntentionally.\nThe manual vent valve worked fine.\nWhen we\nwanted to vent the cabin, it vented.\nThe cabin repressurization valve worked fine .\nI was very happy to see how well it worked\nalso with my chest pack.\nAny comment on that?\nNo, I don ' t think so .\nI don't think the cabin\nrepressurized or overpressurized when we were\ntrying to vent it. Since you were repres­\nsurizing it and venting it at the same time,\nI think the vent valve actually overcame the\nrepressurization,which is a good thing if\nyou're trying to vent it, and it is not a good\nthing if you're trying to keep it from venting.\nGoing back a little farther to my other state­\nment, in case that vent valve sticks open" }, { "n": 56, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p56.jpg", "text": "50\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nand you are not suited,I don't think you're\ngoing to have time to get suited.\nI t takes\nme too long to put those gloves on.\nOkay, the cabin air inlet valve worked fine .\nWe vented the cabin with it when we went EVA.\nIt apparently worked all right when we used\nit down on the water.\nI rave no further com­\nment on that.\nNeither do I. It seemed to work fine .\nThe cabin air recirculation valve worked as\nit was supposed to .\nAs advertised.\nOkay, that primary o system gets another\n2\nblack star. I think this is the area that I\nwant to know the answer to , for sure.\nI want\nto know whether that was deliberately set\ndown into the range of the gage to solve the\ncomplaint on Gemini 3. I think that if this\nwas the case, this is a prime example of poor\nengineering. As far as monitoring the system\nthough, as long as their reading was down be­\nlow 960 the system worked pretty well. I\nfelt fairly confident that the pressure wae­" }, { "n": 57, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p57.jpg", "text": "51\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nThat ' s right .\nThe way that the thing was set\nup , we could sure monitor it because we knew\nit was going to vent without being on the\ngage .\nI think they compromised the whole\nsystem so we could monitor it .\nAs a matter of fact, we monitored it very\nthoroughly and spent about 100 times as much\ntime on t his SJstem as we should have.\nJohn\nYoung ' s been complaining about this point,\nand I think that it ' s a very poor thing.\nThey\nought to dig up the money and put a gage in\nthere that will do the job .\nVery strong\npoint .\nThe quantity measuring system,I thought,\nwas all right.\nI thought it was pretty good .\nI thought it\nwas excellent as a matter of fact . It was a\nvery readable gage ,. It had tremendous scal e\non it, but, shoot, you could read the thing to\na percent .\nI don't know why it was a:ny more\nreadable than the other ones, but I thought it\nwas pretty good.\nThe flow rates--I don't have a:ny particular\ncomment on that .\nI thought the flow rate on\nN4sl-f.1Dfl~T1Aw" }, { "n": 58, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p58.jpg", "text": "52\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n..\nthat repress valve into my suit was satisfactory\nto keep me in a pressurized state and keep me\nventi lated enough under normal operations .\nUnder tough operations though, the flow rate's\ntoo low and you really heat up.\nYes, I think since it was an open loop system,\nyou had to keep from dumping all the oxygen\noverboard, and had to go high enough to keep\nit from dying from the heat. I think it was\na compromise system.\nI thought it was well set up,\nI have no com­\nplaints there .\nPrimary o2 temperature--I didn't\nhave any comment on that.\nNo, neither did I.\nThe manual heater--I think that you used the\nmanual heater twice during EVA .\nTwice during EVA for about five to six minutes\neach time. It responded all right , but it didn't\ngo overboard, It got the temperature right back\nup there, and I shut the thing off again.\nI\\!0 ~~FID E~iilA L" }, { "n": 59, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p59.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\n53\n•\nWe were able to turn the automatic part of it\noff quite early in the flight, particularly\nsince this was the problem we were having.\nWe were getting-­\nThat was something I wondered about.\nYou\nknow, the t hing is marked, and we were always\ninstructed that when the thing got down below\n38 percent we didn ' t need the heaters any\nmore.\nWe shut the heaters off at 42 percent .\nRight .\n0bviously,the guy that told us to shut the\nheaters off at 40 percent\nknew what he was\ntalking about because we never needed them\nagain.\nI think, again, I am very suspicious of McDonnell\non the fix on that gage, and on setting that\npressure on 970, and I'm going to get to the\nbottom of it .\nYes , but I think, though,that the pressure\nwould have still built up even if we had the\nrelief set at 1050 or so. It would have still\nbuilt up.\nIt might have built up and stabili zed,\n•" }, { "n": 60, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p60.jpg", "text": "54\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\n1'1cDivitt\nWhite\nbecause it ' s a cryogenic system and it could have\nstabilized out around 1000 or 1050.\nBut on the other hand it could have continued to\nbuild right on up.\nSu.re it could.\nBut I sort of suspect that the--well, I don't know.\nIt's different from this other problem where we\nwere told that the thing didn't require heaters\nbelow 38 percent , and we found out that it really\ndidn't require 'them below 42 percent.\nWe turned them off at 42 percent .\nRight .\nThe secondary o system--I thought those performed\n2\nadmirably. In_fact, they had more oxygen in them\nthan I thought they could hold. Jim ' s was up to\naround 5500 pounds shortly after launch. It re­\nmained up there and drizzled out about 100 pounds\nthroughout the flight .\nActually they increased by 100 psi each right after\nlaunch.\nRight at the first mode of flight .\nThen they\ndrizzled back down and stayed at 5400, I think,\nright on down through the flight .\nThe lowest" }, { "n": 61, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p61.jpg", "text": "55\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nmine got was about 5250 maybe.\nDid you notice by chance what they were at land­\ning?\nNo, I didn ' t check them.\nNeither did I.\nThat was the last thing I had on my mind, to tell\nthe truth. I thought the quantity measuring was\nfine . It was a little questionable, that we might\nhave overpressurized on your system, but I guess\nthey had plenty of margin in that respect . The\nsecondary o flow rates were satisfactory as far\n2\nas I was concerned.\nI think so .\nI was amazed that secondary o flow\n2\nwas such that I really didn ' t get too hot in i t .\nYes, I was not as uncomfortable as I had been at\nother times.\nYou know, after awhile· you hit yourself in the\nhead so long that it finally stops hurting.\nIt ' s like that big heavy suit, after awhile you\nbegin to feel good.\nI know the average guy on\nthe street probably wouldn't like the flow rate,\nbut it didn't seem to be too bad. It wasn ' t too\nobjectionable ." }, { "n": 62, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p62.jpg", "text": "56\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nI think we jumped into something else .\nWe were\nin secondary o system and we weren ' t on flow\n2\nrate. The only time we had the flow rate on that\nwas during reentry. The flow rate there was sat­\nisfactory .\nThe pressure obviously was satisfac­\ntory, but we didn't check it at the end.\nThe\ncontrol--r.de put an extra detent on that control.\nI think the control was a positive one and we\nwere able to keep it in the detents where we\nwanted it . I had no p~oblem there.\nRight, I think that the way it's rigged up now\nis excellent.\nWe designed it . It had better be,\nha., ha!\nRight .\nOkay, the CO\npartial pressure. The gage\n2\nhas been discussed prior to this time.It stayed\ndown satisfactorily.\nYes, it never got off zero.\nOkay, the coolant- the radiator operation config­\nuration--I\ndon't have the times in front of me\nright now that we went onto the radiator, but I\nthink it was about 40 minutes.\n40 minutes.\nWe went on the radiator about 40 minutes and we" }, { "n": 63, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p63.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nnever had to come off it again.\nWe didn ' t get\nany abnormal operation of the radiator at any time .\nOne time they called up to me and mentioned some­\nthing about the radiator and the coolant loop and\nI didn ' t get any clarification.\nI lost contact\nat that time, and I thought just maybe that I\nhad a failure of some type in my primary cooling\nsystem.\nSo just for caution sake I turned on the\nsecondary coolant pump and waited till I got con­\ntact with them again. They asked me why I had the\nsecondary pump on, and I said, \"I thought maybe\nI had a problem in the primary system.\" They\nasked me why I thought that and I said, \"I thought\nthey were telling me something about it when I\nlost contact with them.\nI did it just to be sure .\"\nBut that was the only time that I thought we even\nmight have had a problem in it , and I turned it\noff.\nWe used double coolant loop early in the\nmission,and after we turned the secondary system\noff we did not use it a.gain until the teentry.\nPrior to the reentry, we turned it on.\nThat's right .\nThat coolant system real ly worked.\nOkay, here is one at which we'll get at them-­" }, { "n": 64, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p64.jpg", "text": "58\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nthe water management system.\nI think you have\na few thousand words you'd like to say about\nlaunch. I think you actually already hit on most\nof them, anyhow .\nMan, I sure do. The l'brmal mode , Drink Mode, and\nFlush Mode .\nWe got the water management thing\nkind of goofed up. Let's just take the drinking\nthing first. The drinking nozzle was attached to\nthe management panel by a hose and the hose looked\nlike it was made out of rotten rubber .\nThe\nfirst time I tried to drink out of it, I stuck\nthe thing into my mouth-­\nThe first bad moment of the f l ight .\n--I pushed the button in and no water came out,\n~d I almost had a heart attack. I said to Ed,\n\"Ed, this is going to be the shortest four day\nflight in history. \"\nHa, ha!\nJim said, \"Guess what? · The water doesn ' t work.\"\nHa, j{.a !\nBut you' d already had a drink out of it ,\nthough , hadn ' t you?\nNo , I hadn ' t .\nOh, hadn ' t you?\nYou handed it to me." }, { "n": 65, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p65.jpg", "text": "59\neeJmrDEMffM\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nOh, so I handed it over to him and then he took a\ndrink out of it and didn ' t have any problem at all .\nWhat happened was the hose was wound in the helix .\nIt came out to the gun in a straight line .\nWhen\nI drank out of it on my side this thing always\ncrimped like it was an old rotten piece of rubber\nthat had been bent over in that position many\ntimes before. It looked like something that came\nout of a 1890 steamboat or something, instead of\na-­\nIt looks like your old oxygen mask hose.\nThat's right. It looks like my old rotten oxygen\nmask hose .\nSo I think that we ought to get at\nleast a decent piece of hose in there. The next\nthing is the water gun that you drink from.\nYou\npush the button in and a little spigot would come\nout and the wat er would start running out of it .\nThis worked great. You could always get the wa­\nter to come out when you didn 't have your hose\nbent. It got worse and worse and worse and worse\nand worse .\nAs far as returning it towards the\nend of the flight , I almost drowned a couple of\ntimes because I ' d get that thing out and I couldn't" }, { "n": 66, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p66.jpg", "text": "60\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n@ONFl0Et'4Tl=At\nget it back in. I finally ended up actually using\ntwo hands to operate the water gun so that I\ncould get the button back out.\nThe button definitely did get more friction in it\nas the flight progressed.\nIt seemed like it was all scored up and it kept\ngetting worse and worse and worse as the flight\nwent on. This could have been a major disaster\ntoo. If we had that gun squirting water inside\nthe spacecraft , you'd have had water all over the\nplace. I'll be the first to say that we made a\nreal effort to keep the water out of the space­\ncraft.\nWe wanted to get four days out of the\nflight. I felt one of the major probierns would\nbe the humidity in the spacecraft .\nAs it turned\nout, it wasn't a problem.\nWe didn't know it right\noff the bat and we were really concerned about the\nwater. The last thing I wanted to do was to have\nan open water nozzle running into the spacecraft .\nSo I think that takes care of that .\nI think the\nwhole water management panel ought to be clarified\nbefore we fly GT-5.\nWe were arguing about what\nposition the waste .Mmagement Switch was going to\nbe in during the countdown to launch.\nI think this i d\nw@f'fFto•Ef'ITtrA L" }, { "n": 67, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p67.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n61\ncertainly not the time to be deciding what the\nheck the position these switches were going to be\nin.\nWe were always briefed that this thing would\nbe in OFF.\nWe were going through the switch\npositions and they'd ask me to check in the count\nat. about T-45 minutes or so.\nAnd I couldn' t see that one.\nYou couldn' t see that one and you asked me to look\ndown at it .\nI saw the thing was in EVAPORATOR,\nso I question the STC.\nHe checked around and they\nhad a big flap about what position it was supposed\nto be in. Pretty soon we got a call back and he\nsaid if I could get unstrapped and reach the thing,\nI ought to turn it over to OVERBOARD. • We thought\nit should have been in OFF.\nThey had it in EVAPOR­\nATOR so we finally decided we ought to go to OVER­\nBOARD to keep the thing venting. I was already\nstrapped in the spacecraft .\nI undid my shoulder\nharness and reached around in the spacecraft and\nflipped a little valve over to OVERBOARD where\nit should be and then got strapped.\nYou sure they didn ' t have you put it OFF?\nNo, we went to OVERBOARD ." }, { "n": 68, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p68.jpg", "text": "62\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nI remember they argued.\nI thought they had it on\nEVAPORATOR first.\nIt went from EVAPORATOR-­\nThat seems like the least likely of any position\nto put it in.\nThat ' s right.\nWe went from EVAPORATOR over to\nOVERBOARD.\nSo I think a comment that I ' d like to\nmake right now about the whole water management\npanel is that it's a simple thing. It's got\nthree !mobs and each !mob ' s only got three or\nfour positions .\nWe had the ECS engineers at\nMcDonnell give us a briefing on this simple water\nmanagement panel.\nWe had about seven guys there\nwith seven different versions of how it was de­\nsigned, how it operated, and what the different\npositions we were supposed to be in. They got us\nso screwed up that when we left ther e we didn ' t\nhave any idea in the world whatit was supposed to\ndo.\nI think those designers didn ' t either.\nThey didn ' t either and it was pretty obvious that\nthey didn ' t .\nWe went through a lot of discussion\nwith that water management panel. Finally I think" }, { "n": 69, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p69.jpg", "text": "that the four of us got it pretty well squared\naway.\nThen just before launch we found out down\nat the Cape that because they had gotten those\nswitches in the wrong position we pumped 32\npounds of water out of the adapter, used up all\nthe pressurant for the water system, and pumped\nall the water into the lithium hydroxide canj.,3ter.\nIf it hadn't been for one last minute check in\nthe data, we would have lost the lithium hydrox­\nide canister full of water and nothing to drink\nwith. So we would have had about an hour flight,\nif we had gone that long.\nI think that before\nwe fly another flight we ought to have all the\npeople at McDonnell and NASA, who are ·respons-ible\nfor this thing get it squared away and figure out\njust where the heck they want these switch posi­\ntions.and get them there. If there are a lot of\nswitch positions on that panel that aren't useful\nanymore, we should just go ahead and block them\noff.\nWe decided between the four of us that there\nwere--I don't even know what they call those\nswitches-­\nWhite\nCondensate Valve and Water Valve.\n.." }, { "n": 70, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p70.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n--and the Water Valve should be put in NORMAL\nNORMAL.and left there. That was ~xa.ctly what we\ndid and we knew how to work the waste management\nvalve.\nWe didn't screw it up, but I ' m not sure\nthat if with a little trying, we couldn't have .\nWe never had to use the Evaporator Fill Mode.\nThe Flush Mode,or the waste ·management portion of\nthe thing,had a couple of different positions .\nIn the normal OVERBOARD position and in using\nthe Preheat and Flush switch over on the side,\nwe managed to dump a large number of urine dumps\nthrough this.\nWe dumped both our launch- day\nurine bags which were full. I probably urinated\neight or ten times and you probably about five\nor six t i mes.\nAbout five times .\nAbout five times .\nSo we had a lot of dumps\nthrough this thing. At 92 hours it stopped work­\ning.\nEd had filled up the bellows pretty well\njust before this. I was the man in charge of\ndumping urines, it seemed like .\nThe Urine Dumper!!!\nI was the only one who could reach the knobs and\nswitches . It ~ nerally went down in spurts.\n~8-Mf'IDt=P,.ffIrA L" }, { "n": 71, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p71.jpg", "text": "I\n65\nAbout haliwny\nthrough the dump, it started\nslowing down .\nThen it just went in very slowly\nthe last two or three inches .\nThen I urinated in\nthe thing and had a bellows full of a mixture of\nair and urine . It started dumping. It looked\nlike it went down about halfway and then it\nstopped.\nI wouldn't be a bit surprised if it\nwasn't the air going out of it. It w.ent very\nslowly for ju.st a short time and then it stopped\ncompletely.\nNothing else would go out of it .\nS~\nturned off the Flush Switch and I went from\nOVERBOARD to EVAPORATOR,and it flushed through\nthe evaporator.\nWe had one more urine dump through\nthe evaporator and this worked all right .\nWell,\nI 'm sure glad that we had those two ways of work­\ning it . All the way through the flight after I 'd\ndumped the urine through this thing, I kept say­\ning\n1:w-ell, McDonnell finally designed this thing\nso it works after about 30 or 40 attempts and\nredesigns :' But I guess I was over-optimistic be­\ncause it did drop out just before the flight .\nIt finally got to work for 88 hours.\nWe didn't\nuse the E~aporator Film Mode .\nOkay, Ed, why don't" }, { "n": 72, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p72.jpg", "text": "66\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhit e\nMcDivitt\nWhi te\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nyou take over.\nI extended my wrath.\nI just had a feeling you wanted to say something\nabout that, Jim. ~, ha!\nAfter having messed around with that thing for\n96 hours trying to make it work.\nI think you expressed my feeling too .\nDid I leave anything out?\nNo , no .\nI had the same feelings .\nI thought you\nmight have had them a little stronger since you\nwere the one who discovered the water gun was not\nworking.\nI 'm really serious about that simple panel being\nable to screw up the whole flight. If we don ' t\nget that thing figured out we ought to stop fly­\ning space missions .\nOne of the worst moments of the prelaunch down\nthere was when I found out they had that two\ngallons of water in the system somewhere and didn't\nknow where it was.\nThat's right .\nThe humidity sensor--I thought if the readings\nare right, it worked very well and pr oved the\npoint that the humidity in the spacecraft is" }, { "n": 73, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p73.jpg", "text": "67\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nrelatively low•, and that the water problem is not\nquite the problem we had it cracked up to be .\nI ' ll make a comment on the sponge material on the\nside of the spacecraft at this point ,since we ' re\ntalking about humidity.\nI didn ' t think the sponge\nmaterial was a very good idea to begin with but\nonce it was in there and we flew with it, I think\nit was-­\nIt was a real bad mistake!\nHa, h9.!\nNo, I thought it was all right in there. The only\nthing wrong with it was what they had it treated\nwith for fire- proofing.\nI thought that part of\nit was unpardonable.\nThere is no excuse whatso­\never for having those ammonia vapors and the hy­\ndrogen sulfate~or whatever those other things\nwere that we had permeating around the spacecraft.\nWe smelled bad enough, but it was no contest when\nit came to comparing ourselves with the spacecraft .\nIt smelled worse.\nIf there was any moisture it grabbed it all. I\ndon't really think there was any moisture for it\nto grab.\nI don 1t think so either, Ed.\nI kept feeling that" }, { "n": 74, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p74.jpg", "text": "68\nWhite\n8 , 5 Communicati ons\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nr1ecr,\nthing and it was dry as could be .\nThere was no moisture that I could notice .\n'lhe sponge stuff on the side wasn ' t objectionable\nto me but the odor that obviously came from it\nwas very, very objectionable .\nThe readings we\nobtained I thought, were easy to take. The stow­\nage of the unit was not a problem. It was easily\nstowed in the spacecraft while we were using it .\nOkay, I have a few comments on the communications\nwhich we ought to go on to .\nWe ' ll take them in\nsequence .\nOkay, why don ' t you go along I'll express my com­\nments .\nI think the interphones worked pretty wel l .\nI\nnoticed one thing, though, as we progressed along.\nlf'he volume requirement on both my side and on Jim ' s\nside needed to be increased all the time to get-\nNo , Ed.\nI launched with all my volumes full up.\nIs that right? Anyhow in my interphone, I pro­\ngressively raised it as the f l ight went on .\nYes , I started off with mine almost all the way\nup.\nOn the UHF it was absolutely all the way up,\nC04 4~t!li1t6 L" }, { "n": 75, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p75.jpg", "text": "69\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nand I flew with it almost the whole flight .\nI don't think it was all the way up. The one\nthing though--I think the interphone operation\nand quality were quite good.\nYes, I thought so too .\nWe were ready to communicate back and forth. It\nwas just the way I would liked to have done it .\nI thought it was very good. The UH performance at\nthe countdown was satisfactory and just after we\ngot into orbit we felt that we had a bit of a\ncommunication loss.\nWe switched to UHF No. 2.\nLater during the flight we used both UHF sets and\ndidn't have any difference in performance from\neither one.\nDuring the recovery you were using\nthe UHF primarily.\nI think you had as much com­\nmunication as you could expect.\nThat ' s right. I think so too. I do think, though ,\nthat we had a very bad UHF situation in the first\neight or nine orbits. It was really lousy. As\na matter of fact, I was getting concerned that\nmaybe we were going to have to land because we\nwere going to run out of communications .\nYou were actually working more on this problem\nb" }, { "n": 76, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p76.jpg", "text": "70\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthan I was.\nYou were communicating during the\nFNA work and also after I went to sleep. I heard\nyou working on the Communications Check and that's\nwhen you went to the reentry antenna.\nThat's right, when we ran through these checks,\nit finally became apparent to everyone that the\nreentry antenna was doing a better job than the\nadapter .antenna.\nAnd then later on, I switched\nback to the adapter antenna for some reason which\nI can't remember right now.\nWe ran a couple of\nmore checks and it seemed to be-­\nI know what we did.\nWe ran an HF check, Jim, and\nwe switched back to the a~apter so we could use\nthe HF antenna back there .\nWe got just as good\nU1IF transmissions at this time as we did on the\nr.eentry a.ntenna.\nWhen they checked them out again, they said they\nstill thought the stub antenna was better. So, we\nwent back to :reentry antenna.\nWe used r .eentry just about 95 percent of the\nflight.\nThat's right. In the last 55 orbits it was great.\nIn the first eight it was lousy. I was really" }, { "n": 77, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p77.jpg", "text": "71\nWhite\nMcJ)ivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nconcerned about having to come down because we\ndidn't have any radios .\nOne thing that I'd like to say is, I would give\na good gold star to the controllers down there.\nI thought their voice procedures were excellent\nand their methods for giving us information were\nall good.\nI had no comment , whatsoever, other\nthan I thought it was all very good.\nThat's right.\nI had no objection.\nI thought there was no time\nin the flight in which we got a cluttered voice\nfrom anybody.\nYes, I think that is pretty good\nwhen you have that many people working the loop.\nI think so too .\nOkay, the voice tape recorder--let me vent my\nwrath on this one.\nGet ' em Ed, get 'em!\nRight . This is another thing that should be fixed\nbefore the next flight. I think we're going to\nend up being very, very sorry.\nWe're going to\nend up losing valuable data from time to time .\nThis will be due to no reason other than a voice\ntape recorder which is poO'r on all accounts." }, { "n": 78, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p78.jpg", "text": "72\nEiOt •rt\"Ef ◄ lt/.L:\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nWe ' ve already lost some very val uable data from\nthis flight.\nWe could have taped t he entire\nEVA and brought those communications back down.\nAs it was, we couldn' t tape them because we had\nto put the thing in UHF so that we coul d transmit\nto the ground.\nWe lost all of t he\nblessed\nstuff going to the ground anyway.\nThere are certain systems in here that I think\nare very poorly designed.\nI think t his is about\nthe poorest of them all . It ' s l ocated in such a\nposition that you can not see the opeation light\nwhen it is on.\nThe light is in an area where\nyou normally would put things .\nThings get put\non top of it so that if you look down there, you\ncan't see the light .\nThe light is such a small\ninsignificant thing when it comes on. Unless you\nconsciously bend your head down and l ook down\nbelow your right elbow, you can not see whet her\nthe light is on or not. The switch is set so t hat\nyou have to go in either RECORD , Ul!F , HF, or\nINTERCOM and you can not be in RECORD while you're\non UHF or INTERCOM. This is a very unsatisfact ory\nmethod of having a tape recorder.\nThe tape r ecorder" }, { "n": 79, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p79.jpg", "text": "73\nMoDivitt\nWhite\nshould be set up so that it can record conversa­\ntions on normal UHF , HF , and INTERCOM type opera­\ntions .\nAs Jim pointed out , in our flight alone\nI think we l ost sets of valuabl e information.\nDuring launch we weren' t able to tape anything\nonboard.\nWe weren't able to tape the work during\nEVA .\nWe could have taped some of the work during\nt he rendezvous part of the flight ,\nI don' t be­\nlieve we taped i t though.\nThe w~y it's set up\nyou wouldn't l eave i t on in that manner.\nWe both\nhad requirements to communicate over UHF . This\nwas our normal mode of operation . If we have a\ntape recorder, it shoul d have a separate switch.\nIf t here is an hour limitation on the tape, there\nshould be a light that oomes on and is easily visi­\nble on the front somewhere.\nThat's right . It ought to go right on the VCC .\nThat's right . That 's really where the light be­\nlongs .\nI think that it woul d be desirable and\nimportant to have a voice t ape of what ' s going on\nthroughout the flight .\nI wouldn't have any ob­\njection to having a tape recorder with the capa­\nbility of recording more than the one hour at a\nCO t4fl\"Et tTI.Q:t" }, { "n": 80, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p80.jpg", "text": "74\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\ntime that we have now.\nI'd like to see us record­\ning a great deal of the flight . It'd be nice to\nhave a switch to turn it off from time to time\nif you did want to discuss something that you\ndidn ' t want to go on tape.\nI don't think we ought to put the whole flight\non tape . If we flew a week-long flight, it would\ntake a week to go through the tape.\nYou wouldn't\nwant long periods of nothing on there.\nI think\nthe way we wanted to operate it this time would\nhave been all right, if we could have just opera­\nted it that way.\nThere were certain periods\nwhere we put a tape on and ra.n it all the way\nthrough. Well, that was the tape that covered\na certain experiment or something.\nOn our D-9 Experiment, we used it.\nYes , that's where we used a whole tape on it .\nThen there were periods that were questionable\nwhen you were sl eeping and I wasn I t doing anything,\nor I was sleeping and you weren't doing anything.\nIf you carried adequate tapes, and you had adequate\nwarning when the thing went on and off, you would\nnot have the same situation we had on the D-9" }, { "n": 81, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p81.jpg", "text": "75\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nExperiment .\nYou could have the tape stop in the\nmiddle of the experiment and be lying on your\nback looking out with the sextant. You haven't\ngot any idea in the world the tape's run out on\nyou.\nRight.\nI think that it's a ve-ry, vezy unsatisfactory sys­\ntem. It ranks right up along with the top ones,\nand we 've already hit on some of them already.\nThe digital command system I· thought worked very\nwell.\nI thought the light in there gave U$ a\ngood indication of several things. It gave us an\nindication of when the station was about to come\non and communicate with us.\nWe used this as a\nclue to turn on our UHF to warm our transmitter\nup so we would be ready when the transmission came\nup.\nI think updates from the ground came up in\na ve-ry orderly fashion.\nI don't have any objec­\ntion about that or any further comments .\nDo you?\nEd, I thought it was very good.\nHandled in a very good manner.\nI think so.\nThe only update that I have an objection to is" }, { "n": 82, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p82.jpg", "text": "76\n blBO.E~IJA:~\n7\nreading the way I wanted it.\nHa, ha!\nThe\nsquib batteries--our electrical briefing I\nthought, · wa.s very good. Everything behaved just\nthe way they told me .\nThe squib batteries star ted\nout pretty high, around 27 or 28 volts , and they\nprogressively decreased in voltage as we went\nthrough the mission.\nThe main batteries--every\ntime I checked them they always checked out at\nabout 9 • as far as the amps were concerned.\nThe\nadapter batteries--I was glad we'd had the brief­\ning on them because I realized that knees on the\nadapter batteries were in operation during the\nlaunch when we got a high reading on the left\nstack ammeter up around 27 or 28 amps, and we had\na reading of around,I believe,14 amps on the right\none.\nI didn't alarm Jim with this information\nbecause it was still below my cut-off point of about\n30 amps or so. I felt that it was due to the knees\nin the adapter batteries causing unequal loadings\nof the main batteries with respect to the adapter\nbatteries.\nHold it .\nI want to make some comments about the\nelectrical system and the power as we used it ." }, { "n": 91, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p91.jpg", "text": "85\nWhen we powered down, we turned of.f the a . c.\npower, t he QA.MS power, t he ACME\": biag power, the\nrate gyros, the horizon scanner, the IMU, the\ncomputer, both FDI ' s , and the attitude indicator\nlights.\nWe operated with as little in the way\nof cockpit lighting as we possibly could. It\ngot less and less and less as the flight progressed.\nIn earlier orbits we had al l the lights on in the\ncockpit- the over, the middle light , and the two\nside lights . Then £or the night time passes, as\nthe flight progressed, we got around to using the\nred lights.\nWe finally got around to making the\nnight-side passes generally with one r ed light on\nor one white light on, as we got more confidence\nin the spacecraft .\nI think we save quite a bit o{\npower that way.\nThey were surprised that we were\n160 amp-hours ahead, and I don ' t think that we\ngot that way by accident.\nWhite\nI 've got a comment to make on that.\nWe were both\nwatching the loadings and I could read them a\nlittl e better over there. We started out operat­\ning arourd 14, maybe a l i ttle better.\nThe reading\non the combined amp-hours sl owly decreased down" }, { "n": 92, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p92.jpg", "text": "86\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nand near the end of the mission, we were down to\n12 or 13 amp-hours on unpowered down configuration.\nThat was as low as I saw it go, down around 12 .\nAnother thing that we did was that when we weren't\nactually planning on transmitting on one of the\nradios, we were always putting the mode control\nswitch to INTERCOM, which would then cut the trans­\nmitter off the line.\nYou could actually see the\nammeter go down a little bit. So I think that\nby really powering down the spacecraft and getting\nall the non-essential items off the line, we helped\nourselves a lot.\nWe got this 160 amp-hour cushion\nbecause we really worked at it, not because it\njust happened like that.\nThis takes a little diligence.\nYes , not because it was a miscalculation on the\nguys who were planning the flight, but just the\nfact that we really worked at keeping the lights\noff, keeping the radios off, and keeping those\nlittle bitty things down.\nYou know, you only\nhave to save two amps per hour.\nWe ran on a single\nsuit fan almost the entire flight, except when Ed\nwas getting warm when he was sleeping we had to" }, { "n": 93, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p93.jpg", "text": "87\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n8 .7 Computer\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\ngo to two suit fans.\nRight. When it got so uncomfortable that I\ncouldn't sleep, we would go over.\nWe really did­\nn't do that too much .\nNo , we didn't .\nWe made a real effort to keep the\nelectrical load down.\nI think that it sort of\nshowed up there towards the end of the mission\nwhen we really had enough spare power to run the\nIGS through the last day--uselessly of course ,\nbut at least we ran it.\nIn the launch we had the computer in ASCENT .\nF.d\nwas reading out the errors during launch.\nI read\nou~ the rates which didn ' t require an;y information\nfrom the computer.\nI was readi~out the lack of errors most of the\ntime.\nLack of errors, right.\nWhy don't you discuss the\nerror status.\nI think we discussed it earlier and I'll just go\nbriefly through it. We didn't have any error s\nthat I feel would be worth repeating during Stage I.\nAt guidance initiate we got a ful}-scale-down indi­\ncation. This indication I had been told" }, { "n": 94, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p94.jpg", "text": "88\nMcDivitt\nfairly routine, and it appeared routine ' to me\ntoo as it began to steer into zero and steered\nright on into zero .\nAs we approached iSEXJO the\nerror started to increase a little bit and in­\ncreased out to a little less than a degree in\npitch-down on the error needle .\nAside from that,\nwe didn ' t have,,as far as I can see, any other error\nthat was worth talking about during launch.\nOkay, at SECO + 20 the IVI ' s counted up as we\nseparated,rolled around, and did all the maneuvers\nwe were supposed to. The IVI's acted as they should.\nWhen I got turned around and was faced toward the\nspacecraft,I was in a hurry to get all these\nthings done .\nI started thrusting and I went from\nAscent to Catch-Up, and then hit the Start Comp\nbutton.~\nI lost a couple of feet/second here,\nbut this was sort of insignificant at the time.\nThe IVI's counted up in the Catch-Up Mode and they\noperated properly throuehout the rest of the chase­\nphase of the mission.\nWe were getting the kind\nof information that we needed right there early\nin the flight .\nEd had 52 punched in and it read\nout at 30 feet/second, I think he said earlier." }, { "n": 95, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p95.jpg", "text": "89\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nYes , I picked that up later on because I wasn't\neven concerned with it since we had a good orbit.\nOnce we had a good orbit that kind of information\nwasn't that important.\nDo you want the IVI readings at this time?\nYes, you might just as well read them out.\nThe IVI readings at the time we decided to read\nthem --at zero, zero, zero on the attitude indi­\ncator~- 20 forward, right 11, down 5.\nThe attitudes weren't really what they should\nhave been, because we had a good insertion and\nwe had to go right then and we had to get turned\naround and get at that booster. I didn't fool\naround with getting the spacecraft at.exactly the\nright attitude to read out the IVI's.\nI thought\nthat was of a:~;:i.demic interest . It would be great\nfor post-flight analysis but it wasn ' t going to\nhelp the flight at all. So I didn ' t do justice\nto those things. I'm sure that we can go back\nand resurrect this thing to find out exactly\nwhat it was. It wasn't very meaningful at the\ntime.\nThe orbit maneuvers consisted of really\njust chasing the booster around and reading up the\nIVI ' s as they came out.\nWe received all our updates\ndifi)~~FIDE~~llAuw­" }, { "n": 96, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p96.jpg", "text": "90\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nproperly.\nWe got the computer on and got it\nloaded .\nThe DCS updates were going in and they\nwere gett Lng V fJ dfication on the ground.\nOne time\nI remember we didn't g6t the DCS light .\nAs a\nmatter of fact, they sent the load up again and\nwe sti.l.l iid.n ' t get the DCS light. They verified\non the ground that it was going in.\nWell, the funny thing 'we.S when the computer wasn ' t\non we got a DCS light.\nThe DCS lights come on when they get set up for\nthe TX and send out a :r.ealbtime command,too.\nWell, mRybe the TX when they sent up-·\nThey\nkept telling us that they got a good load in it\nand I had no light. I really didn ' t quite bel ieve\nthem.\nNeither did I. As a matter-of fact, we had it\nverified at the next station.\nOkay.\nAnd that ' s where the onboard computer thing ends .\nI might go through what happened to the thing.\nWe were over the .States and h!;',,d the onboard computer\non for getting a new load in it. I got just about\nover Florida .\nHe said, okay, I could turn the" }, { "n": 97, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p97.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\n91\ntffiFIDEr-4TIAL\ncomputer off. I turned the switches off and\nnothing happened.\nThe comp l i ght stayed on\nand I don ' t even think the ·malfunction light came\non, did it? No, it didn't. So I said, \"Well, that's\ninteresting that the darn thing doesn't go off. \"\nSo we flicked the IGS power of~ and back on\nquickl y and told them on the grotmd that it\ndidn't look l ike I could get the computer to go\noff and stay off.\nI think you told them you thought you had a\nfailure in the switch.\nYes, I told them it looded to me like I probably\nhad a failure in the ON-OFF Switch or the ON-OFF\nswitchiqsfunction. And they said okay.\nSo I\nsaid, \"What do you want me to do here?\"\nI knew\nwe could always t urn it off by t urning the IGS off,\nbut I wasn ' t too keen on that , So they said, \"Stand\nby.\nWe' re going to have the experts check it. \"\nSo we flew on out of communication with them.\nI think they talked to me over Bermuda too, but\nnothing of much importance. They said to stand\nby they were still checking it. Then we got ove.c\nTananarive and I got this message to turn the\nGQt◄ FIDE~~TIAk" }, { "n": 98, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p98.jpg", "text": "92\nswitch to the ON position but to turn tie a .0.\npower to ACME,which was going to power down the\ncomputer whether we wanted it to or not . It\nwas a voice relay station but we weren't getting\nthe voine relayed.\nWe were just getting a message\nsent up from somebody on the g~ound.\nI 'm quite\nsure we didn't have any controllers at Tananarive .\nI don't r eally know who was talking to me .\nProbably\nSOUlf-! COM TECH , So• not being able to discuss the\nthi.ng with them and not knowing what the status\nof my total electrical p,wer was at the tim.,, I\nwent ahead and t·..1.r.ned them off. The comp light\nor the malfunction light came on and then it sort\ngot dim H,nd wen-f: 1)ut. Then I sort of figured that• s\nthe end of the ACPU.\nSo we put the thing back\non over Carnarvon and back off again and it\nwoul dn't come on. It was dead,of course .\nSo\nthat's the life story of the computer.\nThen we\nplayed a lot of games afterward trying to ml'l.kc~\n..\na dead man come back to lifA.\nI have nothing\nelse on the computer.\nI sure wished I'd have\nhad it though.\nf'~t 1F1DfJM+IAit" }, { "n": 99, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p99.jpg", "text": "93\n8.8 Crew Station\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nControls and displays-\n. -okay, I' 11 talk about\nthat. The s,equential Telelights all operated\nproperly,--came on in the proper colors,\nand\npunched off and everythi.ng. The event timer\noperated properly. The IVI operated properly.\nThe flight director indicator operated properly.\nI would like to discuss the GLV fuel and oxidizer\npressure gages here for a minute .\nWe got about\na $25 million vehicle,! think,that depends almost\nentirely on a launch. We've got an onboard\nmanual ietection system ,or something like that .\nMalfunction detection system.\nMalfunction detection system.\nAn integral part\nof the malfunction detection system, are the fuel\nand oxidizer pressure gages for both the first and\nsecond stages . This is one of the abort criteria\nI\nOn the scal e of these gages down below the glass\nis a beautiful, beantiful set of lines and numbers\nand hash marks ,tha.t are wrong. They updated the GLV\ninformation and found out that these things were\nin error by quite a bit. No~ to take and fix\nthese gages would have taken a couple thousand\nbucks.\nI don't know exactly how much or how" }, { "n": 100, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p100.jpg", "text": "94\nlong, but it would have taken a few dollars. In­\nstead we decided it would be simpler and cheaper\nand a lot quicker to go ahead and paste some\npaper decals over the top of the glass .\nThe\nparallax with these things is horrendous .\nThe\ndecal s were pasted on over t he top of the glass\nin such a manner that they completely obscure\nthe inside-the- glass readings.They also obscure the\ncenter needles which are not only the clue to\nwhat the taz1k pressures are but a clue to whether\nyou have any APS power,which is also critical .\nWhen you cut these things back so that you can\nsee the inside needles,\nyou see the inside gage\ntoo .\nI think this nickel-dime fix to ·our multi...·!.\nmillion doll ar vehicle is ridiculous.\nI think\nthat we ought to get those inside gages painted\nthe way that they ' re supposed to be painted.\nI\nthink we ought to end this Mickey Mouse gage\nroutine right now and get going on GT-5 ' s fuel\nand oxidizer gages for both stages . It's ridicu­\nlous the way they are right now.\nThe a.l timeter\nworked as advertised.\nI mentioned that it went\ndown and back up again at around 100,000 feet ." }, { "n": 101, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p101.jpg", "text": "95\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nThe rate of aescent seemed to be all right. The\naccelerometer was okay. The switches and circuit\nbreaker panels--! had no comment.\nWe knocked a\ncouple of switches and circuit breakers off dur­\ning the course of the flight.\nWe always caught\nthem and got them back on quickly, or maybe we\ndidn't get them back on quickly.\nWe got them\nback on quickly enough because nobody ever said\nmuch to us about it. They commented one time .\nTwo times,I think,they asked us if we turned some­\nthing on or off.\nI remember that .\nOne was over on my side.\nWas one the A\npump\non the secondary\nloop or the E pump on the secondary loop,or did\nyou turn that on?\nNo.\nI think one of them was up there, and I for­\nget how we got it on.\nMaybe we just bumped it. Yes, there was another\none over on your right-hand side and there were\na couple of them in the center circuit breaker ~\npanel.\nOne time I know I bumped one on the left­\nhand side circuit breaker panel. I thought it\nwas the-electronic timer. It was one right above\n~ ►~FlDWTlAIJ" }, { "n": 102, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p102.jpg", "text": "96\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthat. I almost had a heart attack when I saw\nthat thing go down because it would have messed\nup the whole time reference system. I thought\nthe switches and circuit breaker panels were\nvery good. I have no complaint about it. I\nthink that's a well designed cockpit. The mirrors\nwere fine and the swizzle stick was a real life\nsaver.\nI can't reach the circuit breakers and\nswitches over on the right-hand side unless I\nuse the swizzle stick. I had to do a lot of\nswitching when Ed was sleeping. This swizzle\nstick was the real answer.\nI 've been always telling you to get some long\narms .\nH~, ha!\nI didn ' t use the swizzle stick\nvery much .\nYes, but you don't have to reach over and get\nthose switches all on the left-hand side .\nI found the swizzle stick was quite useful for\nunstowing items out, of the center stowage box.\nThat ' s right .\nIt was really good there.\nI used that every time\nwhen I unstowed.\nIt ' s a good piece of equipment .\nOkay, lighting- do\n.you want to ~\n~\nting, Ed?\nGiQ.f>.~tfit~" }, { "n": 103, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p103.jpg", "text": "97\nWhite\nOkay, I think that the lighting to me was sur­\nprisingly good.\nI think that at one time there\nwas a press to put two white lights on either\nside on the instrument panel. I think the lights\non the instrument panel should remain just as\nthey are.\nI think we used the red light much more\nthan we used the white light. There was quite a\nbit of time when you had to do a lot of out-the­\nwindow operation at night and you wanted to have\nsome reference inside. The red light doesn't\nseem to destroy your night ~eference at all. So\nI think the instrument lights, the two on either\nside above the panel, are satisfactory.\nI also\nthought the del etion of the red light in the cabin\nlight and the substitution of a bright white\nlight was certainly good. There were several times\nwhen I wanted to get a reading on something right\naway and I didn't want to fool around with dim\nlighting. I would switch on the big bright light\nand I was almost always able to get good readings.\nNow when the sun was really bright in you face,\nthere was a period of time in which your eyes\nhad to adjust to the instrument panel before you\n.e@t'4FIDEMTIAL" }, { "n": 104, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p104.jpg", "text": "98\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\ncould make the readings .\nI think you could put\nspot lights in there and not get by that prob­\nlem.\nThat's exactly what I was going to say.\nLights\naren't going to solve that problem.\nNo, it's just plain bright outside. When you look\nback in, even though you have your lights on, it's\nfairly dark inside .\nI personally wasn ' t troubled\nby this very many times during the flight .\nWere\nyou, Jim?\nNo, I wasn 't.\nI didn't feel that was too bad.\nS~ actually, I\nfelt that the lighting, although not abundant ,\nwas adequate.\nI think the actual light ing of the\ninstruments would certainly be nicer if we had\nindividual instruments lit up.\nOh, ene thing -­\nseveral times I would like to have had a flash­\nEght in there, something where I could direct a\nreal beam of light. The little side light& I\nthought, were close to being useless .\nI didn' t\nuse my little side light, the auxiliary light ,\nvery much at all.\nAs a matter of fact , I didn ' t either.\nVery seldom .\nI think that if we're going to have\n•Gl>J~LOiMIWs." }, { "n": 105, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p105.jpg", "text": "99\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\na little auxiliary light like thatl it\nought to be a light-­\nIt ought to be a big auxiliary light !\nBa, Pa!\na directed beam. This goes right back to\nsomething that we forgot to point out in water\nmanagement.\nI think we ought to point it out\nright now loud and clear. I think that we have\nto have a system in which we can gage the water\noutflow.\nI think the medical people feel fairly\nstrong about this also. I know that I restrained\nfrom drinking because I didn't want to drink all\nthe water out of there prior to the end of the\nfour days. I got a feeling Jim was doing the same\nthing.\nThat's right. I was doing exactly the same thing.\nI didn't drink abundantly at any time during the\nflight except perhaps right before the r3entry.\nI felt I was taking quite a bit of moisture with\nmy reconstituted food.\nI felt that if I overdid\nit t he first part of the fligh~, we wouldn't get\nthrough the last part, because water is so critical.\nThat's right. We've got a number of expendp.~les\nlike OAMS, and we've got a couple of gages for" }, { "n": 106, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p106.jpg", "text": "100\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nt◄ p=rr,aql¥A l\nthe propellants .\nWe ' ve got the EGS oxygen.\nWe 've\ngot quantity gages for that .\nWe 've got electrical\npower and we ' ve got .ways of measuring that from\nthe ammeter.\nWe've got food and we can al ways\ncount that .\nBut when we get down to water, which\nis just as critical as all these other things in\nflyir.g_ long duration missions, t here ' s not a single\nway in the world we can measure how much we've\ngotten or how muchi. we ' ve drunk.\nI think it ' s\nimperative that we get some method of measuring\nthis t hing before we try to fly another long du­\nration flight.\nThe white light on the little utility light was\nnot satisfactory.\nWe tried to look to see if we\ncould find out what we had in the cabin bottle- ­\nWater tank.\nAnd that wasn ' t satisfactory. I think we ought , ,\nto have some type of a metering system which\nwould enable us to actually determine the water\nthat we 've utilized and in some way koow that\nwe ' re getting it out of t he adapter.\nI don ' t\nknow .\nWe need to look into the whole water\nmetering system, which is non- existent, and see\nic!o~{Bt some kind of system.\nFNilAt" }, { "n": 107, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p107.jpg", "text": "101\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nYou lmow even if we can' t get something that they\ncan pipe into the spacecraft, at the very least\nwe ought to TM the pressura.nt pressure down to the\n~ound and back up again, or something, and get ,\nsome sort of calibration curve-­\nSo that we'd lmow what we have remaining in the\na.dapter.\nWe could at least call the people down at the\nground and say, \"How much water do we have left?\"\nThat ' s right. And I think we ought to be able to\ntell what our bottle has inside of it in the\nspacecraft .\nYes, I 1:h:ink they're really two separate things .\nI think first of all you've got to know the\ntotal water that you've got left and the rate\nthat\nit's going down.\nI think the second thing\nthat Ed's pointing out is that we don't even have\na:n:y way of telling what the water supply is in the\nspacecraft. The first clue that you get that\nyou're out of water is you just run out of water.\nThe lighting on the water management panel I\nthink is just about non-existent. You can see it\nin the daytime. If you know the position of the" }, { "n": 108, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p108.jpg", "text": "102\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nswitches and lmow where they're supposed to be,\nyou can make sure they ' re located properly and on\nthe proper indication, but I can't read anything\ndown in that area at night. The lighting is very\npoor in that area.\nOne thing that I'd like to comment on here a\nlittle bit is that\n~ amber light that I insisted\nthat they put on the Preheat-Flush\nswitch over\nback of the water management panel.\nI felt it\ncame in real handy.\nTwo times during the course\nof the flight I left the Preheat switch on after\nI flushed it for short periods of time to make\nsure we didn't have any ice left in the lines .\nI did it on every occasion, but two times the\nthing that called my attention to the fact that\nI still had the thing on, was the fact I could\nsee that orange light-amber light-shining up be­\ntween the food box and the front of the spacecraft .\nI could tell that I had another light on in the\nback.\nAnd so I think the left panel, center panel, right\npanel, pedestal, and console are not lit abundantly,\nbut are lit what I ' d call adequately and perhaps" }, { "n": 109, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p109.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\na little marginal in some cases .\nI had no diffi­\nculty in reading the desi gnations on the switch­\nbreaker panels. I think they were lighted ade­\nquately also. I'm not going to say they're\nlighted well, because I don ' t think the lighting\nis real good in the spacecraft. The water\nmanagement panel isn' t lighted properly .\nI ' m\nnot sure we reall y have to have it l i ghted too\nwell .\nThe utility lights, I think,as they are\nnow.,are very close to being useless. It's like\ntaking a match and trying to use it to find your\nway around. It doesn ' t provide enough light .\nFrom time to time I would have liked to have had\na light which had a little stronger output of\nlight available,~ so that I coul d--I several times\nwanted to look behind my seat for things at night\nand I ' d like to look down into the area in the\nwater management panel light.\nYes , I think probably the wattage on those bulbs\nshould go up an order of magnitude to make them\neffective.\nYou use it so seldom that it wouldn ' t be a big\npower use.\nYou' d only use it when you needed it ," }, { "n": 110, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p110.jpg", "text": "104\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nIt wouldn't be something you ' d use very often.\nI'll tell you what it all is,though.\nWhen you\nwant it, you want something that you can see .\nYou just can' t see with those things at all .\nI don ' t particularly understand what the interior\nand exterior lights mean.\nDo you?\nI think the exterior lighting is probably the\nlighting that could probably be used for docking.\nWe didn't have any exterior lights.\nI thought the intensity control of the lights was\nan absolute necessity and I think it was satis­\nfactory.\nI think the fingertip lights are quite\nuseful , and were commented on already. They should\nhave the Lexan covers, and we've also commented\nthat they should be located between the finger­\ntip and the first joint. The onboard data--now\nhere we come to a very useful piece of equipment.\nHa , ha!\nI believe I made a considerate effort\nthree times to update that thing, and I never\ngot up with it any one of those times .\nWe had three positions on our flight plan strip.\nWe had launch,the first five minutes-- ·t'he next\ntime I tried to get it was 23 hours. The next" }, { "n": 111, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p111.jpg", "text": "105\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nposition was 88.\n:Ha, ha'\nAnd neither time did I catch up really where we\nwere.\nI turned and turned and turned and then\ngot distracted into something else.\nQuite frankly, the only things I, ever saw in that\nflight plan roller were the 23- hour and the 88­\nhour times and I never even read what it said.\nI didn't quite agree with-­\n84 it was, I'm sorry. It wasn ' t 88, it was 84.\nAnd Ed wrote something on here. He wrote my\nparachute-deploy time.\nI wrote your times during l'.eentry on there.\nIt would have been much more useful if there\nhadn ' t been anything on it at all.\nYes , we put a few times up there-­\nI couldn't read those things, which were the only\nnumbers that I really was interested in at all .\n40CK\n2+ 38 • Ghute 12+ 33 . The only two that I\nthought you really needed were those two.\nI put\nthem on there. I diat t thoroughly believe Gus\nwhen he said you ought to take the thing out,\nthrow it away, and leave a hole in the instrument\npanel .\nBut I 'm inclined to agree with him r ight" }, { "n": 112, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p112.jpg", "text": "106\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nNow.\nYou ought to take it out, throw it away,\nand leave a hole in the instrument panel.\nBut\nhonestly, what I do think ought to go up t here ,\nis a good digital clock readout .\nI don ' t think an analog clock in that position\nwould do you any good though.\nThey both have a high degree of parallax.\nYes, the parallax would make it usel ess .\nI think\nif it goes in there it ought to be digital .\nYes, a one- second clock.\nI 'm not really sure that we're going to get a\ndigital clock in because of the complexity and\nthe weight and all that jazz.\nLet ' s talk about the clocks right now, Jim.\nOkay, let ' s talk about the clocks .\nI 'll hit mine and then you hit yours and then\nthere should be a conclusion that we could come\nto .\nVery good.\nI think the clock on my side is unsatisfactory.\nI wouldn ' t recommend flying it on another flight .\nIt's difficult to read. There are two hands\ngoing aroun~ keeping track of minute~ and some-\nt ~\nou read the wro~ minute hand. The one\nQ ~,FtDEf>ffl~~­" }, { "n": 113, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p113.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n107\nthat ' s keeping your hack-¼t's easy to mistake for\nyour minute hand.\nThe way the face is marked it ' s\ndifficult to read the minutes out .\nThe hours\ninterfere with each other. The whole readability\nof the clock is unsatisfactory and the readability\nof the hands is unsatisfactory.\nSQ I think the\nclock is out in all counts as far as I ' m concerned.\nI kept watching Jim's clock over there and I think\nI could get a better Greenwich Mean Time off of\nhis clock than I could on mine on my side of the\ninstrument panel.\nHey, let me comment on mine.\nI thought the reada­\nbility of t hat Accutron 24-hour clock was excellent.\nThe accuracy of it was lousy. It lost four or\nor f ive seconds every day or more.\nI reset it\nabout every 24 hours.\nMy Omega wrist watch that\nI had set on GMT never lost a second, except I\nforgot to wind it one day, and it ran down. It\nstopped.\nHa, ha!\nI was guilty of the same thing.\nBut the Accutron clock on my side of the instru­\nment panel, that they put on as sort of an\nafterthought, was indeed a fine clock as far as" }, { "n": 114, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p114.jpg", "text": "108\n~ee, ◄ rrAL\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nreadability. It didn ' t have any chronometer func­\ntion to it at all . It had strictly a second,\nminute , and hour hand on it. It told you GMI'\nand it didn't tell you anything else. It told\nyou GMI' in a way you could read it .\nYou could\nread out the minutes, you could read out the hours,\nand you could read out the seconds.\nI really\ndidn't have any trouble with it at all. It had\na nice thin second hand which I find to ~e much\nmore useful than those great big blunt t hings\nwith huge arrows on the end of them. I hate to\nlose the chronometer feature on that right-hand\nside, but I do think that the readability of\nthis thing,as far as the GMI' is concerned, is so\nmuch superior to that other clock that it isn' t\neven comparable.\nI'm not sure that the chronometer function on\nthat side is really too important .\n• Don' t you?\nNo, I would be perfectly happy to go ahead and\ntake that ,out and put a good clock on there in\nGreenwi ch Mean Time.\nNow I 've got some further\ncomments on-­" }, { "n": 115, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p115.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\n109\nCOf\\J FIDEf\\lTlAL\nI guess what you end up with is two clocks that\naren ' t any good. Either one of them aren ' t any\ngood.\nYou ' d rather end up with one clock that\nwas good.\nYes , the way it ' s combined together right now ,\nit ' s really not too good.\nI hacked your OAMS\nburn on my watch.\nI work with two clocks on my\nleft arm and it worked out r eal well for me.\nI\nhad elapsed time on one and I had Greenwich Mean\nTime on the other.\nI used the elapsed timer as\nthe one on which I made my hacks .\nSo I feel we\ngot adequate backup. If one poops out , you can\nuse the other one to make your time on.\nSo, I\nthink we should have a good clock to keep track\nof the time in the spacecraft on the instrument\npanel .\nNow ,\nI'd like to get back on the clocks\nagain.\nI think that elapsed time is the only kind\nof time that we ought to have in the spacecraft .\nI think that we ought to have a good method of\nkeeping track of elapsed time.\nI think probably a\nten-hour clock that keeps track of each ten-hour\nincement that you pasa to a high degree of accu­\nracy, is the kind of clock that we need.\nI don't" }, { "n": 116, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p116.jpg", "text": "110\n0Gb liUailJJlAL\nMcDivitt\nknow what we're going to do about wrist watches.\nMaybe they'll design us a ten-hour wrist watch\nthat we can wear.\nI don't see any reason why\nthey can't .\nThey can design twelve-hour ones just\nas easily.\nWe're going to go to this in Apollo.\nWe should face up to it and go ahead and spend the\nmoney to get ourselves a proper t iming piece of\nequipment and get our ranges and stuff operating\non elapsed time. In long flights this is the kind\nof thing that ' s going to be of interest . It was\nconfusing to me, to tell you the truth , to operate\non Greenwich Mean Time and elapsed time through-­\nout the flight. I was constantly adding and sub­\ntracting.\nThey'd call us up Greenwich Mean Times\nand I'd want to convert them to what I was using\non my flight plan. I found this a gr eat incon­\nvenience.\nI concur with what Ed said.\nI ran the whole\nflight plan using elapsed time except for the\ntimes where they called a specific GMT time to\nperform a function .\nI did it off of a twelve-hour\nface wrist watch.\nI added up all my twelve-hour\nincements and came to whatever I wanted. If I" }, { "n": 117, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p117.jpg", "text": "111\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nhad something like 83 hours and 15 minutes , I\nhad to figure out that that was six times around\nthe clock and another 11 hours and another 15\nminutes .\nObviously,not the best way in the world\nto do it , but the only way that was practical from\nthe standpoint of the flight plan.\nWell, to tell you the truth, Jim, I feel strong\nenough about that\nelapsed time that I would be\nhappy to go with that type of a system of timing,\nand just go ahead on elapsed t i me all the way and\nuse twelve-hour incements.\nThey would call up\nyour time and elapsed time and use your own clock\nto keep track of it .\nI felt it was simple enough\nalso to do it in this manner.\nBut I feel that\nthis is ini'erior to having a good elapsed timer\nand ten-hour digital incements.\nI tell you I hate to see us get involved in some!..\nthing where you've gpt a clock thats so difficult\nto read,where you've got to add up twelves and-­\nNow you're on the other side of the fence now!\nNo, I think that we ought to do things like retro­\nfire time a.~d that' sort of\nthing\nin a\nstandard time that you can use-:.. something like GMT." }, { "n": 118, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p118.jpg", "text": "112\ng?t 1~18 Et fFt,-,L\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivi tt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhi te\nMcDivitt\nWell, you really need-\n-elapsed\ntime. If we had elapsed time-­\nIf we had a good elapsed timer onboard the space­\ncraft, I would say that there ' s no doubt about it .\nElapsed time.\nI think we ought to start working on it right\nnow .\nElapsed time is the way we should go .\nI don ' t\nt hink that with the timing systems we 've got\navailable for the Gemini that we want to go to\nelapsed time for the whole mission .\nTrying to get our data back from this f l ight is\ngoing to be a horrible mess because of those two\ntiming systems .\nI know it .\nI agree. Before we lai.mched, we knew\nthat we wanted to run it in elapsed time, and\nthere wasn ' t any doub't about it .\nI think maybe if we make the point strong enough\nmaybe they ' l l get busy on it .\nYou ' re right. l,,J,e'll get going on it .\nOkay, why don ' t you take the checklist cards , Jim?\nThe checklist cards .\nWe had two complete sets of\ncar ds that were broken up into two groups .\nWe\nQt@ tffl4f11D8JWA L" }, { "n": 119, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p119.jpg", "text": "113\nC9fde II and M)de III\naborts, EVA, the suit check and all the things\nthat we were going to use in the first five orbits\nof the flight on one set of cards.\nWe had another\nset of cards from Pre-Retro Checklist down to the\npost landing and emergency egress .\nThe cards\nincluded all the plots that were needed to do all\nthe retrofire and to make corrections to take\ncare of all the non-nominal things that might\nhappen to us during the retrofire.\nWe also had\nin this group of cards a card that we used to con­\ntain the final retro information such as with\nOAMS or without OAMS\nburns , time to reverse bank,\nand all the other things that we had. It was a\nformat , something that cou1d be easily held in\nour hands and was actually used during the launch,\nduring insertion, and during reentry.\nWe actually\nhad these cards out so we could check them off.\nWhite\nI thought the only thing we would have out during\nthese t wo critical busy periods of time were these\ntwo easy- to-hold, easy-to-operate, hand-held card\nchecklists. The rest of the stuff was all stowed\naway.\nc:@ ► H•I1.>6hlil4'.L" }, { "n": 120, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p120.jpg", "text": "114\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWe got every checklist that was required to make\nthe spacecraft run on these two sets of cards,\nwhich together were about 3/4 of an i nch thick.\nI feel that we had a real workabl e solution to\nthe problem.\nThese things were the same size as\nthose carried on GT- 3.\nThey were much more ex­\npanded than what GT- 3 •had.\nWe had the whole\nhow-to-operate the spacecraft routine on these\ncards.\nThe preparation and availability of them-- is\nthis from a training standpoint .\nThat i s later\nin the brief.\nWell , anyway, we actually received our cards at\nabout 8:00 the night before the launch.\nThat ' s the thing that I was hollering about the\nloudest not to have happen and it happened.\nunderstand why it happened, but-­\nWe had so many changes in the flight plan and\nnobody was working on turning this stuff out .\nOur time was so filled with over-all t raining\nand the change in flight plan that we just didn ' t\nhave time to go--, We did not have time to go\nthrough the checklist over and over.\nWhen we did\n00-lstEtDEtJIJAL\nI" }, { "n": 121, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p121.jpg", "text": "115\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\ngo through them it took too long to get the\nthing back to us .\nDick Benson came down to the\nCape and did an absolute marvelous job, I think,\nin getting these things turned out .\nI think he did, too .\nI think we all owe him a\nreal vote of confidence.\nThat's right.\nHe did an outstanding job.\nI think the biggest confidence builder that you\nhad, Jim, was when we started getting.these books .\nThat ' s right. Shoot, I was worried about us get­\nting ready for the flight because I didn ' t think\nwe would be able to get all this stuff together.\n'Finally he showed up and really went through it9\nbut it doesn ' t change the fact that these check­\nlist cards and data books didn ' t arrive until\n8: 00 the night before the flight .\nWe had a few\nchanges that had to be made.\nI guess I went to\nbed about 9: 30.\nDick Benson and Martin Miller\nwere still in our conference room making changes\nto our books.\nSo a lot of t hese things we didn ' t\nsee until we flipped them out in flight .\nI think\nour data books, as we had them laid out, couldn' t\nhave been better. Well, I shouldn't say that;" }, { "n": 122, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p122.jpg", "text": "116\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthere is always room for improvement .\nYes, I think we could organize them a little\nbetter for utility and use .\nWe had so many\nchanges in so, .. many\nthings that\ngot put in at the end. It got so that they were\nput in in a bit of a helter-skelter manner, but\ncertainly they were easy to find .\nWell, I don ' t know.\nI was really q_uite pleased\nwith the outcome.\nI think that the general ar­\nrangement of one data book and two-- .whabever we\nought to call those other books-­\nWhat did we call those other books?\nTwo Experiments and Spacecraft Procedures and\nFlight Plan - 3ouks-­\nTwo procedures and one data.\nYes , two procedures books and one data book.\nOne\nthing I would have changed -- I would have expanded\nthe flight plan and made maybe two or three times\nas many pages as we did.\nWe could have written al l\nthe notes right in it and had enough room to make\nit intelligible. Because it turns out , tha:t!s\nwhere we really kept all of our notes .\nYes .\nRight on the flight plan.\n• 8t-tftfl~E ►•ffi l-A L♦" }, { "n": 123, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p123.jpg", "text": "117\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivit t\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nAbout the way they had it initially was pretty\ngood.\nMaybe that ' s a little more than we need,\nbut-­\nNo, I don't think it is, Ed.\nI think that is the\nway it should be.\nThis is a whole hour on one page.\nReally?\nYes .\nSo later on, you see, they went from one\nhour dovm to six hours on a page.\nMaybe if they\ncut that in half and made two or three hours on\na page--this is probably about the-­\nTwo hours on a page for our flight would have\nmade 50 single sheets or 25 double pages.\nThat\nwould not have been bad.\nThat probably would have been just about the ·\nright length.\nWe'd have gotten a lot more out of our notes, I\nthink, because we found ourselves scribbling in\nplaces where it was pretty hard to determine\nwhere you were.\nThe requirement to mak~ ·changes i-n the bo0k after\nthe flight goes· on is ab5o;tut-ely nil .\nSo, I thi nk" }, { "n": 124, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p124.jpg", "text": "118\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthat rings should be replaced with something that\ndoesn't come undone .\nMy rings came undone sev­\neral times during the flight and luckily only\none at a time came undone. It would have been\na real mess if a:ny of these books would have come\napar~ because it would have destroyed numerical\nsequence.\nSo, I think something other than rings\nought to be used . .\nI tell you one thing I found.- -that size boo.k and\nthat concept that we had, I think, was really good.\nThat was just the right size.\nIt ' s just the right size. Their sheets are big\nenough where you can write a.lot on them.\nThey' re easy to handle.\nThey' re small enough so they ' re easy to handle .\nThey' re easy to stow.\nThey fit into the flight\nsuit. When we launched, I had both flight sets\nof data cards in my right lower pocket and the big\ndata book and my procedures book in my left-hand\nlower pocket. I had all the checklists right on\nmy spacesuit..\nI had one procedure book and both my cards.\nAnd both your cards .\nSo that between. the two of\n~PIDE~4TIA1" }, { "n": 125, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p125.jpg", "text": "119\nWhit e\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nus we had all the data books right on the flight\nsui~ which was just right where we wanted them.\nAnother thing we did- -we hand carried this equip­\nment down to the spacecraft to be sure it was\nthere on l aunch.\nThe maps , overlays, and star charts we should\nlump all together along with all the other junk\nthat we carried in the data case.\nLet's start with the star charts. That's easy.\nI thought the star chart was satisfactory. I\nthink you used the one with less stars on it\nthan I had.\nYes .\nI used my own one that J fly with all the time\nand I was quite happy with it .\nI think t l.is is\nexactly what you need and I don't believe you\nneed to overla~ two times around, but that wasn't\nfor the chart .\nYes, and really the flight chart, the one that\nwas actually designed for the spacecraft, was de­\nsigned ,30 that this swiveling out the window dis­\nplay fit on it . It was a certain size to take care\nof that and had a lot of dead space out on the" }, { "n": 126, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p126.jpg", "text": "120\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nC~'4fFIDE~~TIAl\nedges .\nI would have rather seen the stars ex­\npanded more so that we could tell it. We used two\npolar plots of stars that were put out for the\nApollo thing that we picked up on our training.\nWe actually f l ew with one of the training things.\nI took one out of my brief case.\nThose weren't put out by Apollo. Those were put\nout at Ollvie cam1;!ra., and the fixed 200 m:n l ens on\nthe Contarex.\nWe sta=t;;d o,1t with a time of\nclosest approach and a time we should have been\nable to see the target.\nThe only kind of\nidentification assist that we had at this time\nwas a piece cut out of a WAC Chart , that showed\nEl Paso International~and the world chart with\na gigantic scale on it . This made it a little\nbit difficult from an acquisition standpoi~t .\ncet•Fto[ ► 4TIA.L­" }, { "n": 155, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p155.jpg", "text": "149\nBut later on we f ound that these same two types\nof information- -the world map and the small WAC\nChar t --were a.dequo.t e for other types of targets.\nThe WAC Chart showed of course the range of\nmountains just west of El Paso and the White\nSands and the Rio Grande River .\nWe came across\nSouthern California, and I could see the Salton\nSea.\nI didn ' t track them, but I looked out the\nfront and I could see the mountains of New\nMexico and Arizona.\n.And I saw a bunch of white\nplaces down below us , any o~e of which co~ld iave\nbeen the White Sands .\nI f I could have really\npicked out the White Sands by themselves. and\nunf ortunately they were off the WAC Chart ·\nthat I had, I think the contact would have\nbeen good enough for me too pick up El Paso.\nAs\nit was, the only features I had that would have\nbeen of great importance were the river, which\nwas the Rio Grande River-:--'3.rld at that point was\nnot very noteworthy--and the mountain range , ._\nwhich from the al titude of arou..~d 90 miles or\nmore couldn' t be picked up.\nI think that this\ntype of a topographical or geographical feature ,\nlike a valley or a mountain,,is not adequate" }, { "n": 156, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p156.jpg", "text": "150\nEi0HFIBE~TIAL\nfor this kind of task.\nYou need a contrast in\ncolor as you get from the White Sands to the\nsurrounding d,9sert.\nThe best of all is a water­\nland interface or border.\nAs we came across\nthe United States, I think we picked up El Paso\njust as we were over i t , but we weren ' t pointed\ndown at the town.\nWe were still pointed well\nout in advance.\nThe only clue that we were\nover El Paso was that I could see the Gulf\nCoast.\nI knew that when I saw the Gulf Coast\nwe were probably too far al ong to pick up El\nPaso.\nRather than just scrub the run , we went\nahead and made a run on a pair of sand spits\nwith a channel between them in the vicinity of\nCorpus Christi.\nWe picked up a target well in\nadvance, and as I started tr-JLag t o line up on\nthe target , I found out that the gunsight had a\nlight intensity and the gunsight was inadequate\nfor a daytime tracking task; because as you\npointed the sight down and had a background of\nclouds , you just absolutely could not see the\nsight .\nI didn ' t have any idea in thA world where\nit was p,-,i.nting.\nWhen you put it on the dark\nland, it seemed to be adequate, but I think we\n.......,'" }, { "n": 157, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p157.jpg", "text": "149\nBut later on we found that these same two types\nof information- -the world map and the small WAC\nChart--were adeque:r.e for other types of targets .\nThe WAC Chart showed of course the range of\nmountains just west of El Paso and the White\nSands and the Rio Grande River.\nWe came across\nSouthern California, and I could see the Salton\nSea.\nI didn ' t track them, but I looked out the\nfront and I could see the mountains of New\nMexico and Arizona.\n.And I saw a bunch of white\nplaces down below us, any one of which co~ld ~ave\nbeen the White Sands.\nIf I could have really\npicked out the White Sands by themselves, and\nunfortunately they were o!'f the WAC Chart •\nthat I had, I think the contact would have\nbeen good enough for me too pick up El Paso.\nAs\nit was, the only features I had that would have\nbeen of great importance were the river, w'nich\nwas the Rio Grande River-:-9lld at that point was\nnot very noteworthy-- and the mountain range , \\\nwhich from the altitude of arou..~d 90 miles or\nmore couldn' t be picked up.\nI think that this\ntype of a topographical or geographical feature ,\nlike a valley or a mountain,,is not adequate" }, { "n": 158, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p158.jpg", "text": "150\nfor this kind of task.\nYou need a contrast in\ncolor as you get from the White Sands to the\nsurrounding d~sert .\nThe best of all is a water­\nland interface or border.\nAs we came across\nthe United States, I think we picked up El Paso\njust as we were over i.t , but we weren't pointed\ndown at the town.\nWe were still pointed well\nout in advance .\nThe only clue that we were\no·,er El Paso was that I could see the Gulf\nCoast.\nI lmew that when I saw the Gulf Coast\nwe were probably too far along to pick up El\nPaso.\nRather than just scrub the run, we went\nahead :::ind made a run on a pair of sand spits\nwith a channel between them in the vicinity of\nCorpus Christi.\nWe picked up a target well in\nadvance, and as I started t:q.L:lg to line up on\nthe target, I found out that the g-~nsight had a\nlight intensity and the gunsight was inadequate\nfor a daytime tracking task; because as you\npointed the sight down and h9.d a backgroan.d of\nclouds, you just absolutely could not see the\nsight .\nI didn ' t have any i dea in the world where\nit was p,-·i.nting,\nWhen you put it on the dark\nland, it seemed to be adequate, but I think we\n@8t Wt0et.s1I.IAJ:" }, { "n": 159, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p159.jpg", "text": "151\nI\ncan increase the intensity of the gunsight by\nq·..1ite a bit .\nDuring the night time you can turn\nit down and t he brightness is just abo-1t what\nyou need.\nWe made this ru~ on this pair of\nsand spits, and t he t racking t ask was q,.j t,~\neasy.\nNow, I just happened to pick something\nthat was obvious t o me and tracked on this and\npicked it up ;\"11ile we got on at abo~lt 30 degrees,\nu.nt il I got to the vertical,. and then I tcacked\nit out to about 45 degrees past the vectical.\nThis was-a' t a real tracking task, in that I\ndidn ' t select a target before I got there .\nBut,\njust stuck with whatever target I happened t o\nbe pointing at and ran the tracking task.\nI\nthink we learned something from this pass in\nthat we want to be very careful about picking out\ntargets in the middle of an area where there\naren ' t any good water- lmd borders; there aren' t\nany good contrasting colors.\nThere wasn ' t a\nreally prominent feature that I could start\nfrom, that worked down to the city and eventually\nto the airport .\nSo, I think that on this parti­\ncular pass, although we didn ' t get any pictures\nof our intended ta~get , we learned quite a bit\nCC!t'(f.fii&E ►4\"E h,e" }, { "n": 160, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p160.jpg", "text": "152\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nfrom it.\nI don't believe I ha.ire any other\ncomment on that pass.\nDo yoa?\nNo.\nI was quite surprised when we missed El\nPaso.\nRemember we thoaght , \"Boy, this is one\nwe I re g01ng\n•\nt o nai·1 . fl\nAnrl the funny part of all this is that we had\nboth flown in a~d out of El Paso International\nAirport no less than a hundred times.\nWe w,~re\npretty well assured of where we ware going and\nwhat it looked like.\nBut we didn ' t find it\nearly eno-:.1gh .\nWe progressed too far before I\nr eall y saw the toi,m , s.nd Ewen then I didn ' t\nsee the airfield, because I wasn ' t sure I was\nover the right tovn U!1.til I was over it .\nAnd\nthen ,it was too late to lo:->k q,t the airfield.\nI think that the point that you' re making is\ngoing to be well brought up in what I'm going\nto say next.\nOkay.\nWhy don ' t yo'.1 - - you made the next pass,\nI think, on Tel-Aviv.\nThe next pass was Run No. 6, Target 15.\nThe\ninformation I got was adequate to lJcate i t.\nIt turned out that this target had the essentials\nthat Ji;n was l ooking for and mentioned on his last" }, { "n": 161, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p161.jpg", "text": "pass I had a nice body of water.\nTh8 Dead Sea\nwas a good l~cation, and actually the city\nitself was located at the end of the\nMediterranean, so I felt that landmark-wise I had\na pretty good tar get to track.\nI came in and\nthe first target I picked up was Jaffa, and I\nwas on it so well t hat I decided to go ahen.d and\ntrack Jaffa.\nAt f irst I had thought it was Tel-\nAviv, and 1.1. few seconds later I relized tha-'; it\nwa.s the city 10 o:r. 20 mileo north of 'l'el- Aviv.\nThe reaso:i. I picked it up so easily is because\nthere was a little spi ~ of l i:i.nd t~1at jutted out\ninto the water and it sat right in this little\nnatural basin.\nI looked down and I saw Jaffa\nand I a0tually saw the 1ittl,~ round cir,:ul :1.r•\nairport in Jaffa,\nI also saw Tel- Aviv, and I\nsaw the airport that I was really looking for,\nbut I decided I 'd go aheaci. and track Jaff a and\ntak~ a few pictures of Jaffa as we went over.\nYou ha1re to reali ze that I wasn ' t using a\ngunsight on my side, and I was also cont~olling\nthe sp(v:..,,-~raft and firing the camera at the same\ntime• So the tracking i.:;; probably a little\nrougher than it would. be from the left-h,md side .\nenIW't0f·MT1~~" }, { "n": 162, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p162.jpg", "text": "154\nBut I did get a good indication of the cap9.bili.ty\nto tt'ack a target anci to pick a target up , and\nI think tha~ I was quite surprised 4t the ease\nat which you could track.\nI also concurt'ed with\nJi:n\n1 s conclusion that a goo,l prominent landmar.k\nprimer, preferabl;f a body of W9.ter somewhere to\nnail do·,m your target, is the most desirablA\nf eature.\nI also feel that an important thing\nthat the next crew going up could do would be\nto spend a lot of t.ime on jnst pla.Ln map study\nfr the 30 degrees north to 30 degrees sou.th,\nand try to p·L•::k up the prominent f ,~:1t:.2res to\npermit them to become quickly adjusted to what\nthey can see and what they can\nI t see d·own\nbelow.\nI think that a 1-i.;;tle concentrated map\nstudy prior to the flight woulci help a lot with\nthe D- 6.\nAlso a concentrated study on the\ntargets themselves wo·..lld be quite beneficial.\nThis is s~rmething that we really never got to\ndo.\nThe original 243 ~argets were too voluminous\neven to ~onsider time to atudy each one, and\nwhen we got the final 19 targets, it was pretty\nlate in the flight to be working on ::xi\nexp-::riment that wasn ' t even on our flight.\nEven\nC1\"Jt~FIDEl>~ TIA1~" }, { "n": 163, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p163.jpg", "text": "155\nMcDi·.rit t\nwith the limited knowledge t~at we had of the\ntarg0·I; ·.3 I felt that acquisiti.on and tracking of\nthe targf,b'1 w·,::J a lot ,,>::i,:,:j_.~r than I had tho-.i.ght\nit was going to be .\nI guess thats\nI\nall.\nThe next target that we had was Ywna Tnternatinna1\nAirpo:d .\nHere again we had a tar.get that ·,1::i.::;\nnot a very prol'.linent lal'ld.nri.rk .\nThe time of\nclosest apprJach and acquisitio·:1 time and the\naiming 1.1ngles were adequate .\nIt gave m,1 a good\nidea of what I should be looking f,:n- a,..'1d 1,hen I\nshould be looking.\nI used the same maps again;\nI used the cutout of a WAC Chart plus a great\nbig world c~'lart .\n'I1here was qui t0 a\ndiscontinuity in the s0ul ~ of these two maps ,\nbut I\nI m not really sure that we co·..1ldn\nI t have\ndone t:'le job wlth just those two .\nI think tnat\nwhat we probably needed was a world map that\nshowed a little more detail and a WAC Chart\nthat showed a little bit more area.\nWhat we\nprob 01bly coul::l. ha\"e used most of all was a\nphot,:>grap1', rif ~~'le ar =1a .\nAs I came in across\nthe Califoraia coast. I )icked np the Salton\nSea and El Centro , just below the Sal ton Sea,\nand then I mew that, Yuma was on the Colorado\n(!l@)NflDEl'JTLll" }, { "n": 164, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p164.jpg", "text": "156\nRiver, which should ::>e a few miles to the east\nof the Salton Sea.\nThere was a nice big bend\nin the ColoraJr> River .\nUnfortunately, the\nColorado , although it is a reasonably good\nsized body of water- ..i'€ just plain do(-)Sn ' t\nshow up that w-all.\nIt was a little difficult\nto see , but I finallJ pi~ked it up .\nI saw\nthe bend in the river.\nThe river doesn ' t\nactually go through the town of YumA., so I\nstarted looking for Yuma, and I d:id w:1nder\naro~d a little bit before I finallJ found the\ntown.\nThen\nI\nwas unable to find the airfield\nwithin the tow~1.\nWhen I was just a::>out d.'..::ectly\nover the a.i.rfi8ld , I picked it up.\nHere is\nwhere I think the photog::-aph wo~;ld have been a\nlot of help, because the mH.p t.h:it I had just\nshowed a yellow bl,)b indicating the city with\na circle to indic~.te where the airfield ws.13 .\nIt sho,1ed the airfield to be to the s,>t! ~h :Jf\nthe town.\nWhat I was looking at was a 1 ,rge\ngroup of buildings , the to,..,.,, :_i.;self.\nThen\nas I went to the south , I saw even more\nbuildings and I wasn ' t sure whether the airfield\nwas south of tha: built-up area.\nAs it turned\narco~~FIDE~TIAt" }, { "n": 165, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p165.jpg", "text": "157\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nout, it was south of the main built-up area that\nactuall y had another large group of buil dings\nsouth of it.\nI did pick up the airport itself\nat just about 5 degrees before the nadir, and I\ntracked over to the target, probably just at the\nnadir and just shortly past.\nI had the 16 mm\nmovie camera going with the telescopic lens on\nit.\nI had t he gunsight on bright.\nI used\nPul se Control Mode .\nI got right on the target\nand I managed to fly the spacecraft in such a\nmanner that the gunsight never deviated from the\ntarget by more than a half a degree , I feel,\nif it deviated that much.\nI think it was\nconsiderably less than that.\nBut there wasn ' t\nany great difficulty in the tracking task, and\nI managed to control in all three axes and hold\nthe target just about wher e I wanted it.\nHere\nagain we had a problem with the contrasting\ntarget; the water-land mass was quite some\ndistance away.\nIn this case, how f ar is it from\nEl Centro to Yuma?\nI don\nI t know, Jim.\n150 miles?\nYes." }, { "n": 166, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p166.jpg", "text": "158\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nIt was a reasonable distance, probably something\non the order of 150 miles or m~be only 100\nmiles, but the problem was that between Yuma\nand El Centro there weren ' t any identifing\nmasses that led you toward Yuma.\nAnd I had not\nup till this time looked down to try to find\nwhere the Yuma airport was,because we ' d been\nsaving fuel .\nSo, this was the first time that\nI'd seen Yuma airfield from orbit .\nAs I get\ninto the next target, I think you'll see what\nI'm leading up to.\nHaving a first look at a\ntarget like this, being able to identify the\ncity, but then essentially wasting time before\nI found the airfield within the city, I think,\ncost some valauable time and consequently cost\nsome good pictures; because the best picture\nis going to be that picture which is taken\nexactly over the airfield.\nThat wouldn ' t happen again though, would it?\nNo ,\nYou 'd probably have it pretty wel l nailed.\nNo, it wouldn ' t .\nSo ,the next target I had was\nCairo -- Cairo Int ernational Airport .\nNow,\nwe'd been over Cairo quite a few times before\n(MJ(1tf'F10'8'1Tli\\l" }, { "n": 167, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p167.jpg", "text": "this, and I had l ooked down to find Cairo.\nI\nthink we had had an Apollo Landmark or D- 6\ntype of thing,where we were supposed to\nloolc down and just acquire the target, but not\nactually track it or take any pictures.\nWhen\nwe did come by, we could actually look down and\nfind the city of Cairo the first time we came\nby.\nLater I found the Cairo Airfiel d, and Ed\nand I were discussing Cairo Airfield and\nAlexandria Airfield.\nWe both had one in sight.\nWhen I picked up the Cairo Airfield(I was told\nto pick up the Cairo Airfield),it had all the\ningredients that I think is necessary.\nI had\nseen it beforE . I knew where it was with respect\nto the local landmark.\nThe local l andmarks\nwere the Mediterranean on one side , the Red\nSea on the other side, the Suez Canal connecting\nthese two l arge bodies of water, and a river\nleading f rom near the Suez Canal over toward\nthe city and the airfiel d.\nThen. knowing the\nposition of the airfield with respect to these\nlandmarks ,since I\n1d al ready seen it , I came in\nover North Af rica along the Mediterranean Coast\nwith no pl atf orm on, just in Pulse Mode, no" }, { "n": 168, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p168.jpg", "text": "160\nattitude reference, found the Mediterranean on\nmy left , pointed the spacecraft on ahead ,\ndetermined the direction I was going, picked\nup the Red Sea, picked up the Suez Canal between\nthe Red Sea and the Mediterranean, and followed\nthe river in.\nI started this quite a distance\nout .\nI knew just about where the airfield was ,\nbut it wasn't coming into view. Finally,at about\n20 degrees before the vertical the airfield\nfinally came into view.\nI tracked on the\nairfield about 10 degrees before the nadir.\nI\nwas tracking the area in which I believed the\nairfield to be ,so that I had already had the\npitch rate set up that I required of my\nspacecraft .\nAs I got on the target I still had to\ntrack in multiple axes , but I already had t he\nrates built up, and I tracked f rom about 10 to\n20 degrees before the nadir to 45 degrees past.\nI think this will probably be the best tracking\nexper i ment that I did. Later on, I had another\none.\nLater on I had another tracking task\nagainst Basra in Iraw on the Persi an Gulf. Here\nagain,we had the ingredients that were\nnecessary to pick up the target.\nWe had a l arge\neel fF\n1tBE~~TIAL" }, { "n": 169, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p169.jpg", "text": "161\nCf3JS(FIOE~J\nbody of water , a river leading up to a lake, and\nthen the airfield sticking out in a very\nprominent way.\nNow I ' d never seen the Basra\nAirfield before ·I\nt r ied to take thi s picture.\nBut the landmarks near it were sufficient so\nthat finding the locati on of it was not difficult.\nThere wer en' t any towns around .\nIt was pretty\nobvious from the bodies of water where I should\nlook for the airfield~and I picked it up also\n20 degrees before I got to the nadir and\nwas\non it by the time I got to the nadir.\nI tracked\nit from there out to about 45 degrees past.\nOnce again I had a reasonably good t r acking\ntask.\nI t hink that on the tracking tasks on\nYuma, Cairo, and Basra, I managed to keep the target\nwithin the center half-degree cirle of the\nsight.\nI used the 16 mm movie camera with the\n75 mm telephoto l ens on each one of these cases.\nDid you have any other targets, Ed?\nWhite\nNo.\nMcDivitt\nI don' t believe you di d.\nI think the big\nthing here is that you ' ve got to be able to have\na landmark that stands out long before you get\nto the target .\nYou have to have a lot of contrast ." }, { "n": 170, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p170.jpg", "text": "162\nWhite\nMcDivi t t\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nOr some real technique or type of familiarity\nwith the target.\nI think if you were really\nfamiliar with the area you might pick up\nthings that we don't pick up now, but we could\nwith a little more map study and study over\nabove.\nThat 's right.\nI think t hat the first thing,\nthough , that you need to help you find the\ntarget is a really contrasting thing.\nNow the\nnext thing is that you've got to be familiar\nwith the target, as Ed said.\nNow if you have\nnever been there on t he ground and don't know\nwhat it looks like from there, I think what\nyou need are a few passes over the target to\nstudy it from the air, and look for it from the\nair,and try to pinpoint in your mind the local\nterrai n features and local contrasting features\nthat will help lead you to the airfield.\nBecause, it looks to me like it ' s easiest to find\na target when you're exactly over it .\nBoy, you ' re right .\nThere ' s a point when you\npass over the top where everything really is\nclear.\nThe big thing is either a lot of target study on" }, { "n": 171, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p171.jpg", "text": "COt~F~DE~fflAl_\nthe ground or a previous pass across the target\nso that when you go across it, you not only lmow\nthe general area thRt you're supposed to point into,\nbut the exact spot where that target is and\nsome identifying f eatures that will lead you\nto this target.\nSo with the initial things\nlike a lot of contrast to get you in the area\nand then a lot of detail gathered either from\ntarget study or from a previous pass across the\ntarget,I think that you could go ahead and\nfind it .\nOnce on the target the tracking\ntask in the Pulse Mode is not difficult at all.\nI think you can track within just tenths of\ndegrees of the target without too much difficulty\nwhatsoever, in multiple axes .\nAnd I found that\nwithout having the platform up\nevery.,\ntracking task I did was in multiple axes, and\nalthough you're going through some very\npeculiar maneuvers, it ' s very instinctive to\ntrack up and down, left and right, using the\ngunsight,without any regard to what your attitude\nwith respect to the local horizontal is. In\nair- to-ground gunnery you sometimes find that\nyou ' ve got to pick your attitudes up from the\n-CO~~FIDf~~" }, { "n": 172, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p172.jpg", "text": "~DEt~TIAL ~\nground.\nThey sort of tend to be a constraint\non what you can do, but that ' s not the case in\nthis kind of a task.\nWhite\nThe t hiug that really amazed me, Jim>is the\nfirst time I saw an airfield from up there.\nFirst time I saw one, I saw it directly from\noverhead.\nI was amazed at the clarity I could\nsee\nof f ield.\nAlthough,of course,I saw no\nairplanes sitting on it , I fel t t hat I was\nseeing down to a resolution of 50 f eet or\nbetter with my own eye when there was a contrast\nof some type available to me.\nIn general, I\nthought the clarity of things that you saw\nwas far better than it is from just flying at\n40 000 feet.\nThings are mu9h smaller . bu+ they\n·a.re much clearer to me .\nAlso,,at night things\nare much clearer. And over one town we passed\nin Australia the lights were very, very clear\ndown there to me .\nI think that with some type\nof an optical aid\nwe\ncan\nsee a great deal.\nI think that with cameras with higher power and\nmore capability,we can take pictures of a lot\nmore down below.\nI think t hat the only picture\nI\n1 ve seen so far that I thought would be nice" }, { "n": 173, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p173.jpg", "text": "165\nfrom a tourist standpoint is the one I took of\nthe Cape , which everybody seems so excited about\nright now.\nThat ' s one that was taken with the\nsun on the window and at roughly a 30-degree\nangl·e down from the horizontal , which indicates\nyou're shooting through a lot more atmosphere\nthan necessary.\nThe clarity was quite surprising,\neven to me .\nYou can count t he launch pads and\nsee sizes of buil dings .\nBecause of the oblique\nangle , you can actually measure the sizes of these\nbui ldings .\nI think we ' ve got a tremendous amount\nof photographic potential from in space.\nI think\nthat Jim and I menti oned a little bit earler that\nt he area capacity inside the spacecraft limits the\ncapability to carry a good size telescope or a\nvery big piece of camera equipment.\nI think that\ncoupled with t he EVA capabilit y t hat we have , we\ncan carry some equipment back in the adapter- -some\nnice sizable cameras and telescopes--and build\nmounts on the outside of the spacecraft .\nWe can\ngo EVA , pick these pieces of equipment up , bring\nt hem out, and mount them on the sides of the\nspacecraft so that we can take a series of" }, { "n": 174, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p174.jpg", "text": "166\nMcDivitt\npictures and use really good, big, higher-powered\ntelescopes for observations.\nIf we do mount them\nout there , of course, we should mount themsomewhere\nso that if we had a failure of some kind and\nhad to come right in, or weren't able to open\nup the hatch again, we could separate them by\nsome type of pyro.\nBut I think that is the one\nway we can combine our EVA operations wi th the\ndesire to bring up big pieces of equipment and\noperate them with our spacecraft .\nI agree.\nI think that the possibilities of\nviewing things on the ground from space are\npractically unlimited, and I was quite surprised\nat the ease with which you can control the\nspacecraft and take pictures and I was surprised at\npictures you get .\nWe ' ve got an awful lot of\nwork t hat we can do in this area.\nI think the\ntechnique of acquiring these individual targets\nneeds a lot of work.\nI feel that the best way\nto do it, if you're going to be limited to one\npass over the site, is to use a photograph of it made\nfrom some previous time.\nI feel that the need\nfor a large landmark nearby, especially\na water landmark, is pretty great.\nI thought" }, { "n": 175, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p175.jpg", "text": "167\nWhite\nMc-Divitt\nthat the information that we got from the ground ·\nof what time we would be over the target and\nwhat time it would be 30 degrees below the\nhorizontal were excellent pieces of information,\nIt certainly contributed a lot to finding the\ntarget,\nI .think there ' s an awful lot of work\nthat we can do in this particular area.\nYou\nhave anything else, there , Ell?\nNo.\nOh, this is one thing that I have been\nbubbling about the last week or so, wanting to\ntell somebody, and haven't been able to tell\nanybody.\nI couldn't,of course,tell it in\nthe press conference.\nI really didn' t want to\ntalk too much about it at the meeting we had\nbefore with everybody, but I think this is one\narea in which a trememdous amount of capability\nexists,and I think we ' d be very foolish if we\ndon ' t work further to exploit it,\nI concur." }, { "n": 176, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p176.jpg", "text": "168\n9.2 Apollo Yaw Orientation\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nOkay, I 'll probably go into this a little bit, and\nthen we can go over the data on it. This was a\nfairly simple test. All we did was start at a zero­\nzero reference and establish rates of 3 degrees/\nsecond simultaneously in all axes.\nWe had a sec­\nondary objective, to see when we established these\nrates and put them in three axes simultaneously if\nwe got a scanner ignor light.\nAnd I 'll clear that\none up realy quick.\nWe put them in at t wo different\ntimes and neither time di d we get a scanner ignore\nlight .\nWe di d this at night the first time , didn't\nwe? That was really the only time we did it.\nJust the night one. That's right .\nThat's right.\nWe did i t once at night .\nI estab­\nlished the rates in t hree axes and allowed them to\nbui ld up for about 30 seconds .\nThen , I told Jim\nto go ahead and take control of the spacecraft, and\nusing visual references to move to a retrofire at­\ntitude.\nI did this in Pulse Mode, I believe, because we were\ntrying to save fuel.\nI think I did it in Direct,\nbut I did not do it in Rate Command.\nI did it in\nDirect .\nThe first thi ng I did was t ry to find t he\nhorizon so I would have some reference point to\nfifffDEr>,TI A'lr" }, { "n": 177, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p177.jpg", "text": "169\nstart from.\nThis was quite easy.\nI just had to wait\nfor the spacecraft to move so that I could see the\nhorizon in any position, and t hen I went for it .\nThe yaw reference, though, wasn ' t present when I\ngot to the horizon, so I ended up level on the\nhorizon upside-down, but without a yaw reference.\nI pitched on down well below the horizon so that\nI could look down at the ground. Watching the\nclouds go by, or whatever was down below me , I\ncould pick up the direction of my motion.\nSo, I\nrolled around such that I was pointing down at the\nground, probably 45 degrees plus or minus 20\ndegrees .\nI rolled aroumd until my head came up,\nand all I had to do then was pitch back to the\nhorizon to get to the 30 degree nose-down attitude\nfor retrofire. This took 2 minutes and 20\nseconds .\nNow I did this trying to save fuel.\nI\ncould have done it much quicker if fuel wasn' t a\nconstraint .\nAlso, I think I learned something\nfr om this in that I made a mistake by going\nfirst to the horizon.\nI should have pitched down\nuntil I was pointed straight down to the ground,\npicked up my yaw as quickly as I could in this" }, { "n": 178, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p178.jpg", "text": "170\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nposition, rolled around so that I could just pitch\nstraight up , and end up at the horizon blunt­\nend- forward, heads up,and wings leveJ.\nI think\nI could ' ve gotten it down to about a minute a.nd\n20 seconds.\nI felt that I wasted a minute\ndoing this.\nYou were taking it slow.\nOkay, now, 1 111 go through the Apollo Yaw\nOrientation debriefing here. The control mode, as\nwe said, was Direct when Ed put me into the\ncondition.\nI used the Direct Mode, I believe.\nI damped out the rate without any difficulty at\nall.\nThe orientation, I ' ve already gone through.\nWhat I should have done was to go nose-down.\nWhat I did do was that I came to the horizon\nfirst , tried to find a yaw reference and couldn 't,\nthen went down to the ground.\nI should have gone\nstraight down to the ground.\nThe time, as I\nmentioned, took 2 minutes and 20 seconds.\nI\nf eel that I could have done it in a minute and 20\nseconds.\nWe\ndid not get the scanner ignore\nlight due to acceleration ,\nbut we\ndid\nget the scanner ignore light when\nwe\nfinally" }, { "n": 179, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p179.jpg", "text": "171\ngot to a position where we were outside the\nattitude constraint of the scanners.\nWhite\nThere were a couple of things.\nAs far as the\ninitial rates were concerned, they were 3 1/2\ndegrees/second roll-right, 3 degreed pitch-down/\nsecond, and 2 degrees yaw- right/second.\nThe final\norientation that Jim came to was such that his\npitch was on, his roll was on, and his yaw was\noff by 18 degrees.\nWe found early in the flight that\na yaw reference at night on the stars, particularly on\na dark night , was very difficult.\nMcDivitt\nYes.\nI still thought that the quickest yaw re­\nference was to go to the ground.\nWhite\nAs far as the day check , we decided that the night\nwas by far the tougher case, adn it didn't seem\nto be too diff icult. So, we thought that since\nthe day was so easy we wouldn't even go ahead\nand do it. The orientation by day was a quite\neasy t ~,ing.\n9. 3 One Attitude 1'hruster Failure Check\nMcDivitt\nOkay.\nWe'll just go right through the\ndebriefing here. It was not difficult to\nestablish the rate as long as we had the roll\njets in the other axes.\nWe could damp out the" }, { "n": 180, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p180.jpg", "text": "172\nrates.\nWe used the Direct Control Mode .\nIt ' s\njust pretty straightforward.\nIt ' s identical\nto the simulator .\nWe didn ' t learn anything new\nfrom this check except tha t the simulator was\nindeed correct .\nDo you have anything to add?\nWhite\nNo .\nTha t it was\npretty straightforward.\n9.4 Horizon Scanner Track Check\nMcDivitt\nHorizon Scanner Track Check is next .\nThe\nhorizon scanner ignore light came on as expected\nexcept t he attitude band ~hrough which the horizon\nscanner operated was considerably broader than\nwe had expected .\nThe scanner ignore light went\noff again at the proper attitud8 , considering the fact\nthat the scanner ignore circui t keeps the\nscanner ignore light on\n7\nseconds after the\nscanner has relocked.\nSo, we always had the\nscanner ignore light go out at a different\nattitude than where it came on because of the\nfixed rates we were using.\nWe went through the\nzero bank angle,pitch-up and pitch-down .\nWe\nwent through the zero pitch,bank-left and bank­\nr ight.\nWe then got to the r0E -..,ith pi tch,i.ng.\nHere, I only banked to t he right and pitched up\nand down.\nI didn ' t bank t o the left and pitch-up" }, { "n": 181, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p181.jpg", "text": "173\nand down.\nWe did the pitch with rolling, and\nhere I pitched up and rolled left and right, but\nwe did not do the pitch-down, rolling left and\nright because of a fuel limitation and a time\nlimitation.\nWe had another experiment that had to\nbe done.\nWe had to get the platform off and we\nhad a limited amount of time to accomplish this.\nI sort of felt that the check was very well\naccomplished at this time,\nThe data is in the\ndata book.\nI saw no need to waste time doing the\nother two maneuvers , especially since we were\nso limited on time and fuel ,\nDid you have any­\nthing to add to that, Ed?\nWhite\nNo .\nI think that the remark that the data is\nin the book is adequate.\n9, 5 Horizon Scanner Check\nMcDivitt\nThe first one is the sun.\nI think the best wasy\nto do it is to have Ed read out the comments\nthat we wrote in the data book as we did this .\nWe started with the blunt- end into the sun.\nWhite\nWe started blunt-end into the sun and we got\n·the scanner ignor e light momentarily as the sun" }, { "n": 182, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p182.jpg", "text": "174\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nhit the scanner head.\nIt went right out again.\nIt went out in 7\nseconds like it was supposed to?\nHight .\nIt was just a momentary light and\n7\nseconds later it was off again.\nGoing back\naround to the 180.degree position , we didn ' t\nget the scanner l ight again.\nAgain in here, we\ngot a scanner ignore light when we were\nfaced right into the sun with the nose , and it\nwent out again and came on once more,and then\nstayed out.\nSo, sequentially, we started with the blunt- end in­\nto the sun and started a yaw to the left .\nAs\nsoon as we came around into the sun we got the\nscanner ignore light, and it went out a short\ntime later.\nWe came around right into the sun,\nand at this time the scanner ignore light came on ,\nwent out, and came back on again.\nIs that\ncorrect?\nYes, and then finally stayed out.\nAnd stayed out.\nThen we yawed back around till\n1-,e were blunt-end to the sun again, and yawed\nback into the sun ,and back around blunt- end to\nthe sun again, and we did not get any more" }, { "n": 183, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p183.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nMcDiv:i:tt\n175\nscanner ignore lights.\nThe next step is the\nHoon Scanner Check.\nWe did this with the\nmoonset and , Ed , you might add the time that we\ndid the Sun Scanner Check.\nThe Sun Scanner Check was at Greenwich Mean\nTime of 11 : 50,\nWe ' 11 have to correlate that lat er·.\nI think that we were supposed to be in the blunt-\nend to the sun configuration at 11:54 and star+-· ~b c-.re,\nbut I 'm not really sure about that . Okay, the moon\ncheck was performed just about like t he sun\ncheck.\nWe started blunt- end to the moon and\nmade t wo cycles.\nBlunt- end t o small-end and back\nto blunt- end, and small-end back to blunt end.\nEd , go ahead and read the data.\nOkay.\nOn the moonset , we started with the moon\nquite high, so we had a good moon.\nWe started\nat 12: 17.\nWe had no scanner ignore lights for\nthe first 180 degrees and,actually,throughout\nthe next cycle we had no llll'llocks or any lights\nfor two cycles.\nSo this was completely normal.\nThe Thrusters Check No. ; --we turned the\nspacecraft , since the thruster f iring wouldn't\ninfluence the orbit except to change it" }, { "n": 184, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p184.jpg", "text": "176\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nOO~~FIDEt-4TIAL\nslightly, and we went ahead and fired t he\nforward-firing t hrusters for 1\nsecond.\nWe\ndidn ' t get any change in our scanner ignore\nlight configuration. It was out and it stayed\nout during the entire thruster check.\nSo I\nguess that it operated all right .\nWe 'll\nsummarize all of our scanner comments at this\ntime.\nYou want me to read some of these?\nYes.\nWhy don ' t you read off some of the comments\nyou have in there.\nThey' re in your writing.\nYou might read the\nfirst page and I ' ll read the second, since\nthey\nI re in mine.\nWe went to Horizon Scan Mode of control for\nabout the last day of flight , and left it in that\nmode just about until we retrofired.\nI 'd like\nto read out some of the comments that I made here\nas we lost the scanner, when we got the scanner\nignore light.\nAt 16:03 Greenwich Time , or\natout 72 hours elapsed time , I turned on the\nHorizon Scan Mode in about a 27degree nose down\nattitude with a pitch up rate of about 2 degrees/\nsecond.\nThe Horizon Scanner Mode added pulses\nGO~~FIDE~~TIAt" }, { "n": 185, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p185.jpg", "text": "177\nto the pitch up rate and increased my rates to\nsomething considerably above that , but then\nas we came up into the Horizon Scanner Mode\ndead.band, it started pulsing rapidly and\nkil led off this rather l arge pitch rate and held\nthe spacecraft right in this attitude.\nS~ we\nhad a very good acquisition of the mode from a\nsomewhat undesirable condit ion.\nAt the first\nsunset the scanners were pointed right at the\nsun but did not break lock.\nWe did not get\nany scanner ignore lights at this time.\nLater\non, at 17:04, about an hour later at sunrise,\nthe scanner ignore l ight came on with the space­\ncraft pointed in such a manner that the small end\nof the spacecraft was pointed about 45 degrees\nto the right of a line drawn directly between\nthe spacecraft and the sun.\nSo that., essential ly,\nthe sun was shining on the horizon scanners at\nabout a 45- degrell angl e.\nThe scanner ignore\nlights stayed on for 10 or 15 seconds, and then\nwent out.\nThere were no false pulses from the\njets at all.\nAt 7: 55, just at sunset , again in\nabout the same position, I was 45 degrees to the\nright of a l ine drawn between the spacecraft and\nJ..Gt.qf:IDEt~JIAL" }, { "n": 186, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p186.jpg", "text": "178\nthe sun.\nThe scanner broke lock.\nWe started\npulsing down for two or three pulses, then\nstopped , but the scanner ignore light stayed on\nlonger than\n7 seconds and then it went out .\nWe pulsed up one or two times\nto start\nrecovering from these initial two or three\npulses that started us down , and then the l i ght\ncame on again.\nIt was only off for about\n2 or\n3\nseconds, just a very short time.\nWe were\nat about 30 degrees pitch down at this time.\nWe\nthen started pulsing pit ch-down rapidly with\nthe scanner ignore light on.\nWe pitched down\nand did a 360-degree maneuver in pitch; we\nstarted just about horizontal, pitched down till\nwe were looking at the ground , continued pitching\ndown with respect to the spacecraft until we\nwere horizontal, upside down, now faceing\nthe opposite direction than we 'd started, and\ncontinued pitching down with r espect to the\nspacecraft.\nThe small end ended up straight up\nand we continued pitching down again until we\nstarted coming back back down to the horizon.\ndid not at any time during this maneuver attempt\nto control the spacecraft.\nThe pitch- down\nI" }, { "n": 187, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p187.jpg", "text": "White\n179\nthrusters continued to fire throughout t he\nmaneuver at intervals like there was indeed a\nsignal coming from the Horizon Scan Mode.\nAs\nthe spacecraft started back down toward the\nhorizon, I thought sure that the horizon scanner\nwould catch the horizon, because at this time\nthe sun was no longer right on the horizon.\nHowever, we developed a slight amount of roll\nduring the l ast 120 to 150 degrees of pitch,\nand as we went down through the horizon, we were out\nof limits in roll and Horizon Scan did not pick\nup the horizon.\nI then took over the spacecraft\nand maneuvered back to a position from which the\nHorizon Scan Mode could r eacquire and -put it\nin t his condit ion. It s tayed locked on.\nEd has\na few notes here.\nWe ' ll have him read his.\nAbout the only notes that I ma.de on .the scanner\nwas that at sunset and sunrise it had a tendency\nto break lock.\nI have a note her€ that at 22: 22, at\nsunset with the sun right on the scanner, i . e.\n90 degrees to the spacecraft, the scanner\nbroke lock three different times.\nAt 22: 58, a t\nsunrise, the scanner put in spurious inputs\nbut was abl e t o control and didn ' t lose lock." }, { "n": 188, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p188.jpg", "text": "180\nMcDivitt\nMcDivitt\nSunrise seemed to be the time at which t he\nscanner had the largest tendency to br eak lock ,\nand if it didn ' t break lock, it would at l east\nput in spuri ous inputs which were obviously not\nrequired other than due to the confusion factor\nthat the sunrise was causing on the scanner.\nAgain, I have one at 11 :58, at sunrise , the scanner\n60 degrees to the sun, broke lock once and pul sed\nquite a few t imes extr aneously, but caught\nitself and continued to track.\nI think on the\nwhole that the scanner worked real well .\nSo do I .\nAs a matter of fact , I bel ieve in the\nlast 20 or 24 hours, however long we had the\nHorizon Scan Mode on, that we only really lost\ncontrol of the spacecraft that one time, where we\ndid the pitching maneuver I've already discussed .\nI think in every other instance , although it\npulsed needlessly two or three times at sunset if\nthe scanner was pointed toward the sun, it never\nreally lost lock and it certainly never l ost\ncontrol .\nThe light would come on every now and\nthen , but it would --.\nBut , I don ' t think that the light came on more than\nthree or four times in t hose l ast 24 hours .\nC8NFtDE~~TIAl" }, { "n": 189, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p189.jpg", "text": "181\nWhite\nNo.\nThey sure didn't\nMcDivitt\nAnd even though t he light wasn't on, it seemed\nlike we would get an extraneous pulse every once\nin awhile at sunrise or sunset .\nBut I\nthought that the Horizon Scan Mode worked very\nwell. It certainly proved to me that it was an\nexcellent attitude-hold mode, or pilot-rel ief\nmode .\n9.6 HF Transmission Reception Check\nMcDivitt\nI think that I 'd like to start out with No. 3\nin this case .\nWe received an update to start\nand stop our checks and had no difficulty doing\nthis .\nI think that the transmission and recep­\ntion , No. 1 and No . 2 under this major heading, are\ncovered in our data book and I 'd like to have Fd\nsummarize them at this time.\nWhite\nWe ran a one day and one night-long test on it\nin which we attempted to have all stations contact\nus. The data in the book.\nI think the data will\npoint out that the HF is a rather unsatisfactory\nmode of reception. It was difficult for us to\nevaluate our transmission that ' l l have to be done\nfrom the data from the stations. But as\nfar as reception was" }, { "n": 190, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p190.jpg", "text": "182\n60~~FIDE~~TIAL\nconcerned, we got a little bit during the night\nand just about nothing during the day.\nWe ran\nalso a sunrise and sunset check and we made the\nlong counts as indicated, and listened for any\nreturn on all our HF tests from Thule and Elmendorf .\nWe could hear Elmendorf qalling us , but they were at\none time barely readable, and most of the time you\ncould hear somebody trying to call, but they\nwere very broken and difficult to read.\nMore\ndetailed data is in the Flight Data Book.\n9.7 Orbit Navigation Check\nMcDivitt\nFollowing the format in the debrief ing guide, I\nthink that the maps and overlays that we had\nwere excellent.\nI f elt that the concept was a\nvery good concept. It gave us a good check on\nwhere we were throughout the flight as far as\naccurate times went.\nWe used at times the other\ntrack charts that were printed before the flight .\nWe found that these were off some fair amount,\nalthough they furnished good information also.\nOnce we had the time error that we could apply to\ntimes listed on t he map, we found that we were\nable to use t hese quite well also.\nI think t hat\nthe map and t he overlays that we used in our" }, { "n": 191, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p191.jpg", "text": "Orbit Navigation Checks was\na very good scheme.\nThe control mode we used was Pulse, and the\ntiming was just the GMT timing we had in the\nspacecraft.\nI ' d like to have Ed discuss a\nlittle of the technique now.\nWhite\nActually we had a form in our book that we had\nmade up to make these tests, but I think it\nbecame apparent to both of us as we came along\nthat this is a fairly simple thing to do.\nIf\nyou want to just try to update your map without\nhaving an update from the ground, it was\nquite simple to point the spacecraft straight down\nto the earth and get a point which you could\nrecognize on the ground., and actually plot this\nright out on your orbit map.\nI think we could\nprobably make checks in this manner and update\nour map almost as well as we could by having a\nlongitude and time called up from the ground .\nI 'd like to make a comment right now that I\nthought the little map that we had with the\norbit plot on it was\nvery useful, but it\nwas weak in one respect; I was always wanting\nmore detail on what I was seeing doWlll there.\nWe,fortunately,carried a map with about two to" }, { "n": 192, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p192.jpg", "text": "184\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nthree times the detail of the section cut out of a\nMercator Chart , which I found very useful .\nBy prop­\nerly folding a map , I think I would prefer to have a\nmap of even higher detail with me.\nIt didn't seem to\nme to be a drawback to have a large map in the cockpit,\nas long as you kept it gelded down in the proper\nmanner.\nDo you have any comments on that?\nWell , I agree with lli.\nI thought that this was a\nrelatively simple task.\nI felt it would have been\nmuch easier to do if we had the platform up so we\ncould point the spacecraft down using inertial ref­\nerence and using the platform, but it wasn't diffi­\ncult to do it just visually. It only took a short\ntime to plot up a couple of points and run back and\ndetermine your own ascending node.\nYou kn.ow, another thing that I found very interesting\nwas when they called up plot points and they' d give\nyou 30 degrees right , down 45 degrees .\nEven without\nthe platform, those meant a lot to me.\nI could\nvisualize very easily where I was going, whether I\nwas small- end-forward or blunt end forward.\nI could\nvisualize quite well, without a platform, 30 degrees\ndown and yaw 30 degrees over, looking for a point.\nIt seemed I could check points nearly as well wi th\nCOt'4FIDE~~TIAL" }, { "n": 193, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p193.jpg", "text": "185\nco~~FIDEl'JTIAL\nor without the platform. It wasn't hard to orient.\nMcDivitt\nI think that's probably true .\nI do think that\nthis is a good scheme .\nI ' d like t o see us continue\nit on future spacecraft .\nWhite\nYes.\nI ' d t ake it again if I had 11\\Y druthers.\nWhat do you feel about a bigger map?\nMcDivitt\nI think for this kind of thing, this Crbit Navi­\ngation C.1eck, the map and the over.1ay we hud were\nabout the right size, but when we got around to\nlooking for things on the ground , I thought the\nmaps and charts we had were pretty inadequate.\nI 'd like to see us get something with more\ndetail on i t , just the way Ed says, and I think\nwe will cover this in better detail when we get\nover to the Apollo Landmark thing.\n9.8 Relative Humidity Test\nMcDivitt\nAnother operational check that I\n1d like to discuss\nat this time is the Relative Humidity Test that\nwe did during the flight .\nAll data is in the data\nbook, but the t hing that I 'd like to say most of\nall is that the relative humidity was consider­\nably l ess than anyone had ever expected. The\ncabin temperature was less than anyone had ever\nexpected, and although we were instructed to\nCO~~FIDE~~TIAL" }, { "n": 194, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p194.jpg", "text": "measure the cabin wall temperature with a thermistor\nthat was on the end of our r elative humidity gage ,\nI found that this was pretty difficult to do since\nthey' d covered the entire inside of the spacecraft\nwith the sponge rubber..\nWe couldn't find a good\nplace where there was just bare metal.\nI took some\nmeasurements on t he inside of the left- hand side\nfood box.\nI took one or t wo readings off of the\nmetal frame that went around the window.\nThose\nare the only t wo places I was r eally able to\ncontact spacecraft metal.\nDo you have anything\nelse that you want to add to that , Ed?\nWhite\nNo, t he data is pretty well laid out in the data\nbook.\nI don ' t think there is anything else. It\ndid surprise me, and it was a very pleasant sur­\nprise because I was interested in taking my\ngloves off and putting my visor up.\n.I sure\ndid as soon as I found out i t wasn ' t ·going to get wet.\n9,9 Zodiacal Light Check\nMcDivitt\nI ' d like to have Ed describe this.\nWhite\nOkay.\nWe did this one on the fourth day at 22:42\nZebra, and i t was one on which procedures were\ncalled up,\nWhat they wanted to do was find out\nif the thrusters firing could cause any inter­" }, { "n": 195, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p195.jpg", "text": "187\nference on some zodiacal l ight photography that\nwas planned on later flights.\nThe first test\nwas to pitch straight down toward the earth,\nopen the shutter on the Contarex camera ind\nactuate the pitch-up with the shutter open. Then we'd\ntake another picture and actuall y open the\nshutter again and activate the pitch-down thrusters,\nto see if these two thrusters would cause some\ntype of light interf erence to the photography.\nOn the pitch-down part of the phase, we waited\ntill the moon had set, and as we were pointed\ndown toward the earth, we came upon an area fa±rly\n~i ear of clouds.\nBut,unfortunately,there were\na few soattered lights from homes or cities down\nbel ow us , which might have caused some\ninterference.\nI don ' t think so.\nThey were\nvery, very scattered.\nThe pitch-down test\nwas satisfactory.\nThe next one was the one in\nwhich we were actually level with the horizon.\nAgain, Jim opened the shutter, I actuated a\npitch- up, and closed the shutter. He\nopened it again, I actuated a pitch-down thruster,\n- ·• .j.\nand he closed the shutter. It was a pretty\nsimple test .\nWe took four pictures." }, { "n": 196, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p196.jpg", "text": "188\n~◄ FIDEt'~TIAL\n10.1 Countdown\nMcDivitt\nWhite\n10.2 Powered Flight\nMcDivitt\n10.0 VISUAL SIGHTINGS\nDuring the countdown the visual sighting I had\nwas a multitude of wasps sitting on the Rand R\nsection and crawling all over the windows.\nAside\nfrom that, the sky was clear and I didn ' t see\nanything else except the gantry going up and down.\nThat ' s about it. It appeared to me the wasps were\nsomewhat confused. They felt that the RCS\nnozzle was a very large beehive for them.\nThe first topic is lift-aff.\nAt lift-off I was\nlooking at the instruments and didn\n1t -see a\nthing.\nI think Ed 1s got something here.\nWhite\nFrom the lifk-!£--I cou1d actually feel when we\nlifted off -­ the vibrations decreased a great\ndea1\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nWhat about visual sightings?\n1\n111 get to that.\nAs we started to move, I felt\nI could see the relative motion.\nWe had a clear\nblue sky above us; there werentt any clouds,\nbut I could see the motion in the sky.\nI could\nalso, as soon as the roll program started,\nEO~~FIDE~~TIAt" }, { "n": 197, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p197.jpg", "text": "•\n189\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\ndefinitely see the rotation of the booster and\nspacecraft combination.\nAs we continued on up,\nI was watching within the spacecraft and outside,\nalso.\nI could see the pitch program initiated.\nI could hear Jim call it out, and I could\nactually see it on my instruments and also see\nit out the window.\nBECO's the next topic.\nWhy don't you go through that .\nI think I just\nlooked out one time to see the horizon for just\na second.\nWhy don ' t you go through the rest of\nthose there and read them off?\nOkay, at BECO I was looking in also.\nI was\nwaiting for the staging and I had my attention\ninside, and I didn ' t see the big sheet ·of •\nflame that John and Gus described coming from\naround the separation of the first stage.\nSo,\nthere wasn't anything other than the. normal feel­\ning of the separation.\nAs far as :'visual aight­\ningt- were concerned, I didn ' t see anything else\nat staging.\nAs we started to nose over, I saw\nthe horizon coming up and I called that out to\nJim.\nI think that might have been ~hen I looked out,\nI\nbut Im not really sure I could see anything at\nCOt-4FIDE~◄ TIAL" }, { "n": 198, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p198.jpg", "text": "190\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nthe time.\nI had to say something.\nIt is quite an impressive\nview when you're up there --the very the first\ntime you look out and you see it. I looked out\nand all I could see was the horizon and the\nblue down below us.\nYou probably couldn't,\nbecause as I think of it now, we were on the\nside.\nI could see the horizon and you couldn't.\nAll you could see was the sky.\nRight.\nSo I could see a little of both.\nI could see the\nclouds, the water, and the whole smear.\nThe\nfirst time I saw that out the window I called\nthat out to Jim, and it was quite an exciting\nview.\nEngine No. 2 ignition-- I didn't see anything\nthat had to do with lighting the second engine\noff.\nThe horizon view, I just discussed.\nAt\nSECO, there was a lot of debris going by.\nThat was at spacecraft sep, wasn't it, rather\nthan SEGO?\nYou1',re right.\nYou' re absolutely right.\nAt\nSEGO, I didn't see anything other than that\nthe acceleration profile went down to zero.\nAt\nCOl'JrlDE~~TlAL" }, { "n": 199, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p199.jpg", "text": "191'\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n10,3 Orbital Flight\nWhite\nspacecraft separation I think Jim and I both\nnoticed a lot of stuff coming by the spacecraft.\nRight.\nJust plain debris was all it was.\nJust\npieces of whi te junk came by.\nProbably little bitty pieces of the adapter there.\nIn fact , when I got out and looked later on at\nthe spacecraft separation plane, there were pieces\nof the same kind of white stuff still\nback there attached jaggedly to the adapter\nsection. Fairing jettison - - I couldn't see\nthat .\nDid you see anything on the fairing\njettison?\nWhen I jettisoned the fairings , I saw the\nI\nhorizon scanner fairing go whipping off, but I\ncouldn't l ! ok at it and the nose fairing both.\nS~ I only saw the one go, but there were some\nmore pieces flying all over the place, and they\nwent just as soon as I punched the .Fairing­\nJettison Bitton.\nBoy!\nWe've been talking about these things for\nt he last ten days .\nThe f irst one is geographical." }, { "n": 200, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p200.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nEO~~FIDEl>-JT.IA L..\nYes.\nGeographical.\nWe could see wakes of\nships.\nWe could see roads.\nWe could see towns.\nAlthough I never saw any individual houses, I\ncould see an industrial area with what looked\nlike oil tanks and a few other things.\nWe could\nsee canals very well.\nWe could see the Suez\ncanal very well from the air.\nI don't think I\never saw an individual ship.\nI never saw any\nindividual cars or airplanes, but you could see\nrunways very well.\nBut the thing that you could\nsee best of all were long lines.\nI'm sure that\nif you had a road that was 50 f eet wide, or\nhowever wide you make roads, and it was long,\nyou could see it.\nWhereas, if you had the same\nthing and it was just a square down there,I\ndoubt very seriously that you could see it unless\nyou were looking for it,specifically.\nI think perhaps also there is the contrast between\nthe colors .\nThe things that I saw with very high\nclarity were runways.\nAs you looked d~un at the\nrunways you caught a high contrast between the\ngreen or the brown, or whatever the color that\nit was laid out in.\nYou could see it very\nclearly.\nI was impressed by how clear you could" }, { "n": 201, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p201.jpg", "text": "J\n193\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nsee things.\nThey were small; there ' s no question\nthat things don ' t get any bigger when you ' re\nlooking down at them, but in my opinion things\nwere much clearer.\nI could see with a higher\ndetail than I could when I fly over in a normal\nairplane,as far as the object itself being\nclearly defined.\nI also noticed this at night\nwhen I looked down on it .\nIn the clear stretches\nthe city lights were much finer defined than the\nlights are in a city when you're flying over at\n40 000 feet. Things are small but have a much\nhigher definition.\nI think it would be\ninteresting to find out in-mu- photographs the\ndegree of resolution that you have.\nI feel that\nthe resolution, if you have the proper contrast,\nwould go down to 50 feet or below.\nYes.\nI ' d agree with you there.\nGeographically,\nthere were just so many things that we could see.\nI think that we took pictures of most of the\nthings that we thought would be interesting.\nI 'm dying to look at those pictures.\nMe, too!\nI agree with Jim that if you look at a city,\nparticularly if you look at a city in a desert\n~\n~~◄ FJD.E~JTIAL\n--...,...__" }, { "n": 202, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p202.jpg", "text": "194\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\narea where the houses are brown and the\nsurrounding terrain is bro~m, everything' s kind\nof small and it all blends together.\nUnless\nthere was some type of contrast between them,\nit ' s pretty darned hard to pick up a city right\nout in the middle of the desert.\nWe had\ntrouble when we came to El Paso in finding it,\nand Cairo blended right in with\n-- blended right in with everything.\nYou could\nsee the air}!urt at Cairo--I ' m not sure if\nI ever did really see the city.\nI think I could.\nWhen I was looking in that\narea at Jaffa, as soon as I saw that airfield\nout there and was concentrating on looking at\nit, I saw more detail.\nYes.\nThe thing of it all is that ,geographically,\nyou have to have a real large feature to be able\nto see it very far out in front of you, like the Red\nSea.\nNow when I was trying to find Cairo\none 1;ime, I looked out I was having trouble\nfinding the Red Sea.\nPretty soon I found the Red Sea\nabout 30 degrees below the horizon or maybe a\nlittle more.\nAs I got closer, of course, the\nRed Sea stood out very well.\nAs we get closer\niK\nFIDE~~TlAL" }, { "n": 203, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p203.jpg", "text": "195\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nand closer and closer, these things really star t\nstanding out, but when you' re looking from up\naround 125 or 150 miles , and you're out 60 degrees,\nyou' re a long way from your target.\nIt ' s just\nthat you can' t see that far through all that\natmosphere, I guess .\nI think one more comment on the geographical is\nthat I think we ' re really going to see some things\ndown there when we get some type of magnification.\nYes, a telescope is what you really need.\nIf you can get some kind of telescope to help, I\nthink we can really see something.\nI wonder if\nthere isn' t some way that, while we know we can't\ncarry some things inside the spacecraft, we can\nwork with something outside the spacecraft- ­\ncamera equipment or some kind of optical equipment.\nthat we might be able to have mounted on the out­\nside .\nWe can store it somewhere and mount it on\nthe outside after we get up there--mount a\ntel escope right through, with the eyepiece on the\ninside .\nBoy that would be great ! Wouldn't it?\nAnd then when it comes time to come in, you just\npunch the thing off and forget about it.\nBut" }, { "n": 204, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p204.jpg", "text": "196\nMcDivitt\nwhile you' re up there you' ve got this thing with\nthe long eyepiece. I think we can do this with\nEVA.\nStow the thing back in the adapter, go back\nand get it mounted up, get back in, and you' ve\ngot yourself just about as long a telescope as\nyou' d want to put up there.\nSame way with\ncameras.\nI think you can take cameras up.\nWe\ncan take some of these big cameras that we ' ve been\nwanting to use..\nWe can have a sighting device so that\nwe can mount this thing on the outside of the\nspacecraft after we get up there,and then point\nit with a pointing device at the ground and get\nsome of these pictures that we ' ve been wanting\nto take.\nI think we've got some possibilities\nthere.\nOkay.\nCelestial.\nI think in the nighttime you\ncan see the stars without any difficulty.\nIn the\ndaytime you just can' t see the stars if there ' s\nany sunlight whatsoever on the window, or if the\nnose of the spacecraft is in the sunlight, or if\nthe horizon is in the sunl ight, or if some of the\nearth is in the window.\nI think all these things\ntend to limit your night vision.\nThey create\nc_Q~~FID£:hlIIAL" }, { "n": 205, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p205.jpg", "text": "197\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nan optical barrier, practically, between you and\nthe stars.\nThe difference between the day sky\nup in orbit and the day sky here is, as far as\nwe were concerned, was practically nil, because those\njust weren ' t any stars visible. It didn't have\nanything to do with the atmosphere; it just had\nto do with t he optics of our window and the\nnose being shiny.\nWe couldn't see any more stars\nin orbit than we could here in the daylight, but\nit wasn' t because of the atmosphere up there.\nIt was just because we had that coating on the\nwindow that reflected the sunlight,and because\nthe nose reflected sunlight into the windows, and\nt he same thing with the horizon or the ground .\nWhen it was lit up, it reflected light into the\nwindows.\nActually, you had to get that window\nin total darkness almost before you were able to\nsee anything.\nPull the shades.\nPull the shades.\nAnd then when you did that , you\nwere able to see some stars.\nOn a few occasions\nwhen I got the spacecraft into this particular\nattitude, I was able to see some stars in the" }, { "n": 206, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p206.jpg", "text": "198\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\ndaylight.\nHow about you, Ed? Were you able to\nsee any stars?\nYes.\nI called them out a few times.\nYou did\nhave to maneuver just ,as carefully-­\nThat ' s right .\nYou had to be just exactly in the\nright spot.\nLet ' s go into the magnitude of the stars.\nWe\nhad set ourselves with the Corona Australis\nas a kind of calibrator for us , and this was\ncomposed primarily of fifth order stars.\nThat\nwas very clear, and I could see without a:ny\ndifficulty stars\nof lower magnitude\nthan that.\nI could see, without question, stars\nto the seventh magnitude.\nAnd that ' s exactly the same magnitude I would\nguess.\nYou could probably see th~m down to a\nmagnitude of seven.\nNow, another thing, though , was that the sky\nwasn ' t any more f ull of stars to me there than\nit is when I ' m flying at about 40 000 feet\non a real dar k night .\nNo, as a matter of f act , it didn't really seem to\nbe as full of stars.\nco~~FIDE~ffiAL" }, { "n": 207, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p207.jpg", "text": "199\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nNo.\nOn the night when we were flying with that\neclipse of the moon,\nI\nsaw\nmore stars than\nI ' ve ever seen in the sky.\nYes, and as a matter of fact, I wouldn ' t doubt\nthat we could go out here and fly tonight\nand see seventh order stars.\nI bet we could see lower than that.\nThat ' s right.\nWhat I ' m leading up to say is\nthat I don ' t think we could see as many stars i n\norbit as we could flying around in an airplane\nat 40 or 45 000 feet .\nThat ' s exactly my conclusion a.J:so.\nYou could\nsee down to the seventh order stars.\nYes, and I think the reason for this is the\ncoating on the windows, don't you?\nI think so.\nI felt like there was just a little\nshield of what I was really seeing.\nIf we 'd just gotten that coating off, we'd have\nbeen in great shape.\nI also noticed a tremendous difference if I\nturned those lights off in the cockpit. It was\njust like turning those stars on on the outside,\nand I don ' t think we should take those red lights\nout.\nC¼MftDE~~TIAb" }, { "n": 208, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p208.jpg", "text": "200\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\n€Ot'4FIDE~~TIAL\nNo.\nI don't think so either. You know, the\nthing that did look brighter to me was that\nplanet right over by the sun.\nWhen the sun set,\nthat planet would really stand out.\nI noticed another thing on the planete, I didn't\nnotice--which one is in Leo now?\nI don ' t know.\nIt ' s Mars.\nMars is around Leo now, and it\ndidn ' t look as orange.\nTo me it looked roughly\nthe same color as Venus did, and remember I\nremarked on that up there, which is a very\ninteresting thing now.\nI presumed that the\ncolor should stay the same.\nI didn't notice any difference between it up\nthere and here on the gTOund.\nIt didn't have to me the characteristic orange\ncolor that it has when I look at it from down\nhere. It looks more like a regular old-­\nA regular old star, huh?\nNo, it looked likr the planets, and remember I\nremarked on that.\nI think you did, now that you mention it.\nAnd we probably went on doing somethi.ng else and\nforgot about it. Let ' s talk about the air glow.\nco~,FIDE ►~TIAY" }, { "n": 209, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p209.jpg", "text": "201\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhy don' t I discuss t hat thing that I saw those\ntwo times at night .\nYes, I saw it too , so you weren ' t seeing things.\nThis phenomenon occurred in the dark and I think it\n\\./a.S near Austra.l.ia., each t.iine, but I 1m not really\nsure. We 've got it recorded on the voice tape,so\nwe can go back to the voice tape and see where\nit was.\nThey were just paral l el running lines\nof lights radiating from the earth up toward\nus but at a distance away, and i t sort of\nlooked like a curtain.\nAll of these lights\nrays seemed to be sor t of parallel t o each\nother. They looked a lot like the Aurora\nBorealis, except that they were down below us and\nthey were coming up toward us.\nThe first one\nwe saw was considerably brighter than t he\nsecond one and i t was sort of wiggly. It\nprobably had five or six curves in it, at least,\nand I thought it went like this a couple of times,\nand was bent up around like this.\nHow about in the air glow layer?\nWas it in the air glow layer? No.\nI don't\nthink it was in the air glow layer. It looked\nlike it was down underneath -- it looked like it\nCilt-lFIDEt;JIAL ." }, { "n": 210, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p210.jpg", "text": "202\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nwas right over land and was considerably closer\nto us than the horizon was. It was, maybe,\nhalf-way between us and the horizon.\nI got the\nimpression that it was a lot closer to us and\nit was definitely not in the airglow layer.\nBoth times I had this impression. It l ooked\nlike it was coming up out of some clouds.\nI\ncould see the clouds down on the ground, and I\nhad the impression that this was coming out of\nthem, but it only got to an altitude of maybe\nhalf of ours.\nThat would be up to 50 or 60\nmiles.\nThis is the impression I got .\nI took\nsome pictures of it too, didn't I?\nI had the feeling that the first time you took\nit you had the wrong setting. You had about 250·\nat an f11.\nI don't know what you did the\nsecond time.\nI don't remember, either.\nThis thing was in motion, too.\nIt wasn ' t a\nstationary thing.\nIt continued to move the way\nthe lights on neon signs do. It was wiggling\nback and forth .\nWhen it came around over toward my side it was .,to\nme, closer to the horizon, and it looked more\n~FIDE~~TIAL\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nsun shining on them.\nThey picked the sun up.\nThey picked the sun up and reflected the rays.\nThey\nreflect ed t hem just as bright as stars, I thought.\nDidn ' t they ! Well, you know the thing that was most\ninteresting to me was the time I called you and said\nthe sky was full of stars , and you said it wasn't ,\nthe sky.\nWe were pointing down at the earth.\nThat\nwas my first exposure to having your window in t he\ndaylight and mine in the dark.\nAt this time we had\nal l the fuel particles from the fuel from the boosters\nspewing out all over, and my whole view out t he win­\ndow was just completely full of these reflecting\nparticles .\nThey looked kind of like one of the s tar\nfi elds we had past off on us as star fields . It\nlooked kind of like a star field, but it looked\nkind of unreal , too. That's exactly what it was.\nOne of the prettiest things was when. we had a urine\ndump at eunset,because we just had mil lions and\nmillions and millions of these fireflies or part icles\noutside .\nWhen you put them all out like that with\nthe sun shining on them,as we 'd mentioned earlier ·\nwith the black background, it just l ooked marvelous.\nAs a matter of fact, we took some movies of them·,.\nE..-0\n1RFIDE~~TIAE" }, { "n": 213, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p213.jpg", "text": "205\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nand I think we might have taken some stills ,\nbut I'm not sure.\nI hope it came out.\nYes , it was r eally spectacular! So we could\njust about make our own stars when we wanted to.\nIs that all on celestial?\nThat ' s all I can think of, Jim.\nI couldn't see the zodiacal lights.\nI couldn't\nsee the r~genschein and I could not see the burst\nof zodj acal lights that you get just as the sun\nsets.\nGo ahead , Ed.\nOkay.\nI saw one during the last few sunrises .\nI watched the sun very carefully.\ntrom the time\nit first started to come up till it finally\npopped up , I was looking all the time for that\nshoot of light that 's supposed to come up just\nbefore the sun pops up.\nWell , I could never\nsee that .\nAll I could see was the glow as it\ncame up and a very rapid rise as the sun did come\nup.\nThere 's something that I did see that was\nquite interesting t o me .\nSeveral minutes before\nthe sun came up there would be a shaft of light\nthat would shoot up, and I\nwatched it on two" }, { "n": 214, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p214.jpg", "text": "206\ncer~FI\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\ndifferent occasions. It was during your last\nsleep.\nI was taking a few final movies and I was\nwatching for this very phenomenan. It was the\nfirst time I saw it . It would be a little shaft\nof white illumination and it was a long time be­\nfore the sun came up.\nI don't know whether that's\nwhat they were seeing before or not .\nBut when the\nsun itself actually came up, I didn't get much of\na big ball of light--just some big, bright lights\ncoming up from behind the earth.\nThat's all I was getting.\nI didn't see this other\nthing.\nI saw quite a few shooting stars.\nOh, yes.\nThey seemed to fall and burn up considerably below\nour altitude. They looked a half or a third as\nhigh as we were when they were actually being\nconsumed and being burned up.\nI never saw one\nabove us , did you?\nNo .\nOkay cloud coverage-­\nThere was a lot of it.\nThere was lots of it. There were a lot of times\nwhen there wasn't any.\nI don't guess there's much\nwe can sal about this .\nco~~IDE~~TJAL\n_J" }, { "n": 215, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p215.jpg", "text": "207\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nI think we took some good pictures of the clouds.\nYes.\nWell, throughout the four days we had\ncloud coverage over things we wanted to take\npictures of. Other times we didn't have any at\nall. It was a variable thing, and w.e just got\na lot of good cloud pictures, I hope.\nHorizons.\nWell, at night there was a definite\ndark horizon, which I assume is the earth's\nhorizon.\nAnd then there ' s a dim band, and then\nabove that there's a br ight band that is much\nnarrower than the dim band, and above that it is\nclear, and\nthen\nnothing.\nI guess there are\nreally three horizons. There's the top of what\nI think is the earth. There's a top of the dim\nband, and then there ' s a top of the bright band.\nIn the daylight you don't see these dim and bright\nbands.\nIt's just a gradual decreasing in\nintensity of light. It starts out with a very\nlight blue at the horizon and just gradually\ngoes out to the dark blue, and it finally just\ngoes t o black. Right at sundown,if you're\npointing 90 degrees to wher e the sun is, you\ncan see the light blue of the day sky coming" }, { "n": 216, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p216.jpg", "text": "208\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nGQ ► •fiJDEN l -JA k~\ndown.\nlt' s much, much higher than the air\nglow that you see at night .\nIf you're looking over at the daylight side, it\nlooks l i ke the light tl..:ie, goes up probably\nthree times as high as the air glow does.\nWhat\ndo you think about that?\nLet me go into my impressions of the air glow in\nthe evening.\nI saw the same thing you did, of\ncourse, and it looked like to me that the dark\npart was roughly t wo or three times as thick\nas the lighter air glow layer below it. We\nwere both impressed with the phenomenon of the\napparent rise in the air glow as you go from the\ndaylight to the dark, and as soon as you get out\nin full daylight, the earth's layer is all gone.\nBut as you transition between the daylight and\nthe dark, you see the layer start out and narrow\ndown to what you see as you get into the dark\nside as the air glow layer.\nAnd when you\ninitially get into the dark area, the air glow\nseems to disappear for a moment, and then the air\nglow layer pops out when you get into full dark, ,\nvery clearly." }, { "n": 217, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p217.jpg", "text": "209\nMcDi vitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nI agree. Okay.\nDo you have anything else?\nThat horizon isn't very good on the daylight side,\neither.\nNo, the horizon isn't very good on the daylight side.\nThe horizon's not very good anywhere, really.\nWe ' ll go more into that on D-9.\nYou could see the lights of the attitude thrusters,\nand it didn't seem to make any difference which ones\nyou were firing at night. They weren't blinding\nby any stretch of the imagination.\nThey looked like lightening maybe.\nLittle flashes ·.\nThe attitude thrusters lit up the sky a little\nbut not a great amount.\nThey weren't blinding either.\nNot much to say about that. Okay.\nI want you to\ndiscuss'·adapter separation that you saw.\nOkay.\nOn the adapter separation, Jim and I agreed\nto separate the electric and the OAMS, and then\npause between the adapter separation so that we\ncould dwell a little bit on the separation and\nabsorb as much as we could about it. When it did\nseparate, we got a very clean feeling of separation\nbetween the t wo and a very definite feeling that\nthe adapter and the spacecraft had separated .\nThere wasn ' t much question in my mind.\nWas there\nmuch in yours, Jim?\n~\n..i-O~~FIDE~fftAt ••" }, { "n": 218, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p218.jpg", "text": "210\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nCQ~◄ FIDEt~TIAL\nNo, not at all.\nThere were a few pieces that came around from it,\nbut not as much as there was at spacecraft separ­\nation after insertion.\nDid you see anything?\nNo .\nI didn ' t see anything off the adapter.\nAll right .\nThe equipment adapter. I just saw it off of the\nretro adapter.\nWhy don't you go to retrofire then?\nOkay.\nDo you have anything else on the adapter separ ation?\nNo, I don't think so.\nI was impressed with the cleanness in the feel ,\nand I didn ' t even want to look around .\nI\njust happened to be looking over at Jim' s window at\nthat time , and , as I said, I could see pieces\ngo around , and I could especially see pieces\nto this side. What I saw looked like a\nmount with two round things on it.\nI had been\nbriefed on this thing by John Young and he\nsaid it looked like two pump packages .\nSo,\nI said it looked l i ke two pump packages , too .\nLooked like just what I expected it to.\nAnd there was lots of debris around it as it whistled." }, { "n": 219, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p219.jpg", "text": "211\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\noff to the side, and then it went out of my view.\nOkay.\nOn retrofire there weren't any sightings\nto observe.\nDid you see anything outside, F.d?\nDid\nyou see any flames or anything like '. that?\nNo, I didn't.\nI don't think there was much there. The retro pack\njettison- -we didn't see it jettison, but shortly after\nthat we had rolled upside down and we were flying in,\nand I saw the retro adapter floating around on the\nleft side. It had turned around so that it was small­\nend-forward rather than blunt-end-forward. You could\nsee the whip antenna sticking out the side, the four\nretrorockets, cross-beams, and the plumbing around\nthe edges. It was quite a sight. It drifted out\nbehind us until it got out a couple or 300 feet. It\nstarted glowing a little on the leading edge. It\nstarted fading farther and farther behind us as we\nreentered. It finally went from a dull glow to a\nbright one, and finally you could see the leading\nedge of it eroding away. Finally, it vre.s just a\nball of flame back there.\nI thought that was quite a sight, too. It kind\nof set the modus\nfor our reentry, of observing" }, { "n": 220, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p220.jpg", "text": "212\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nvery interesting things all the way down ,\nincluding ourselves .\nWe didn't observe anything in particular that\nhappened at 400 000 feet.\nThe ionization· was\nwhere we really started picking up the fire.\nI think we kind of timed that with what you\nwere talking about the retro adapter up there .\nYou said , \"Hey, look at it starting to burn.: 11 ,\nand about that time we were starting to throw\na sheath around us to.\nThat 's right. It looked l ike to me that it\nwent from pink to orange and then went out to\na reddish-orange, and then in the mids t of the\nreddish-orange you could see little tongues of\ngreen occasionally.\nIt was quite pretty.\nI think another thing about it too is that there\nwasn't as much of it as I thought there would\nbe.\nI can't say that I was disappointed in not\nseeing more fire, but when I first heard about\nJohn ·Glenn's reentry,\nI\nenvisioned\nmore fire coming out .\nIn this case you might\ncall it just a sheath.\nThat's right .\nThere wasn' t a big blaze,by a\nMcDivitt\nC0~51FIDE~JIAL" }, { "n": 221, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p221.jpg", "text": "213\nWhite\n10.4 Reentry\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nlong shot.\nIt was almost like a veil of silk.\nThere was\nno flame .\nWell , in -:reentry we r olled.\nWe didn't have any\ntrouble in seeing the· horizon as we went around,\nbut\nwe\nwere\nrolling all the way down .\nWe did see ourselves crossing the ground, since\nwE'.l were heads-up a fair amount .\nWe could look\nout and could see anything we wanted to see.\nsaw the Gulf Coast , and then out across Florida.\nA little bit of dizziness was associated' with\nthe rolling reentry as far as the visual-­\nYes .\nIt wasn't really dizziness . It was just\nt he fac t that you could tell that you were going\naround in a circle at a relatively high rate.\nIt didn't bother us. It's just that you could\nfeel it.\nThe spacecraft didn't oscillate very\nmuch during reentry.\nAnything else there, Ed?\nNo.\nWhen we deployed the dr ogue, it really made the\nride interesting.\nI couldn't see the drogue\nvery well .\nEd could see it probably better than\nGO\"'FI DEf'~TI Ab...\nI" }, { "n": 222, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p222.jpg", "text": "214\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nI could.\nAt this time I didn't !mow where the\nsun was.\nWe oscillated back and forth on the\ndrogue probably as much as plus or minus 40\ndegrees.\nI never did see the drogue dereef.\nI couldn't see up to the top to see if it was\nreefed or not .\nI don ' t think there's much else about what we\ncould see on the drogue.\nCan you think of\nanything?\nI could see it up there whipping back and forth ,\nand I was sure hoping that it was going to hold\non and not pull the front end of the spacecraft\noff, the way we were oscillating.\nAt Rand R-separate I saw parts of stuff out in\nfront .\nMy window was pretty well clouded over,\nand I couldn' t see that well .\nI did see something\nseparate , and I did see the chute start off. It\nwent all t he way up.\nAt main chute deploy I saw it\ncome out in a reefed condition, I checked the\nchute and I didn ' t see any panels missing.\nI\nchecked t he little circle in t he middle in the\nparachute, and it seemed to be in fine shape.\nI was expecting that we had a good chute. It" }, { "n": 223, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p223.jpg", "text": "215\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nfinally just dereefed and we had an excellent\nchute. It popped out and came back in.\nAbout\na quarter of it along the edge folded back in\nand then popped back out again and we had a\nbeautiful chute.\nDo you have anything else on\nthe main chute?\nNo.\nI couldn't see it until it started to de­\nreef. From the dereef on, I could see the chute\nand was very happy to see it.\nDuring our descent to landing I could see the\nRand R can with both the drogue and the ~ilot\nchutes attached to it.,floating off to one side.\nAfter we landed, I noticed that there was steam\ncoming out of the RCS thrusters. This steam\ndidn't last very long.\nI could see the sea dye\nmarker in the water.\nI could see the parachute\nin the water.\nI think you also ought to indicate that the\nwindows steamed up quite a bit. I could see\nout a little better than you.\nYou couldn't\neven see '50 •• feet out in front of you on your\nside.\nNo, I sure couldn't. • There was\na hole down" }, { "n": 224, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p224.jpg", "text": "216\nat the bottom of the window that I could see\nthrough.\nF.d wasn't having too much trouble seeing\nthrough his. It was real nice to see the heli­\ncopter and the swimmer.\nWhite\nBoth the windows were pretty foggy, though.\nEO~~FIDE~~flAI!\"" }, { "n": 225, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p225.jpg", "text": "217\nEO►~FI DEISJ TIAL\n11 • 0 EXPERIMENTS\n11.1 Two-Color Earth--L.imb Photography (MSC-10)\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nThis is one in which we had our first example\nof poor flight planning.\nThey scheduled our\nMSC-10 experiment so that it actually confli cted\nwith some Horizon Scan Tests that we had to\nmake.\nAnd since our Horizon Scan tests were\nbeing made in conjunction with the platform,\nwhich was only going to be up for a limited\nperiod of time, we had to interfere on the\ntail end of MSC-10 to go ahead and start\nworking on the Horizon Scanner Check.\nAnyhow,\nwe went ahead on the MSC-10,starting at 11:04,\nand went through eight series of pictures. This\nwas the time that we had trouble with the event\nindicator.\nDidn't we have ten series? I thought we had ten.\nI 've only got ei ght indicated here.\nOh, yes,\nwait a minute; it says 10 1/2 runs.\nI only\nhave eight recorded here, and\na final one\n·being run at 11: 57,\nWe should have 9 1/2 runs.\nYes.\nWe should have 9 1/2 runs, and only nine were" }, { "n": 226, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p226.jpg", "text": "218\nGO~~ FIDE~~ TfAL\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nrequired.\nWe should have it all .\nOn the firs t\nthree runs the event indicator wasn't used, be­\ncause I was having trouble with the Hasselblad\nshutter working properly in conjunction with\nthe event indicator .\nAbout 11:19, I got the\nevent indicator working all right, and the rest\nof them were run pretty well. The early runs\nwere taken pretty much in night conditions.\nI\ndoubt if much will come out on that one. The .next one,\nat 11:09,was taken with the sun right on the\nhorizon, right into the camera, so I doubt if\nthat one will be too much more than a big\nwashed-out mess .\nThe rest of them were all\ntaken with the horizon in the proper position and\nutilizing the ring sight. The last part of the\nexperiment was interrupted by the Horizon\nScanner Tests .\nIn other words, we didn't get to\nthe sunset.\nI think actually the sunset would\nhave been one more series of pictures.\nI would think so.\nOkay.\nI guess that's all for MSC-10.\nOkay.\nDo you have any comments on that?" }, { "n": 227, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p227.jpg", "text": "219\ncQ ~~ Fl DDtTIAt\nMcDivitt\nNo, I don't have any comments. I think we\nlogged the time and the weather along the route,\nsuch as it was, and we got all that into the book.\n11. 2 ~!ic Terrain and Weather Photography (S-5 and S-6)\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nI think we had a lot of unusual and significant\nsubject matter, and it's all in the pictures.\nWe\nhad one camera that wouldn't wind the film too\neasily, but other equipment operated fine.\nWe\ndidn't get the data reviewed properly--too late.\nAnd we used the voice recorder as often as we\ncould record.\nI don't believe we have all of\nthis S-5 and S-6 photography recorded.\nI\nthink ss we go over them, tho\"Ugh; .the ones we\ndidn't record will be pretty obvious.\nYee, I think that those two experiments are\nreally in the photographs.\nThe Hasselblad\ncamera operated fine except we had one magazine\nthat didn't wind up too well, but it never did\njam up completely.\nI guess that sort of covers\nit. Wouldn't you say, Ed?\nI would too. All the data that we got for it\nis recorded in our data book. Let's see\nSimple Navigation with the Sextant. Ha.!\nD-9.\n11.3 Simple Navigation with the Sextant\nMcDivitt\nI ~\nwe might as well cover it.\n.-,~~fJOa~TI Ab" }, { "n": 228, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p228.jpg", "text": "220\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nWell , in the Air Force portion of it , we can start\nright off by saying that the stars they wanted\nUi to run the operation on--I\nthink, Series\nNo . 4-­\nNo , that was the last one.\nThey gave us Series 1\nto start wi.th.\n--which was the daylight.\nThe daylight operations\ndidn't prove feasible at all .\nWe couldn' t see\nthe stars and if we could have, we didn ' t have\na good horizon to r un them on .\nSo it became\napparent to us that that run was lost right in\nthe beginning,when we first came out of the\ndarkness and lost all the s t ars .\nWe also got\nt he big picture t hat t he sext ant was not going\nto be too easy to use . It was going to be\nimpossible to use without using some fuel , and\nit was going to be dam hard to use when we used just\npulses of fuel. We needed some kind of stabiliza­\ntion.\nAt least I thought so .\nWe might say that the lightbulb in the cormter\nreadout for the angle was burned out.\nThat burned out within t wo seconds after we got\nup there, I think." }, { "n": 229, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p229.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n221\nCOt'4FfDEt~TIAL {\nDid it ever light?\nFirst time I turned it on it lit and it went\n\"flit\" , and then the light just went bzzz-bzzz.\nI didn't know it ever lit.\nIt lit and then the light went out.\nOkay.\nSo we lost the lightbulb in the angle\nreadout, which made all the rest of the measure­\nments very difficult. And the Air Force portion\nin daylight was completely unusable.\nYou couldn't\nsee the stars and the horizon at any time.\nIn\nthe night portion,we initially had great large\nangles between the stars and the horizon, and\nwe found that about 25 degrees was the maximum\nstar-horizon angle that we could handle.\nWould\nyou concur with that, lli.?\nSure do.\nAs we mentioned when we were talking about the horizon\nand the air glow.\nWe really had three horizons.\nWe had the true earth horizon.\nWe had the top\nof the dim air glow layer, and we had the top\nof the bright air glow layer.\nI think that I\nalways used the top of the bright air glow layer,\nexcept where I specifically called out in our" }, { "n": 230, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p230.jpg", "text": "222\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nnotes.\nEd tended to use different types of\nhorizons, dependent upon the type of filter he\nhad on.\nWhy don't you discuss that a little bit~\nI tended to feel that the bottom of the bright\nair glow layer gave me a little finer defined\nhorizon for a no-filter operation.\nWhen I put\nthe blue filter on, though, I didn ' t have much\nhorizon at all.\nWhen I put the green filter on,\nit gave me, as far as the top of the air glow is\nconcerned, a better horizon to measure to.\nI\nthought that the horizon was certainly not a\nvery defined point to measure to, and I think\naccuracy would be lost in trying to measure to\na horizon like this . It 's just pl ain hard to\ntake a fuzzy old horizon and try to make an\naccurate measure to it .\nThat 's exactly the kind\nof horizon that you've got at night .\nI concur.\nThere must have been at least a couple\nof minutes of fuzziness in that horizon, and I\ndon't think that you would ever expect to\nmeasure to the horizon within a couple of\nminutes.\nDo you?\nNo.\nYou'd have to calibrate yourself down pretty\nCOt~FIDE~~TIAL" }, { "n": 231, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p231.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\nWhite\n223\nGOt'4 FI t,Et'4TI\nclose to measure.\nYou know it would be just\npure luck if you kept measuring properly to it.\nYes, the thing of it all is that even if Ed\ngot himself calibrated so that he would always\nmeasure the same angle between the star and the\nhorizor--it wouldn't be consistent between One\nperson and another.\nI'm not really sure how you\nwould ever go about measuring to this horizon\nwith any accuracy at all unless you had some way\nthat you could-instead of attenuating the light­\nbuild it up in some way and then filter out one\nparticular line that happened to be an extremely\nsharp line.\nThe horizon I like to measure\nto\nbest was the top of t he dense air glow layer with\nno filter. The next horizon I liked was the top\nof the dense air glow layer with the green filter.\nI liked least of all the blue filter , because it\njust completely eliminated the horizon.\nYes, I don ' t think the difference between. the\nclear and the green was enough to argue over a\npreference between.\nI thought maybe I had a\nclearer one in the green, but I tended to take\nfar more measurements with the clear one, so\n•\nCetctflDE~~TIAL-.s..~" }, { "n": 232, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p232.jpg", "text": "224\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nperhaps they are so closely matched that it\nreally didn't make too much,.-difference .\nYes, I did most of mine with the clear one.\nFor the runs in the Air Force portion, I found\nout that the stars had too big of an angle between\nthe star and the horizon. To actually follow\nthe format, for the runs as given , turned out\nto be too difficult. We did make runs on stars\nand horizons if we took the time on it and took\nthe measurements . It seemed like the angle was\nfairly well limited between 20 and 25 degrees. This\nwas due to the limited maneuver capability imposed\nupon us and the lack of having enough window space.\nIf you get behind the sextant, behind the window, and\ntry to make a measurement, you might be able to\ntheoretically measure something out to 50 to 60\ndegrees . Theoretically, this may be possible, but\nyou must can ' t get yourself up above the console\ncircuit breaker panel or down into the foot well\narea, which would be required to make measure­\nments of this magnitude.\nThere were definite" }, { "n": 233, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p233.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\n225\nCet-«:IDE~~TIAL~\nlimitations on hitting the side of the spacecraft\nand trying to make a sighting and losing the\nobject out of the upper window as you cranked\nthe periscope down to bring the star down to\nthe horizon.\nIn trying to accomplish the Air Force portion\nof the experiment, we found ourselves completely\nunable to do the daylight star-horizon measurement.\nSo, to get some insight into the operational use\nof the sextant, we took a great number of star\nto horizon measurements at night. They are in\nthe book in quite a bit of detail. As we mentioned\nearlier, the helmet was an impediment to use with\nthe sextant, so on occasion we had to take the\nhelmet off.\nThe greatest angle that we ca~ld\nnormally get was about 25 degrees between the\nhorizon and the stars, but on occasion we got up\nto 30 degrees. This meant a certain alinement\nof the spacecraft was necessary so that you\ncould get the largest piece of glass between\nthe star and the horizon and still get the" }, { "n": 234, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p234.jpg", "text": "226\nsextant in there.\nWe found out that to do the\nstar to horizon measurement, you had to be\nright-side-up.\nIf you tried to do it upside down ,\nthe filter blanked out the star and not the\nhorizon. I think that there are a great number\nof measurements in here, but I do feel that the\nAir Force portion of the D-9 Experiment was more\nqualitative than quantitative. Maybe I ought\nto talk about the Apollo portion.\nWe made one\nApollo run where we used two stars .\nI held the\nspacecraft fixed to within about plus or minus\n2 degrees, and\nEld took a great number of\nmeasurements .\nEd made a great number of\nmeasurements between two stars .\nAnd we\ngot\nour 30\nruns on one pair of star s\nthat\nwere quite close together.\nThen\nwe\nstarted out with about another\n20 sight­\nings on another pair of stars that were\nfurther apart.\nWhite\nThey. were all in Scorpi.\nI\nthink they\nwere about 12 degrees on the first one and\nabout 22 degrees on the second one .\nThere were\nAntares and S0 orpi i n the second series , and it was" }, { "n": 235, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p235.jpg", "text": "227\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nScorpi and the third star up in Scorpio in the fi\nfirst series.\nAgain, we found that the angle that we had\nselected to operate between was too large, and\nwe ran our first group of stars in about 12 1/2\ndegrees, and for the second pair we tried to\npick stars that were farther apart so that we\ncould get a better feel for larger angles.\nThis\npair of stars was a little over 21 degrees apart.\nWe were too optimistic about the angle between\nstars that we could see by looking through the\nspacecraft window.\nWhat do you think about the\nvoice r ecorder usage during this experiment,\nF.d.?\nI don't know why we had to do i t .\nNo, we actually hand-recorde most of the infor­\nmation here.\nThe one t hing that certainly delayed\nthe experiment was the loss of the lightbulb\nwithin the readout.\nWe changed the batteries and\nbulbs from the cross-hairs and never could get" }, { "n": 236, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p236.jpg", "text": "228\ni 0t~FIDE~~TIAL :J\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nthis particular light to come b~ck on.\nDid you ev8r flgure out why we needed to hand­\nr ecord all these things-why we had to record them\non the recorder--the times and all that jazz?\nNo, we h~d to r ecord the angles some place and\nwe h.ad to correlate it to a time.\nWell, it says to prepare sextant and photo-event\nindicator for meas,.1rem<'!•1ts .\nWhat do t hey mean\nby photo- event indicator?\nThe photo-event indicator was to get the exact\ntime.\nRemember , when you were doing star to\nhorizon measur~me~ts you had to have-­\nNo , but this is just for the star. I don't\nunderstand the photo-cvant indicator.\nI think\nthat just clobbers up our data.\nThat ' s right.\nYes, that Wlisn't applicable at\nall. It didn't make any difference wha~ time it\nwas at all.\nIn fact, when I made a second run on this while\nyou were asleep one time, I didn't put the photo­\nevent indicator on.\nNo , there wasn't any need to put the pho~o-event\nindicatoc- on this." }, { "n": 237, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p237.jpg", "text": "229\n11 , 4 Electr ostatie Char ge (MSC-1)\nMcDivitt\nI think what we could say here is that we turned\nMSC-1 on and off when it said in the flight plan\nand when directed by the people on the ground.\n11 , 5 Proton-Electron Spectrometer and Tri-Axis Flus-Gate Magnetometer\n(MSC- 2 and MSC-3)\nMcDivitt\nWe turned off MSC-2 and -3 according to real­\ntime flight planning from the ground and when­\never the flight plan in t he air called for it.\nWhite\nWe had one time when I ran a double small-end­\nforward set of runs through the Anomaly.\nThe\nf irst time , I fel t that the heading had not been\naccurate enough for the small-end-forward\nrequirement.\nWe were doing it without the\nplatform on the stars , and the first time\nthrough I wasn ' t satisfied with it .\nS~ I called\ndown to the ground and told them that I wasn ' t\nsatisfied with the run and that I ' d make a\nrepeat run the next time. This I did , and I\nleft the equipment on throughout both runs and\nfor an hour after that. So, we effectively have\ntwo small-end rtms through the South Atlanti c\nAnomaly." }, { "n": 238, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p238.jpg", "text": "230\nCOt~FIDE~~TIAL\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\n11 , 6 Radiation (D-8)\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nOkay.\nWe didn ' t have any operational problems\nwith it.\nDid we use the voice recorder with it?\nYes , I guess we did. It should all be recorded\non the voice recorder. If not , we've got backup\ntimes in the book.\nOur voice recorder was our\nprime means , and our book was just a backup.\nRight .\nI think one time you were sleeping, and you\ndidn ' t get it that pass, but you got it the\nsecond pass , didn't you?\nWell , we got them logged when we did it.\nThey\ncan go back and get it .\nRight .\nTher e were no operational problems.\nWe\ndid use-the voice recorder to record the infor­\nmation.\n11.7 Inflight Exerciser (M-3)\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWe didn't have any stowage problems with it\nbesides those is associated with all the other\nequipment.\n'rhe outside thin rubber layer broke\non the exerciser about the end of the f irst day.\nYes .\nI've got a comment or two. ·\nGo ahead, Ed ,\nCO I>~ FI DE~~TIAb" }, { "n": 239, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p239.jpg", "text": "231\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nI had the feeling that my capacity and my desire\nto do strenuous physical exercise decreased\nduring the flight. Actually,it kind of decreased\nto a point and stayed at that point for the\nwhole flight. Shortly after I got up there, I\nreally didn't have any big desire to do a great\ndeal of physical exercise. I did do the exercises\nas indicated, and I did about eight extra series\nof exercises with the exerciser, but I noticed\na definite lack of interest in doing heavy\nphysical exercise.\nI concur with what Ed said, although I'm not\nreally sure this came about because of the small\namount of sleep that we bad or just .:w -a.n effect\nof the zero-g thing.\nI did use the M-3 exerciser\nto do other exercises.\nI used it to exercise\nmy arms , not oql.y in the manner that was de.mon@trated\nbut by holding on to one end and pul ling the\nother end with the other band.\nI used it to\nexercise my legs also.\nI did a few other exercises, just with the\nexerciser.\nI yanked around a little bit on it,\nas Jim indicated. But, I also did some exercises\nin which I pressed pretty bard up against the\nG€>-MFIDE~~TIAL 1 ~" }, { "n": 240, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p240.jpg", "text": "232\nCOt'iiflDE~~flAL\nfront end of the spacecraft; I tried to tense my\nlegs and tense my stomach and arms , and I tried\nto exercise in this condition.\nI probably did\nthat a lot more than I did anything with the\nexerciser.\n11 . 8 Inflight Phonocardiogram (M-4)\nMcDivitt\nTo the best of my knowledge we didn't have any\nequipment problems.\nAbout the end of the second\nday my sensors started itching a little. I don't\nknow if it was my phonocardiogram or my other sensors .\n11 . 9 Extravehicular Activity\nMcDivitt\nExtravehicular activities have been covered\nin great detail earlier in the debriefing, I\ndon't think we have to go over that again.\n11, 1OMiscellaneous\nMcDivitt\nIn the external observations I did observe three\nsatellites , but I think that these were covered\nin detail earlier, and I don't believe we need\nto go over that again here.\nWhite\nI think that we'll comment again (we've commented\non this point before) that the tape recorder is\nthe most important piece of equipment that we\nhave onboard the spacecraft to record our ob-\nCOf',FIDeNTIAL" }, { "n": 241, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p241.jpg", "text": "McDivitt\n233\nservations , times , and other information concern­\ning the experiments .\nI think the one we have\nonboard with the light located down underneath the\npilot's right elbow is entirely unsatisfactory.\nI feel that we lost some information on our\nflight due to the light 9oming on and not being\nobserved. We were going ahead with information\nfor the tape, but were losing it in this manner.\nI think we ought to correct this deficiency\nprior to the next flight.\nI concur heartily." }, { "n": 242, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p242.jpg", "text": "234\nCOf'J F. IDEf'J +IAL\n12.0\nPRE-MISSION PLANNING\n12. 1 filssion Plan (Trajectory)\nMcDivitt\n12.2 Flight Plan\nMcDivitt\nIt is pretty difficult to debrief this pre-:-mission\nplanning because we had so many pre-mission plans\nthat we couldn't keep track of them all. I think\nthat we started too late on the mission planning\nfor GT-4 , because everyone was concent:r:ating on\nGT-3 .\nThen in the two and a half months that we\nhad to do the mission plans , we changed it about\nthree or four times , drastically.\nWe nqt only\nchanged the trajectory, but we changed the altitudes\nof insertion; at one time we were shooting for a 87­\n145 orbit and then a 87-161, and then we changed it\nfrom 90 degree launch azimuth to a 72 deg:cee launch\nazimuth.\nWe changed how we were going to handle the\ndecay of the orbit.\nAll in all, I think our\nmission plan changed just too often.\nSame with the flight plan.\nWe kept changing it\naround and changing it around and changing it\naround. It was r eally unfortunate.\nUp until about\nten days before the flight we were really prepared\nfor about two different flights, and finally we got\nCOt>~FFDEt-~TIAl" }, { "n": 243, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p243.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\n235\nthe flight plan nailed down.\nI think our r.light,\nthough, was somewhat different than other flights in\nthat we did have some real major changes about\ntwo and a half months prior to the flight.\nCon­\nsequently, we had to expect these things.\nSo,I\nthink I'd be the first to admit that I lived with\nthese changes, because I had a great desire to do\nthe mission that we set out to do.\nWe both kind of got to the point where we knew\nthat we had a mission to do, and we knew it was\ngoing to be tough as far ae getting a good flight\nplan was concerned, a.nd we were just trying to get the\nthe best we could and go.\nThat's right.\nI think that the situation that\nwe finally ended up in was that we tried to have\na very good launch and first couple of orbits and\na good last orbit or two.\nAll the stuff in the middle,\nwe knew we were going to have to handle re&l-ti.me.\nI finally found myself forced into the situation\nwhere I couldn't even worry about the middle fl~ght\nplan.\nWe had to lay it out in general and expect\na great number of changes.\nThis is exactly what\nwe did.\nWe handled it in real-time. I'm not\nsuggesting that we do tnis ~for future flights, £or\n€0f'~FIDE~~TIAL" }, { "n": 244, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p244.jpg", "text": "White\nMcDivitt\nI really hate to see us go right on down until\nthe last minute before •·we get this information\nprepared.\nI think it' s too bad, but I think on\nour flight a l ot of this just couldn' t be helped\nbecause of the drastic changes in the flight plan\nin the last two and a half months.\nI don't feel we 've got a big beef coming to any­\nbody.\nI lmow a lot of people were working pretty\nha.rd.\nThat ' s right.\nThere were a few things on our\nchecklist that could have been done earlier, but\nI think the total miss ion plan ,as such,was modi fied\nat a late date to change the objectives by a great\namount.\nWe in the crew agreed with the change. It\nalmost doubled the amount of work that we had to\ndo in those last couple of months, but I think\nthat by accepting it and trying to make the thing\nwork, we were abl e to overcome the pr oblem, and it\n-wa~\nindeed\na major problem.\nA situation that I\nhoped wouldn ' t occur and did occur on our flight\nconcerned the checklist, the data books , the pro­\ncedure books, the map for the orbit navigation and\nour charts and graphs.\nWe didn't receive the check­\nlist and the pr ocedure and data books for our flight\ni::ut IFl □-ti --" }, { "n": 288, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p288.jpg", "text": "280\nfr llliE.\nWhite\nMcDivitt\nWhite\nhave a good launch and first few orbits, a good\nretro-preparation, and a good retro and r eentry,\nwith the center of the mission being taken care\nof by doing the experiment or doing the operational\ncheck by itself without regard to what went\nbefore or what went after.\nI think this is the\nkind of training you really need on these long\nduration flights. Anything else there, Ed?\nNo.\nI concur heartily.\nI think that practicing\nit piecemeal is the only way you can do it.\nYou have any concluding comments?\nI think we've been ma.king conclusions all day\nlong.\nI t hink to try to conclude them all,\nwe'd never get them." }, { "n": 289, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p289.jpg", "text": "" }, { "n": 290, "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d017/p290.jpg", "text": "f" } ] }