{
 "slug": "nasa-uap-d021",
 "title": "NASA-UAP-D021 Gemini-7-Technical-Debriefing 1965",
 "agency": "NASA",
 "year": "1965",
 "page_count": 222,
 "source_page": "https://wearenotalone.space/document/nasa-uap-d021/",
 "original_file": "https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/061226/release_03/documents/NASA-UAP-D021_Gemini-7-Technical-Debriefing_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-d021/p01.jpg",
   "text": "I\nAuthority:\nNW 91526\n\\\nGEMINI\nVII\nTECHNICAL DEBRIEFING\nDecember 23, 1965\nNOTICE: This document may be exempt from\npublic disclosure under the Freedom of lnfor•\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 Directive 1382.2."
  },
  {
   "n": 2,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p02.jpg",
   "text": ""
  },
  {
   "n": 3,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p03.jpg",
   "text": "PREFACE\nThis preliminary transcript was made from voice\ntape recordings of the Gemini 7 flight crew debriefing\nconducted December 19 through December 21, 1965 at the\nCrew Quarters, Cape Kennedy, Florida.\nAlthough all the material contained in this transcript\nhas been rough edited, the urgent need for the preliminary\nt ranscript by mission analysis personnel precluded a final\nedit prior to its publication."
  },
  {
   "n": 4,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p04.jpg",
   "text": "- - - ------------ ----"
  },
  {
   "n": 5,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p05.jpg",
   "text": "Paragraph\n1.0\n2.0\ne\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nPage Number\nCOUNTDOWN\n1.1 Crew Insertion. ...................... ............. . 1\n1.2\nComm:un.ications . .......•.•.........•...........•..• . 1\nl.3 Crew Participation in Countdown....................l\nl.4 Comfort . .........................................• .1\nl.5 Environmental Control System...............•..•....2\nl.6 Sounds . ..•...•••.••..•.••• •••..•••••••••••••••••••• 2\nl.7 Vibrations........................ .................2\n1.8 Visual . ............................................2\nl.9 Crew Station Controls and Displays.................3\nPOWERED FLIGHT\n2.1 Lift-Off cues·••·••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••3\n2.2 Roll Program . .................. ....................4\n2.3 Pitch Program. . .........•...........................4\n2.4\nAerod.y\"namics • ••••••••••••.•.• •••••••••••••• •••• ••••5\n2.5 Environmental Control System....... .•...........••.5\n2.6 Maximum q . .........................................5\n2.7 W indsheaz­......•......•.....••......••....•...••.••6\n2.8\nDCS Upd.ates • •••.•.••..•......••.. ••.•••.•••••••. • ••6\n2.9 :Engine 1 Operation. . . ..............................6\n2.10 :Engine 2 Status . ........................... ..... ...7\n2.11 Acceleration g's••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••7\n2.12POG0.......•........•...•.. •.....•...••.•...•.•..•.7\n2.13 Guidance Initiation............. ... .. ..............7\n2 .14 BECO • •.•.•••..••...•..•...........•...••..•. •...••.8\n2 .15 Stagi.ng' . ..... . .......... . ,. ... o ••• ••••••••••••••••••8\n2 .16 E]ngin.e 2 Ignition. .................................9\n2.17 RGS Initiate.•••••••••••••••••• ••••••••• •••••• •••• •9\n2.18 GO/NO GO e1 • •• • • •• •• • • •• • •••••••••••• • • ••••••••••••••9\n2.19 Systems Status•••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••9\n2.20 Acceleration o• •••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••lO\n2.21 Fairing Jettison•••• ••• • ~••••·•••••••••••• ••• •• ·••10\nINSERTION\n3.1 Post-SEC0...............•.... .....................10\n3.2 SECO plus 30 seconds....•..•.. ••.................•11"
  },
  {
   "n": 6,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p06.jpg",
   "text": "14.0\nTRAINI NG\n14.1\nGemini Missi on Simulator...........•••••••185\n14.2\nDCPS (Launch abort simulat or) ....•.•••••••191\n14. 3\nMAC Engineering Simulator........••.••.•••191\n14.4\nTranslation and Docking Tr ainer...•.••••••192\n14 . 5\nPlanet ari um. . ........................••••• •193\n14.6\nSystems Brief inga...............•.••••••••194\n14 . 7\nFlight Experiments.............••.••••••••198\n14.8\nSpacecraf t syst ems tests.......••.••••••••202\n14.9\nEgress t r aining....................••.•••• 204\n14.10\nParachute Tr aining..•.........•...•.•••••• 205\n14.11 Launch simulationa.................•••••••206\n14.12\nReentry simulations..........•........•••.206\n14.13 Simul ated network simulations...•..••••••• 206\n14.14\nNetwork simulations.............•..••••••• 206\n14.15\nFl ight Plan t r ai ning...............••.••.• 207\n15.0\nCONCLUDING COMMENTS...•....••........•...........208"
  },
  {
   "n": 7,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p07.jpg",
   "text": "-\n-\nLANDING AND RECOVERY\n7.1 Impact . ........... ... . ...••.•. •. •.•••••• • • • • • • • • • 54\n7.2 Checklists. .............................. • • • • • • • • 55\n7.3 Communicatione..••......•••••••••.••.•.••••.•.•••55\n7.4 Systems Configuration.•••••··••••••••••••••••••••58\n7.5 Spacecraft Status.••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••59\n7.6 Postlanding Activity..............•..............62\n7.7 Comi•ort . ...•............•..••••• •.•.••.••••...•••63\n7.e Recovery Force Personnel..•.....•...•..•..........63\n7.9\nF.g\"ress • .••.•. • •••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••63\n7.10 S1.lrVival Gear . ..•............•................•..63\n7.11 Crew Pick UP••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••64\n8.0\nSYSTEMS OPERATION\n8.1 Plat form ...... . •....... ..........................64\n8.2\nO.AMS • .• ••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••65\n0.3\nRCS . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • ••• • • • • ••• • • 73\ne.4\nECS . ..........•.••..•..... ..•................ • ...75\n0.5 Commun.ications . ..................................91\n8.6 Electrical . ..................................... .95\n0.7 Onboard Computer..•.........•••••••.....•••...• .•99\n0.0 Crew Station...•.............•..•.. ..•..........101\n0.9 Biomedical....•••••••...•.••.••.••.•• .••.•....•.115\nOPERATIONAL CHECKS\n9.1 Apollo Landmark Investigation•••.•..•.•.....•...122\n9.2 Cabin Lighting Survey.••• •••• •••••••••••••••••••130\n9.3\nHF' Test .•• •••• ••.••.•••• •• •••·••••••••.•••••• •..130\n1O.O\nVISUAL SIGHTINGS\n10.1\nCou.ntdo\"Wll • •••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •131\n10.2 Powered Flight••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••l31\n10.3 Orbital Flight.••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••132\n10.4 Reentry. ...•••.•.•..•..• ••...•..•..•.......... .138"
  },
  {
   "n": 8,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p08.jpg",
   "text": "Insertion Act ivities............................15\nPost Station Keeping...........•................17\nORBITAL FLIGHT . ..............••.•................... .18\n5.0\nRETROFIRE\n5.1 TR-2:00 Power Up and Alignment Checklists....... 32\n5.2 TR-26 Events............•.....•..••..•.......•..33\n5.3 TR-5 GMT Stop Clock.........•...................34\n5.4 TR- 256 .................... • • • • •. • • •. ••. •.. •. • • • .34\n5.5 TR- 1 . •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • .34\n5.6\nTR-0. • • ••• • • •. • • •• •. • • •• • • • • •• •. • • •••• • • • • • •• • • •35\n5.7 Retropack Jettison..............................40\n5.8 Commwiicatione..................................41\n5.9\nUpdating........................................41\n5.10 Post Retro Jettison Checklist...................42\n6.0\nREENTRY\n6.1 Reentry Parameters Update.......................42\n6.2\n400 K . ••••••.•••.••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••• •43\n6.3 Acceleration Profile...•..•...•.................47\n6.4 Spacecraft Control.••.....•.....................47\n6.5 100 K . ....••.•.•....•..•............•... ~ .......48\n6.6\n50 K . ...••..............••...•••................48\n6.7 35 K Checklist.••.•..•..•..•.•..••..•.•.........49\n6.8 Comm'W'l.icationa ••.•.•••••.••..••••••••••...•.•...49\n6.9 26 K Checklist •• •••••·••••••••••••••••••••••••••49\n6.10 10.6 K Barostat.................•.....•.........50\n6.11 Main Check Deployment •...............•..........51\n6.12 Post Main Checklist.............................51\n6.13 Single Point Release•...•••.••.•..•...••••......51\n6.14 2 K Checklist.•........•........................52\n6 .15 LBlldiilg . ..........•...•.........................52\n6.16 Postlanding Checklist..•..•....••....•....•..•.• 52\n6.17 Blood Pressure Measurement..•.•...•..•........••53"
  },
  {
   "n": 9,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p09.jpg",
   "text": "11.0\nEXPERIMENTS\n11.1\nCelestial, Space, and Terrestrial Radiometry\n(D-4/D-7)•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••140\n11.2\nStar Occulation Measurement (D-5) •...•.....•146\n11.3\nSimple Navigation (D-9) .....................148\n11.4\nVisual Acuity and Astronaut Visibility\nand Vision Test (M-9) .......................154\n11.5\nSynoptic terrain (S-5) and weather (s-6)\nphotograph.y••••..••.••.•••....••••.•••••••••158\n11.6\nProton Electron Spectrometer and Tri-Axis\nFlux-Gate Magnetometer (MSC-2 and MSC-3) ...•160\n11.7\nOptical communications (MSC-4) ..............161\n11.8\nLandmark Contrast..•....•........•..........165\n11.9\nCardiovascular reflex conditioning (M-1) ....166\n11.10 In-flight exercises (M-3) ...................167\n11.11 In-flight phonocardiogram (M-4) and\nIn-flight sleep analysis (M-8) ..............167\n11.12 Bioassay body fluids (M-5) and\ncalcium balance study (M-7) .................168\n11.13 Miscellaneous......•.......................•172\n12.0\nPREMISSION PLANNING\n12.l\nMission Plan (trajectory) ...........•.......175\n12.2\nFlight Plan.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••175\n12.3\nSpacecraft Changes •..•......................176\n12.4\nMission Rules............. ........•. ........177\n12,5\nExperiments••.•..•••••.•...•......•...•....•177\n13.0\nMISSION CONTROL\n13.1\nGO/NO GO' s••••••••.••.••.•••••.•••....••...•179\n13,2\nPLA and CLA updat es•••••••••••••••••••••••••l79\n13. 3\nConsuma.bles.............•.•...•..........••.180\n13.4\nFlight Plan changes.••••••••••••••••••••••••181\n13.5\nSystems . ....................•.............. . 182\n13.6\nExperiments real-time updatea...•......••.••184"
  },
  {
   "n": 10,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p10.jpg",
   "text": "f\n.."
  },
  {
   "n": 11,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p11.jpg",
   "text": "....\n1.0 COUNTDOWN\n1.1 Crew Insertion\nBorman\nI have no comment.\nI thought it went ve~y well.\nLovell\nLikewise, no comment on crew insertion.\nI think we got\nquite a. bit done. It was very orderly.\nBorman\nTiming was good and it was done properly.\n1.2 Communications\nBorman\nCommunications were good.\nI had no troubl e at all.\nLovell\nI had no trouble with communications in the cockpit or the\nspacecraft, but the communications in the va.n from the\nsuiting area t o the other area a.re rather poor. Maybe we\nshould try to get that improved sometime.\n1.3 Crew Participation in Countdown\nBorman\nAgain, I think they have been used on 4 or 5 l aunches, and\nI thought they were fine.\nLovell\nRight.\nCountdown procedure and crew participation is just\nwhat you expect now.\n1.4 Comfort\nBorma.n\nComfort was fine.\nNo problems?\nLovell\nNo problems for comfort , but I was surprised when I got in\nthe cockPi t, because there was a lot more there than there\nwas when I got in it for the stowage review.\nBut, it all\nturned out for t he best.\nNo problems."
  },
  {
   "n": 12,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p12.jpg",
   "text": "2\n1.5 ECS\nBorman\nECS worked fine.\nWe had no trouble with ECS at all during\nprelaunch or launch.\nLovell\nThat is true. The purge was a lot slower and it was just\nperfect for the final countdown. It was too fast for the\nSIM Flight, which we went through, a.nd I got an ee.:r block­\nage.\nFor the countdown, it was ju.st r ight.\nVery slow.\n1.6 Sounds\nBorman\nWe had been well briefed on all the soundsz the gimbaling,\npre­ valve, a.nd erector.\nAs a matter of fact, when the erec­\ntor started down there was no sound.\nWe had been told that\nprobably there might be a clanking or something. I hes.rd\nnothing.\nLovell\nAll I saw was the sky.\n1.7 Vibrations\nBorm8ll\nVibrations.\nNo comment.\nI had no problems.\nLovell\nIs this liftoff vibrations?\nBorman\nNo, this is countdown.\nVibrations of the spacecraft during\ncountdown.\nLovell\nNo, nothing we had not heard before.\n1.8 Visual\nLovell\nThe windows were perfeot.\nWe had no fogging.\nBorman\nNo fogging."
  },
  {
   "n": 13,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p13.jpg",
   "text": "---\n..\n3\nLovell\nThe windows were heated previously as a result of 51s pro­\nbl ems, and our windows, I t hought , were perfectly clean.\nDidn 1 t you?\nBorm8J'l\nRight.\n1.9 Crew Stati on Control s a.nd Displays\nLovel l\nNo comment .\nExactly how we had pl anned it for months.\nBorma.n\nExactly the way that we had seen it, and no probl ems.\n2.0 POWERED FLIGHT\n2.1 Liftoff Cues\nBorman\nStoney came in loud e.nd cl ea.r, counting the countdown.\nLovell\nCs.me in loud and cl ear.\n:Borman\nWe lmew exactly when i t was, and I for one had absolutely\nno question in my mind when we lifted off. It felt like I\nhad been t ied back, a.nd someone cut the string a.nd there\nwas a slow but definite acceleration at lift-off.\nLovell\nI thought you could just about put 01P COMM, V1bration, and\nnoise together, because the motion, vibration, and noise all\ncontributed to a definite knowledge that you were going\nsomepl ace.\nBorman\nIn other words, what you are saying is that you had no pro­\nblems determining lift-off.\nLovell\nNo, it went.\nBorma.n\nOkay vibration wa.s nominal during l ift-off. Again, perhaps"
  },
  {
   "n": 14,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p14.jpg",
   "text": "4\nit is because we were so well briefed on the simulations\nwe have run, but I had no problems.\nLovell\nThere was a little more noise than I expected, but a little\nless vibration.\nBorman\nJim said there was a little more noise than he expected.\nEven so,, it was not oppressive, or a problem at all. Visual.\nI did not have any visual cues.\nI was watching the instru­\nments.\n1What about you, Jim. Did you pick up any?\nLovell\nI had the clouds, end there was a visual cue. Just normal\ncloud cues .\nBorman\nCockpit displays were good.\nThe fuel pressure and oxidizer\npressure were nominal the whole flight. Just perfect.\n2.2 Roll Program\nBorman\nThe roll program, was so short it was almost like a spike•\nWe hardly even noticed the roll program.\nDid you Jim?\nLovell\nI did not notice it at all. I heard you call it out, but I\ndid not notice it.\nBorman\nI called it out, but we only rolled,I think,about 2 or 3°.\n2.3 Pitch Program\nBorman\nThe pitch program started just as in the simulator, which\nis very accurate on this. It looked exactly the same on the\nball, and there wae no problem.\nLovell\nThe pitch program for the RGS followed exactly what the IGS\n-~\n' ..... -­\n-... ,\n."
  },
  {
   "n": 15,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p15.jpg",
   "text": "5\nwas giving for the entire l aunch.\nThe needles were just\nmatched perfectly--nulled. I did not see any unusual\nattitudes that some of the other people commented on.\n2.4 Aerodynamic\nBorman\nAge.in, we had had this described to us ma.ny times, and it\nseemed to follow right along.\nIn the maximum q region we\ngot some vibration and noise, but after we got through\nmaximum q it was just like going supersonic in a fighter.\nYou just slip through, and from then on it was just l ike\nriding on a train.\nLovell\nI don't think it was bad either.\n2.5 :ms\nLovell\nPressure went up to 5.5 in the initial stoppage, and it\nslowly leaked down to 5.1, and stayed there.\nBorman\nI was cool during lift-off.\nLovell\nI was too. Comfortable.\nBorman\nComfortable. I mean cool in the sense that it means comfor­\ntable.\nOf course we can not very well comment on the cabin\natmosphere because we were sealed.\n2.6 Maximum q\nBorman\nWe ha.ve already discussed this. There was some noise build\nup and some vibration, but nothing to worry at all about or\neven discuss ."
  },
  {
   "n": 16,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p16.jpg",
   "text": "6\n2.7 Wind shear\nBorman\nWind shear.\nI did not notice any.\nLovell\nI did not notice a:ny wind shear either.\nBorman\nYou could not see any on you attitude gauges either, could\nyou?\nLovell\nNo, that is what I mean.\nBorman\nThe atti tude gauges stayed pegged. Right?\nLovell\nThey stayed nulled throughout the entire flight. I was\na.ma.zed a t the accuracy with which the RGS was following the\nIGS program.\n2.8 DCS Updates\nLovell\nCa.me through on schedule.\nBorman\nNo problem?\nLovell\nNo trouble.\nBorman\nHave any trouble punching the light ?\nLovell\nAfter the second upda.te, about 2:23 ,the g 1 s are too ~igh\nto let you punch off the l ight.\nSo , you have to wait for\nstaging, and then punch the l ight.\n2.9 Engine 1 Operation\nBorman\nEngine 1 operation, I thought, was norma.l.\nBut I did noti ce\na sl ight hint of a POGO a.round a.bout, I would esti mate, two\nminutes.\nThe slightest, faintest hint.\nI do not think J im\neven noticed it."
  },
  {
   "n": 17,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p17.jpg",
   "text": "7\nLovell\nBorman\nBorman\nLovell\nBorma.n\nBorman\nLovell\nI did not notice any POGO.\n2,10 Engine 2 Status\nIt seemed to me that from about 3 minutes and 30 seconds to\na.round 4 minutes, the noise and the feel was a little bit\ndifferent than it was a.fter that, as if it was vibrating &\nlittle bit more.\nBut this was sort of, a.gain, a sensing\ntype thing,\nThe inatrwnents were all nominal, a.nd it may\nhave just been me,\nI certainly ca.n not complain about the\noperation,\n2.11 Acceleration g's\nJ.ny- problems, Jim?\nNo problems. They were pretty nominal, weren I t they?\nI\ncould not see the g meter.\nThey were right on the money.\nAnd, of course, the g's we\nha.ve are all experienced in the centri.fuge , and so on.\nOne\nthing, when the g's dropped at staging and at SECO I had\nno sensation of tumbling and no sensation of disorientation.\nNothing at all.\n2.12 POGO\nI 've mentioned that I detected a slight hint of one tha.t was\nso small we cannot even really discuss it.\n2.13 Guidance Initiation\nWe had a guidance initiation. It was in the form of booster"
  },
  {
   "n": 18,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p18.jpg",
   "text": "8\nyaw deflecting downward, more so than booster pitch deflec­\nting. Booster pitch deflected slight ly t o the right, indi­\ncating, at guidance initiation, a booster-high trajectory.\nBut, they both came right back to null just after guidance\ninitiation, and that was it.\nBorman\nWe did not have the feeling that we were lofted, and then\na sudden pitch down.\nLovell\nNo , th9re was no change of booster performance at all. It\nwas just t hat the needles deflected at guidance initiation\nto say that we had gui dance initiation, and after that they\nnulled and stayed that W83' from there on.\n2.14 BECO\nBorman\nAt BECO, the whole spacecraft was engulfed in a red flame .\nI noticed that out of the corner of my eyes.\nJim, you\nprobably had a better view than I did.\nLovell\nYes.\nFlames came up thP. side there to the window.\nBorman\nThere was a definite, very brief instant of it, probably\nin the order of milliseconds, but it did envelope the space­\ncraft and I, in my own mind, wonder if this is not the place\nwhere we are picking up some of the smudge on t he window.\n2.15\nStagins-\nLovell\nWell, I did not notice any smudge at the time of staging.\nSlayton You did not notice any?\nLovell\nI did not notice any.\nOf course, things were going pretty\nfast.\nI did notice it after we got into o=bit, but not at"
  },
  {
   "n": 19,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p19.jpg",
   "text": "9\nEorma.n\nLovell\n:Borman\n:Borman\nLovell\n:Borman\nBorman\nLovell\n:Borman\nthat particul ar time.\n2.16 Engine 2 Ignition\nAgain, it is so well simulated that-­\nIt is very smooth.\nIt is ve:ry smooth, a.nd away you go.\n2.17 RGS Initiate\nWell, we have talked about that.\nYes, that is what I was talking about back p.!'eviously.\n2.18 GO/NO GO\nGO/NO GO.\nHouston, on the ground, came through great.\nWe\ngot a GO/NO GO before the 30 seconds we were waiting £or\nspacecraft separate.\nSo, we knew we were in good shape\nbefore we ever had the possibility we would have to burn.\nOf course, we also had the IVI's onboa.rd and they are very\ngood also.\n2.19 Systems Status\nThe systems were all great.\nNo problem, during powered\nflight.\nWe got two delt a Plights.\nOh, yes, that is right.\nWe are talking about spacecraft systems.\nWe got delta P\nlight on BECO in the first stage that went off at staging,\nthen came back on during second stage flight, and then the"
  },
  {
   "n": 20,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p20.jpg",
   "text": "10\n:::action 2 delta Plight did not go out a.nd it was •••\nLovell\nNo, J:ection 1 went on and out again during the £light. It\nwent out at, I think it went out at SECO.\nBorman\nThat is right.\nLovell\nBut 'Section 2 came on and we saw that one £or the next 14\ndays.\n2.20 Acceleration\nBorman\nAcceleration during stage 2 was right on the money, right on\nthe program.\nI read of£, I\nthink i t was about six a.nd a\nI\nhalf g a maximum.\nWe read this off after SECO.\n2.21 Fairing Jettison\nBorman\nFairing Jettison, I did not even hear it. I was concentra­\nting on the horizon, trying to get set for turning around.\nJim jettisoned the fairing and punched the Spacecraft SEP.\nI did not see a.nything or hear a.nything.\nLovell\nI saw debris and heard it and had a definite knowledge that\na squib had gone off. There had been an explosion.\n3.0 INSERTION\n3.1 Post SECO\nBorman\nManeuver controller was easy to reach.\nI had it out, and\nthere was no problem. It came out and was ready to go.\nAttitudes and rates, there were none.\nThe thing was as\nsolid a.a a rock as far as I could determine.\nI was watching"
  },
  {
   "n": 21,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p21.jpg",
   "text": "11\nthe horizon, and the attitude remained constant a.nd the\nrates were so minimal you could not even pick them up.\nI\nnoticed no transients, we experienced no·•·•••••~•• as\nfar as I know that was discernible.\nLovell\nDid you try to damp out the..\nBorman\nThere was nothing to damp out.\nLovell\nOkay.\n:Borman\nIn fact, I did not use the thrusters at all for that.\nI t\njust sat there.\n3.2 SECO plus 30 seconds\nLovell\nI have the IVI readings on a. ca.rd.\nDo you have those- cards\nthat we took off?\n:Borman\nYes.\nLovell\nI am sorry. We did not get forward-aft, left-right, u.p or\ndown because they were so quick, and I was trying to get the\ncamera.\nBut it was 17 1n the fore and a.ft wmdow, 13 in the\nleft-right, and up and down was 20.\nBorman\nWhat do you mean. you did not get them? They a.re there.\nLovell\nNo, I did not know a.ft or forwa.rd, or left or right, or up\nor down.\n:Borman\nOh, I see.\nLovell\nI just saw th&t they were so small tha.t I just wrote down\nthe numbers as a ..."
  },
  {
   "n": 22,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p22.jpg",
   "text": "12\nBorman\n17, 30, and 20.\nThere might have been a 13, 17, a.nd 20...\nLovell\nAbout what the numbers ca.me up with.\nBorman\nSpacecraft separation. We separated with minimum delay be­\ntween thrusting and Spacecraft SEP.\nJim actuated the space­\ncraft separation. I did not hear the thrusters firing. I\ncould not hear them; and I did not even helU' spacecraft\nseparation, but -­\nLovell\nI heard Spacecraft SEP, but I o·ould not hear the thrusters\nfiring. But you told me you were firing the thrusters--\nBorman\nI ea.id th.rusting a.nd SEIP Spacecraft a.nd we did it and away\nwe went.\nI thrusted for about 2 seconds.\nAlmost immedi­\nately, as soon as we had £inished thrusting, I started a\nyaw right 180°, and the rates were right around, I think\na.round --Of course, you should be able to pick this up off\ntelemetry, but I would estimate they were 3° to 4° per\nsecond turning around.\nAs soon as I ha.d the booster in\nsight, I thrueted be.ck 5 seconds.\nThis is the way we tried\nin silllulations, The simulations in St. Louis were excellent.\nLovell\nTurned out that was the best technique to use, 2 seconds\nfor the 2 seconds forward a.nd a 5 second return.\nBorman\nWe turned around a.nd there it was, bigger than the devil!\nLovell\nAt that distance there was no problem staying in there.\nBorman\nNow, I did have some problem because the booster was bending"
  },
  {
   "n": 23,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p23.jpg",
   "text": "13\nso rapidly. It wa.s tremendous. It looked like one of the\nautogenous lines ha.d been cut.\nI guess it was cut with a\npyro, a.nd it was really bending and this was causing it to\ntranslate as well as rotate. And in order to stay with it,\nI was having to use quite a bit of fuel;\nalthough it was\ncertainly a nominal task.\nI also went through several con­\ntrol modes switchings.\nI sta:rted out in PULSE and I could\nnot get around fast enough, so I went to DIRECT a.nd then\nslowed it up in RA.TE COMMAND. Slowed up the direct rate I\nwas using with RATE COMMAND, a.nd left it in RATE COMMAND\nwithout using the h&nd controller for a while. Finally\nwent to l'LATFOBM.\nWhen I went to PLA.'f.E'OHM~ we had been off\nto one side of the booster. ~\n. L went to PLATFORM, · it\nyawed me back around, and I lost sight of the booster . .SO\nwe went out of PLATFORM· and flew t he rest of it in PULSE\nMo~e using the reticle on the horizon for stabilization and\nusing the maneuver controller for thrust. This is all on\nonboard tape,incidentally.\nThe air to ground communications,\nthroughout the f light were superior.\nLovell\nI was really a.mazed a.t the communications, especially the\nprimary station.\nThe UHF was outstanding.\nBorman\nWe have already discussed GO/NO GO.\nThey came through loud\nand clear before we ever SEP spacecraft.\nWe had no need for"
  },
  {
   "n": 24,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p24.jpg",
   "text": "14\na velocity correction.\nLovell\nAs a matter of fact, right now would be a good time to men­\ntion that address 72 read --\nBorman\nNominal was 25 804 and address 72 read 25 804.\nLovell\nCan you imagine that? Right t o th~· foot!\n25 804.\nI could\nnot believe it when I punched it up.\nBorman\nThe orbit quantities were given to us, I think,by Bermuda..\n0£ course, at this time we really were not interested in\nthem, although they were sort of nice in.formation.\nWe had\na GO/NO GO.\nLovell\nIt was 87-178\nthe initial forward quantity that was\ncalled up to ue.\nBorman\nTha l'!1JU readouts : Jim read 72 and when he saw it was 25, 804,\nwe had a GO/NO GO from the ground.\nI do not believe you\neven rea4 the rest of them out, did you?\nLovell\nNo, I did not bother reading out the rest of the addresses\n94, 97, 52, or 73, because I saw the 72 nominal. I saw the\nIVI's were right in there so we did not bother reading out\nanything else.\nBorman\nDebris • I did not notice a:ny debris.\nLovell\nI noti-od debris. I was looking out at Spacecraft SEP and\nJet Fairing, and noticed debris.\nI also noticed debris be­\nt ween the spacecraft and booster when we first turned around."
  },
  {
   "n": 25,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p25.jpg",
   "text": "15\nBorman\nCould you identify any type of the debris?\nLovell\nNo, pieces.That is all I could tell.\n3.3 Insertion activities\nLovell\nWe followed the regular procedure.\nBorman\nWe did not have s;ny problem with safing our switches.\nNo problem.\nI did not even stow my D-ring at insertion.\nI\nwas too busy trying to stay on the booster, and I did not\nget it stowed for the first orbit,I guess,or half an orbit.\nLovell\nWhat we planned on doing was getting pictures of the D-ring.\nI got the br&cket up at staging, and I actually had a minute\nafter guidance initiate to reach back there and get the\nbracket and stick it up. It worked out very nicely before\nthe g's started building up again on second stage. The\nbracket was up and in place s;nd no problem at all. Then at\nSECO, I went around to pick up the camera, because we had\nthe camera. stowed where the Agena control bq..x ie l ~oated.,\nI\nmanaged to get the camera up, and it was already plugged\ninto the electric&l wire. ill I had to do was turn the\nauxiliary switch on, put it on the bracket, and push the\nbutton, and it started taking pictures. Just about that\ntime, Frank mentioned be was going to start thrusting pretty\nsoon so I had to go back and punch off the spacecraft. Then\nI read up address 72.\nSo, I hope the pictures come out."
  },
  {
   "n": 26,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p26.jpg",
   "text": "16\n:Borman\nWe were looking right into the sun; I hope they do too.\nThe\ndrogu.e pins were no problem.\nJim got them, but again, not\nuntil well into the first orbit. As a matter of fact, I\npulled my own yesterd.a.y morning there.\nThe problem is\nsolved; I think they a.re easy to get to.\nLovell\nYes. They a.re easy to pull out.\nBorman\nI think that we have covered station keeping wi th stage II\nbooater,partially.\nI will mention that the booster, being\nwithout attitude control, translating also with this im­\npul se it was picking up from the venting, is definitely an\norder of magnitude more difficult than station keeping with\na\nstabl e vehicle like Spacecraft 6.\nFirst of all, you do not have. anyone\ncontrol ling the thing;\nyou do not exactly know where it is going to go, and it\nmight translate because it is venting and ha.a a slight\nthrust.\nBorma.n\nI know a couple of times we got in a little too close and\nI backed out, because you just do not da.re get as close as\nyou do the way this thing is spewing.\nWe got a real good\npicture, a good l ook at the nozzle. I thought that it\nlooked like the nozzle was bent in on two places on the\nbooster engine. It l ooked like the nozzle, the ablative\nskirt had been bent in. But then, it may have been just a"
  },
  {
   "n": 27,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p27.jpg",
   "text": "17\nshadow, because the next time I looked at it, it looked just\nlike a new engine.\nThe booster itself had no apparent da­\nmage.\nThe only thing we could see was this big spewing\nwhere the venting was coming from.\nI did not see any vent~\ning from the roll nozzle at all. Did you?\nLovell\nNo, the venting ca.me from some line right along the bottom\nedge, near the engine section of the booster.\nBorman\nThat is right.\nLovell\nIt was a line of some sort that was open, and fuel was\nspewing out of it.\nBorman\nI hope they got the data they wanted on the D-4 and D-7\nExperiments. It wa.s,again,a very uncomplicated maneuver, one\nthat we practiced many times, and it worked just lik~ it\ndoes in simulation. Had no difficulty at all. Toe lights\non the booster worked fine.\n3.4 Post station-keeping\nBorman\nWe did not do anything with stowage on the first orbit at\nall .\nD-ring, pins I have already mentioned, we did not\nget those in at all.\nLovell\nArm restraints went down at 55 seconds.\nBelts- We did not\neven loosen them until after we had done D-4, D-7.\nThe life\nvests we left right on the harness for the entire flight,\nbut the ha.mess did not stay on us for the entire flight."
  },
  {
   "n": 28,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p28.jpg",
   "text": "18\nThe sequence light test. This was done after the first orbit.\nWe really had this insertion checklist in two phases, one\nat insertion and then one after D-4, D-7.\n4.0 ORBITAL FLIGHT\nBorma.n\nWe have already disou.ased the station-keeping. That is no\nproblem.\nI think the situation that we used,going off with\nabout 2 seconds--2 to 3 seconds--a.nd thrusting back with 5\nseconds while you a.re still on your side getting back to the\nbooster as quickly as \"POssible,solves the problem and takes\na lot of the orbital mechanics out of the situation. I\nhope the film comes out.\nThe one thing that did make it &\nlittle difficult on this one is when we looked back, we\nwere looking back into the sun, and the booster was right in\nline with the sun. It was ju.at like flying formation when\nthe leader makes a. turn, a.nd you are down,..sun.\nIt is dif­\nficult to see, and I tried to move off to one side and\nswing around and look a little bit more to the north.\nI\nthink it was north. I guess I was trying to look to the\nsouth where I could get the sun out of my line of sight.\nalso had a cut-off on the booster at station-keeping at 88%\nfuel, so that at 88% fuel we were already in darkness, al­\nthough we had not reached the time for the D-4, D-7 separa­\ntion which we.a to ooour a.too, 25.I think it was about '00: 23 or\nI"
  },
  {
   "n": 29,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p29.jpg",
   "text": "19\n00,21. So when we reached this limit and we were in darkness,\nI ~~nt ahead and separated, thrustil:lg dawn.\nLovell\nWe actually separated earlier than 00: 25. We actv.ally separa­\nted at 00:-21.\n:Borman\nThat is right.\nSo we separated because we were in da.rlmess\nand because we had reached the limit on fuel.\nWe had been\nin darlmess for awhile. One thing I did notice was that the\ndocking light was not particularly helpful on that stage of\nthe business. I guess it is because we were not close\nenough to the booster.\nLovell\nWe tried but the docking light just did not work.\n:Borman\nI suppose because,a.gain,we were looking at a lighted horizon\nwith the docking light, and it did not work as well as it\ndid later on with Spacecraft b, The booster measurements\nwent off.\nWe got\nindications on the needle ,on the measure­\nment needle ..\nLovell\nThe recorder did not get on until 27 minutes.\nThat is a\nguess. I am not too sure, but as I understand it, they had\nlive transmissi ons up until th.at time, to Bermuda, 8Jld An­\nt i gua., wherever it is, so we were okay there.\nBorman\nThe booster measurements were normal.\nAgain, the simulator\nwas perfect for that. The lights. Jim McDivitt had made\nsome comment about not being able to judge distance because"
  },
  {
   "n": 30,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p30.jpg",
   "text": "20\nthey only had two l ights on there.\nWe had four lights\non and I will be darned if I will try to judge distance\nby four lights or fifty lights. You have got to have\nillumination or you have to have a stable vehicle.\nLovell\nYou have to have something that illuminates the vehicle,\nnot a light that flashes because you cannot tell from a\nflashing light.\nBorman\nEspecially on vehicles rotating. I do not think that i t is\npossible to control them.\nYou have to have a controlled\nvehicle before you can judge distance from it, as far\nas I am concerned. The GO/NO GO, 17-1 TR were no\nproblem.\nWe ran through the platform-off post station­\nkeeping checklist just the way it is listed.\nLovell\nYes, that is where we caught most of the things.\nBorman\nThat is where we caught most of the things like putting\nthe D-ring away and the drogue pins and so on.\nOnly one\ntime in flight did we require attitude control fuel to\nchange attitude for critical delay time playback. There\nwas no problem.\nCommunications, as always, were superior.\nThe D-4/D-7 Void Measurement was again no problem;\njust lined up on the black and ran for t wo minutes.\nPurging of the fuel cells. This is the first of a long-­"
  },
  {
   "n": 31,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p31.jpg",
   "text": "21\nLovell\nYes , but we did not do it then,did we?\nDid not we wait\nuntil we powered down and then waited two hours?\n:Borman\nThat is right.\nThis is one of the things th&t they\nhad in the f light plan that we asked them to change\nbecause\nLovell\nYes, we did not purge the f'uel cells then.\n:Borman\nOriginally, this came right after power down e.nd all\nof the f'uel cell people recommended that you purge\nbefore power down, or wait until two hours after power\ndown.\nSo we did not do it at this t i me in the flight.\nThis was changed.\nD-4, D-7 star measurements.\nThere\nwas no probl em.\nThe eta.rs were well selected, and we\nwere right on them.\nRight Jim? Jim copied down, on\nthe procedures book, a check where we got the maximum\nreturn on the needle.\nLovell\nD-4, D-7 was a well organized experiment as far as\n:Brentnall keeping us hopping about what to do .\nI will\nhave to admit th.at ."
  },
  {
   "n": 32,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p32.jpg",
   "text": "22\n:Sor:ma.n\nRe did a very good job. We knew just what to do. W& had\nall the equip,nent with us and everything went very smoothly.\nMS0--2 ana,..3 turned out to be not :much of a problem because\nat about the seventh dq we turned it on and left it on for\nthe rest of the flight. The Berigee Adjust :tv1.aneuver 0 Jim\nma.de the ~erigee Aijust Manuever.\nWe did it on stars with­\nout a platform. I was timing for Jim and I think I fouled\nup.\nWe planned to use a perigee to 102 miles, and I think\nwe wotmd up with about 15 feet per second too much. It\nseemed like about 117 miles.\nOne of the reasons that was\ncausing this was\nwe had come back into the vicinity of the\nbooster, and just about midwny through the burn the booster\nventing that was still occurring suddenly lit up, became\nlit up. It looked like we were flying through a lot of\nforeign objects or debris.\nI was afraid that we were going\nto hit so.mething.\nAt the same time this trailing wire came\nforward and slapped the spacecraft.\nLovell\nThat is where I stopped.\n:Sor.man\nYes. After we had stopped and it nit us, I looked down\nand got confused and said,\"No, we haven't burned enough\",.\n·&> we burned for about five seconds :more.\nWe had a trail­\ning primer cord that would flop around and we didn't know\nwhat it was at the time, but it came forward when Jim\nstopped burning and flopped on the spacecraft. It ,nade a"
  },
  {
   "n": 33,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p33.jpg",
   "text": "23\nnoise and I thought we had hit some of the stuff t~t was\nspewing out of the booster. I wasn't sure that it was just\nfuel.\nLovell\nI think the ground people thought that this wire came for­\nward because it had gotten in the way of the thruster fire.\nIt definitely came forward after I stopped burning,because\nI stopped burning and this wire came slapping forward. It\nstill had the momentum, you know. It slapped right in\nfront of the window.\nI think the people got the impression\nthat the thing had hit a. thruster. It hit in front of us,\nthen we stopped bu.ming. But we stopped' mm -taen-·ths:t thing\nhit a.nd we added some more because we were still at ~ ogee.\nBorman\nThe first a:f many powerdowns was no problem1o We went right by\nthe check list. Some of these switch functions in the space\ncraft, particularly toward the latter pa.rt of the flight,\ntoward the 12th or 13th da.y--we were getting, I won't say\nla.r in making the.m,but it see.med more of a chore to make\nthese things right to the minute. Things like the ~!OJ.VIED\nrecorder and so on--we lost interest in having them turned\noff on the second.\nWe knew what they needed to be turned\non and off for.\nWe didn't do as good a job from about the\n10th day on as we did the first pa.rt as far as making those\nright to the minute."
  },
  {
   "n": 34,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p34.jpg",
   "text": "24\nLovell\nAs a .matter of fact, why don't we get out the flight plan.\nI think we might have a lot of comments on it.\nBorman\nLet's start from the beginning.\nLovell\nThe recorder was on at 27 .minutes.\nD-4/D-7 measure.ments.\nThe GET of .measurement that the COLD IR was outside the\ntwo degree field of view of the booster was at 30,13.\nBorman\nAt 40s58 we had 84 %fuel left. We were right on the flight\npla.n there.\nLovell\nThere was another GET of measure.ment where the spacecraft\nwas lined outside the field of view or the booster at 38:00.\nBorman\nWe saw the booster for 2 or 3 revolutions after tl:at. The\nlights were still working.\nWe called it out and t~ ground\ngot readings on this.\nLovell\nThe moon and booster were in view at 43:00. The booster\nand .moon were in view and we might get an erroneous read:tn.g\nbecause we were almost on the .moon.\nBorman\nHere we have a note that at 2z32 the fuel cell Delta P\nl i ght blinked off at 2 ftours and 30 minutes and then came\nback on.\nThat is the section 2 dalta Plight.\nLovell\nOkay, then as far as stowage goes, the ·M-1 cuff was t urned on\nat 3z03,\n:Borman\nWe put the bypass hoses on at this time also-- the ECS\nbypass hoses, Incidentally, they turned out to be not too\n.m.uch of a problem,\nThey were very handy for the type or"
  },
  {
   "n": 35,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p35.jpg",
   "text": "25\nwork we did without suits on.\nLovell\nRight. We took the s/c out of the horizon at 2:08 to get\nsome measurements,as requested fro.m DOD,after we measured\nthe stars. This is after we powered down the equipment.\nWe connected the bypass hoses at 2:32. This was 2 hours\nplus 32 minutes.\nLovell\nCrew status reports. We bad 3 or 4 a day.\nBorman\n5:20,we started unpacking the meals. This is one thing\nthat we had trouble with• lbth left and right food boxes\nwere jam packed. Fortunately ,we changed the lanyards. v,e\nchanged this during our stowage review ,\n&lthough it was\ndifficult we got them out. Several of the meals had lost\nvacuum.\nLovell\nWhich .made them more difficult to get out.\nBorman\nReally you can't co.mplain about this. The people did the\nbest they could. We had an awful lot of food to store\nand we were able to get them out.\nLovell\nWe had several blinkinge of the Delta Plight during this\nperiod. It went out at 6 hours, a littleleas than 6 hours,\nthen came back on again at 6:27.\nBorman\nOne thing that I wanted to find out a.bout,and I still don't\nunderstand,is why we turned on the crossfeed valve right\nafter l&:w\\oh.\nThe FC o2 pressure was just on the minit11.Um"
  },
  {
   "n": 36,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p36.jpg",
   "text": "26\nor 150 pai at launch.\nI called up Houston and said I\nwould like to leave the\ngauge in the FC02 position\nrather than the ECS o2 positlon. Chris said, \"No, unless\nwe really felt strongly about it, they would rather have it\nin the ECS o position\". So we left it there and after we\n2\nwere inserted and we were still with the booster, they\ncame in with a recommendation that we open the cross feed.\nWhen we did, this immediately raised the pressure to 250\npsi. The thing that was bad was that we had over 100%\no:xygen and we were down to about 100 lbs. on the FC02•\nWe agreed that we would fly at least 50 lbs. above the do.me,\nSo, I really didn't see the need for opening that valve\nalthough it didn't cause a:n:y problems.\nLovell\nThey wanted to pump up and make sure.\nBorman\nIt worked fine and we got right back up to 250 lbs.\nLovell\nThat is one syste.m that did work fine.\nBorman\nThe first 7 hours was pretty no.minal. All throughout the\nflight plan we have notes that the Delta Plight went out\nand came back on and so on.\nBor:man\nAt 16,40 we sighted a satellite .much lower and\non a slightly higher inclination path than we were. It\npassed underneath us. It was so fe:r awa::, it looked like\na sighting from the earth. It was just a refiection. We\nwere very religious about the exercise periods. We s-ot"
  },
  {
   "n": 37,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p37.jpg",
   "text": "27\nthose t hree times a day wi th the excepti on of the last day\nand one other day when we got only two.\nI think this is a\nvery good idea .\nI t is difficult and requir es discipline\nbecause the last thing in your mind i s the desire to exer­\ncise. You get lazy very easily.\nWe di d a very extens i ve\noperation with t he bungee and also i sometrics three times\na day.\nBorman\nThey were programmed 10 minutes. I think a more realistic\none would be about five .minutes , three times a day.\nI did\n60 pulls on t he bungee cord with both hands, 20 wi t h each\nleg, and then ended up with 10 with each ar.m on the bungee\ncord in addition to the few f or the crew status reports.\nLovell\nI did 60 pulls on the arms and 60 on each leg and it didn't\n.make any differ ence.\nI could have done 20 on each leg and\nwould have probably been better off.\nBorman\nAt 45 hours Jim started taking off his suit. During that\nfirst 45 hours our noses were clogged end stuffy, our eyes\nwere i rritated, t he cabin was hot ; it was miserable. As\ns oon as Jim started taking off his suit, the cabin even\nthough he was out of the suit and I was in, got better than\nit was with both of us in our suits.\nLovell\nI didn't real i ze it was that long. We were almost up there\ntwo full days befor e I started taking the suit off."
  },
  {
   "n": 38,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p38.jpg",
   "text": "28\nBorman\nAt 49t53 we got a picture of Houston with the 250 .mm l ens.\nI hope it comes out. Okay at 69t40 we did a Perigee Adjust\nManeuver, Delta V 12.4, 16.5 seconds, and came right on the\nmoney, using the stars, no platform. I don't think that\nthere is any problem at all with the proper stars in .making\na gross adjustment.\nLovell\nI think it was an excellent idea to do it without a platform,\nit takes two people. One person times and the other person\nburns on the star fro.m attitude. Both people check the\nattitudes by looking at the star charts and getting the\nupdates. Then ma.king sure that the s/c is alined right\nand the reticle is up to get the accuracy pretty good. After\nthat, once you get it set in your mind what you are aiming\nat, one guy is in the cockpit with the watch or event\ntimer and clocks it. The other guy bas to look out the\nwindow because you can't go back and forth. If you look\nin the cockpit at the watch, you can't adjust to look out\nf or the stars. So it takes two people for that. I think\nyou can do a good job without a platform.\nBor:ma.n\nI do too.\nBor:ma.n\nThere is one thing that was a pain in the neck, and I hope\nthey get some good out of them, were\nUHF and the RF tests.\nThat was an hour and a half transmitting every five minutes"
  },
  {
   "n": 39,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p39.jpg",
   "text": "29\nand having the HF/DF on. I'.m not sure what kind of data\nthey got but I hope they got so.mething. The first one we\nhad to do on the lKJRIZ.AN SC.AN; it took so.me fuel and I\nwonder really if it was worth it.\nBorman\nAt about 166,40 we noted our drift rate picking up and we\nfinally determined this was from the water boiler venting.\nIt resulted in a left yaw rate and this continued periodi­\ncally throughout the mission. It certainly would not be\nobjectiona.l if we had fuel to counteract it. During a\nnight period, in which we didn't do any attitude control\nat all, I timed the rates during the 13th day, and when we\nwoke up they were about 7 degrees per second. I timed\nthem around the horizon and came up with 7 degrees per\nsecond. About the only thing you can say about it is that\nit requires fuel to stop it.\nIt occurs primarily in left yaw and left roll.\nLovell\nThere are two things in the s/c that causes the yaw left\nfor so.me reason. Gus first noticed it and I think it is\ncharacteristic of the s/c. One is the water boiler and the\nother is,every tie you turn off the power it fires two\nthrusters that give it a left yaw. The same two all the\ntime.\nBorman\nWe tried to beat that ever way we could. Every time we"
  },
  {
   "n": 40,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p40.jpg",
   "text": "30\nshut down 1 we put it in a different control mode and it\nstill fired t he same t wo thrusters.\nEvery time you turn off ACME bias power it would go\"boop, \"\n11boop~ just like that. Every time we were without attitude\ncontrol for extended periods we ended up with a left yaw\nand a left roll.\nFinally a.t 191>48 we got both crewmen suitless. That was\nthe best decision in the whole flight. The perfor:m.e.nce of\nthe Cryo bottles was fantastic.\nLovell\nThat was one thing we were worried about. The eyd.rogen\nbottle I thought was never going to last. Forty per cent\nof the eyd.rogen bottle was still left at the end of 14 days.\nOne thing I wanted to try was to blow the squib. Remember\nthey said t1Did you blow the squi b?\" I forgot about it. Just\nprior to retro, I wanted to go over there and blow that squib\nthat opened up into a vacuum.\n:Borman\nIt would have taken several hours for it to do a:n:y good.\nLovell\nYes, I know, I\njust thought :maybe we could hear it or\nso.mething.\n:Borman\nOne thing that cropped up more and more as the mission\nprogressed, it seemed to get worse as it went along was the\nfa.ct that things were cm celled because of weather.\nWe\npicked up large areas of clouds over the U. S •·and over s."
  },
  {
   "n": 41,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p41.jpg",
   "text": "31\nAmeri ca. About the only area that stayed clear was North­\nwest Africa. A lot of the experiments a.nd a lot of the\nApollo landmarks were shot because of clouds.\nBorman\nOn the 6 launcht the second ti.met we were abl e t o track\nit. We were not able to pick up lift-off because of cl ouds\nagain, but whe.n i t got t o the con l evel t above the cl ouds,\nwe were able to pick i t up a.nd we tracked it using IR until\nwe coul dn't see anymore.\nEven above the con l evel I\nthink we were tracking the exhaust from the stage two en­\ngines using PULSE mode. I hope we got some good data on\nthat.\nBorman\nAt 2661 16 we really got col d; the sui t i nl et t emperature\ndropped below 40 degrees a.nd we started squirting.water\nout of t he sui t inlet hoses.\nWe informed Houston about thi s\na.nd they determined that the water boi l er had frozen up\na.nd they recommended a procedure t o cl ear it. We did thi s\nwith Gemini 6 watching; esse.ntially i t involved putting the\nradiator t o BYPASS and changing some switches.\nLovell\nEvaporator heat on.\nBorman\nPut the evaporator heat on and setting up to 10 degree per\nsecond r ol l rate.\nLovel l\nThat's the picture you saw in the movies.\nBorman\nIt actually threw a lot of fuel out a.nd a lot of water out.\nIt l eft a glob of ice on the side of the S/ C, about 10"
  },
  {
   "n": 42,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p42.jpg",
   "text": "32\ninches in diameter at the exit from the water boiler vent.\nLovell\nThere were only two problems that we really had. There\nwere the Fuel Cella and the two thrusters.\nWe also had a\ncold Spacecraft.\nBorman\nYes, that is when we had that water boiler problem.\nLovell\nBefore that; the first time we woke up, it was 20 degrees\noolder inside.\nBorma.n\nOh yes, I'm sure what had happened du.ri ng the night was\nthat we vented the water boiler, used the water boiler.\nThis is the day when we woke up and had such high rates\no.n the S/C.\nWe have all that in the cabin temperature\nsurvey. The wall temperature was 20 degrees lower.\nLovell\nIt was just freezing in there.\n5.0 REIBOFIRE\n5.1 TR-2:00 Power Up and Alignment Checklist\nBorman\nWe had a slightl y different procedure as far as retrofire\ngoes. Powering up for i t took two hours. The power up\nand alignment checklist was called up from the ground\nsince we had open circuited two stacks.\nWe turned our\nma.in batteries on and the squib batteries back on at TR\nminus two hours.\nLovell\nDuring the flight they had powered us down on the squib\nbatteries and put in the bus ties about the l ast week of the"
  },
  {
   "n": 43,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p43.jpg",
   "text": "33\nfli ght.\nBorman\nWe were flying with bus ties and tu.el cells and no squib\nbatteries.\nLovell\nTo conserve the squib batteries for the r etrofire period.\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nBecause of that configuration, and because of the fact that\nwe lost two stacks, we had to modify our power up procedure.\nBorman\nRight.\nIncidentally because of the f a.ct that we bad two\ndegraded thrusters, 3 and 4, we didn't use the~\nmode at all for this alisnment. We aliened it all manually.\nThe thrusters were degraded, but there was still enough in\nthem to allow you to get i'ine maneuvers, fine control. I\nused less control by turning off the circuit breaker for\nthruster No . 12 and used 11, giving back t hrust and this\nwould give you right yaw•\n.5.2 TR-26 events\nBorman\nAt T- 26 the event timer was set, we didn't read anybody\nbecause of our orbit , and we weren't able to start our\nevent timer counting down until T-20.\nLovell\nT-20\nBor.ma.n\nRead ou.t fro.m Carna.rvon."
  },
  {
   "n": 44,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p44.jpg",
   "text": ". 34\n:Borman\nLovell\n:Borman\nLovell\n:Sorms..n\nLovel l\n:Borm&n\n:Sorman\nLovell\n:Sorman\nLovell\n5.3 TR-5 GMT Stop Cl ock\nAt TR-5 Jim got the bug on the eight minutes, no probl em.\nYes, I got that okay.\n5,4 TR-256\nTR-256 Sequence light came on exa.ctly on schedul e.\n;;,\nThe digital clock never lost a second during the entire\nfli ght.\nWe didn't touch it.\nWe di dn't touch that digital cl ock one time during the\nenti re f l ight. That i s the best instrument in the whol e\ns/c, especial ly f or this type of f l i ght when you have a\nlot of updates a.nd everything.\nElectri cal was no problem.\nControl system, the RCS worked\nperfectly. It just worked beautifull y.\n5.5 .Tii::1.\nRetro attitude minus 20 degrees pi tch.\nThe ball had been\na l igned for two revolutions and it was perfect. I f we\nhad not had the bal l , I would have been happier if we\nhad retro fired in the daylight. SEP OAMS, as advertised.\nYou hear i t.\nYes!\nYou feel it sli ghtl y.\nThat is right, a.nd you even f eel SEP ELECT."
  },
  {
   "n": 45,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p45.jpg",
   "text": "35\nBorman\nYes, and you really feel SEP ADAP'l'.\nIt felt like I had put\nin f orward thrust at t hat time.\nLovell\nYes.\nBorman\nIt was really a good thud when we separated the adapter.\nRetrorocket squibs were armed a t TR-30.\nArm AUTO-RS\n1I1RO was\nactually done at about TR- 10.\nLovell\nWe did that a littl e bit early.\nBorman\nThe event timer was perfect.\nMDU, Jim got all the readouts\nand they were exactly what had been called up.\nLovell\nYes.\nThere was one or two that the last digit was one nu..n­\nber off, but that is nominal.\nWe didn't bother that.\n5.6 TR-0\nBorman\nFrom the time we got the countdown at Carnarvon we really\ndidn 1 t talk to a..~ybody a t all until we heard Houston at\nTR- 10 seconds come in with a count through Canton.\nLovell\nWe didn' t think that they were going to come in, as a.\nmatter of fact .\nBorman\nNo, we were wondering...\nLovell\nThat is a very poor place to retrofire. Canton had poor\ncommunications co~pared with the rest of it.\nBorman\nBut they ca.me through that time.\nLoYell\nYes, they ca.me through.\nBorman\nWe really didn1 t need them because we had every indication"
  },
  {
   "n": 46,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p46.jpg",
   "text": "that our timing was good on-board.\nThey did come through\nbut not until TR-10 seconds. At TR equals zero the s/c\nattitude was 20 degrees down. s/c rates were easy to con­\ntrol, but I thought that the thrust fro.m those retro-rockets\nwas high.\nI really had a sensation of being accelerated.\nDidn't you Jim?\nLovell\nWell, it was different from what I had expected because we\nwere so used to zero g fli ght.\nBorman\nThe only thing I could do was fly instruments, the needles\nand the ball. Trying to hold it right on the ball.\nI was vecy glad that I was in RATE COMMAND.\nI had to con­\ntrol it in RATE COMMAND a. little bit,particularly on the\nfourth retro rocket. The first three went bing, bing, bing.\nThen there was a pause of about ½ a second and the fourth\none went.\nThe fourth one seemed like it was a little mis­\naligned, I think it was left yaw.\nI had to bring it back.\nI would like to emphasize this. I thought those retros were\nreally powerful, and that you were holding on to something\nthat if you really didn't have good control it could get\naway from you pretty easily.\nLovell\nBut, I was sure happy to hear them go."
  },
  {
   "n": 47,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p47.jpg",
   "text": "37\nBorman\n•\nLovell\nBormA.n\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\n'Borman\nLovel1\nBorman\nSheparn.\nLovell\nl3omP.n\nLovell\n'Boman\nLovell\nDonnan\nControl mode was RRte Command, ano the IVI readouts•there­\ndid you write those down?\nI have them here.\nFe cal led them off and we h?ve them.\nThis is whr,t I've been usins-. It was 29P, and. 112.\nAnd '.i 1ef t .\nYes, an:i ) l eft.\n1·.'hat were the nomil:.a.J s'?\nLet ' s .iust r.iake a not e of what the\nnominals were.\nThis is usua.llJ about....\nThey called up the nominP l s .\n':'he~' were 113 and 296 .\nYes .\n~At was 2 off from nominal , I recPll that....298\nactual , and 112 actuA.l , 298 aft and 112 down as the a.ctua1s·.\nAnd 3 right.\nAn<i 3 right .\nSo we got in 01 ose t o the nominril , A.nd when you figure this\nout on our onboard che.rts you come up with a bank\nangl e\nof 50 decrees .\nThat ' s why I cou1. dn ' t unrlerstand the ~ 5--we11 , maybe I ' m\nwrong but let 's take a look at this thing again.\nLet ' s\ngo through it.\nAll right ."
  },
  {
   "n": 48,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p48.jpg",
   "text": "Lovell\nBonnan\nLovell\nBom\"'n\nJ,ove) 1\nBorman\nLovell\n\"'Borman\nT,ovell\nThat ' s a minus 1 error here, r ight? And a pJus 2 error\nthere, right?\nRight.\nOkay, so I went in here and got to a plus 2 error here,\nright ?\nfl ight.\nWp..nt up here to a\nminus , here ' s the zero mark right here,\nto a minus one error; where this thing crossed this thing\nright np to here, plus 2, and by eosh, it came right out to\n50 degrees or s3 degrees.\nThey gave ue 55 degrees roll l eft, which is what the nomi­\nnal l evel was. ..\nI ' ve got i t right here.\nFi fty degrees and 60 deGrees is\nwhat they gave us .\nBank l eft 50 degrees and bank right\n60 deerees.\nYes .\n~n~ so I looked up the ch~rt and it said 50 QeP,rees as t~e\nb~ck uu angles--everything was working just l ike a charm\nanrt then I went back here to the bank contonr line to get\nout our down range defl ection , and it was 1 or 2 miles , I ·\nthink it was , no , 5 mil es overshoot; which w~s just ahout\nas cl ose as you can hack it .\nAnd I t hought oh boy, this\nt■ realJy, talk about nominRl reentry, this is the one"
  },
  {
   "n": 49,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p49.jpg",
   "text": "that's eoinc to be it, and then the? came up with 35\ndegrees , 45 deerees, and I rnisinter~reted it; I was\nargui ng with Prank e.fter r e t rofire ann he says no , that ' s\n30 degrees--50 deerees.\n:3orr.ian\n50 degrees.\nLovell\n53 decrees is what he ' s sayin[j.\n!-re ,iust want s to ge t it\ndown to a l ittle finer line.\nJ\\nd then Prank called bnck\nagain An•i SR.id , \"!'To , it wr-ts -i5 de£7ees , \" so I non ' t know\nwhat t he s tor;y w?. s there.\nBorman\n'P.;e :-'DI as .fA.r as the r etrofire r,-oes , i t was r.o rrohlem .\n. .\nIt worked out t:'ine , ano I jus t l ike to have\nI t h:ink .\n1 ' '\nIf you ren.1ly were forced into it you cot> ld <io i t on rate\nneerll.es , but you' d have to have a lot of confiiience in\nyour ability to hold i t .\nT wouldn ' t. want t o do it with­\nout r:ate Command; and again, I did it in ;:ate r.omrnRnd .\nT' m not even sure how nuch the t hrusters wer e flrjnc -ivrinc­\nret rofire .\nDU you riotice?\nI was watchinc the b,·ll , f'.rrl\nI dUn ' t notice.\nDi d it light up the horizon pretty hadl~r?\nLovell\nH WfW real ly r.ot too b~d .\nBut act ually; yeo, it ,iir1 , it\nlit i t up ouite a bit .\n;i'CSD !leo\nOkay.\nLovell\nThere was a point in the flight plan that they wanted the"
  },
  {
   "n": 50,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p50.jpg",
   "text": "40\nPilot to evaluate the horizon for a night, no pl atform,\nretro. And the thing is this: you can turn out all the\nlights, you can get lined up for BEF retrofire, without a\nplat£orm if you get the stars and everything. But once you\nstart firing, you &re going to have to use the ra.te needles,\nif' they are working, to hold position, because you can't see\nthe horizon 8J1Y longer, because the thrusters do blank out\n8J1Y sight outside. And also, if you've got the lights\nturned up in the cockpit, so that you can see thingeJ that\nmeans that you can't see outside. So, you have to go either\noutside to get cues, or you have to turn the lights out in\nthe cockpit. And if you're going to use stu£f inside, then\nyou have the lights on.\nI would be hesitant to make a night\nretrofire without platform too. I think I would probably\nwait £or a. da.y one.\n5.7 Retro Pack Jettison\n::Bonnan\nThe retro pack jettison - Jim fired•••the one thing here on\nmanual f ire, Jim fired the manual retros the wa;y we alwqs\nhave.\nWe fired in the wa;y we a.lwa;ys h&ve, one second a..fter\nTR equals zero, but we got an auto retrofire.\nLovell\nYeah, because the first one fired before I pushed the\nbutton."
  },
  {
   "n": 51,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p51.jpg",
   "text": "41\nBorman\nThat was right on the money.\nThe retro pack jettison was\naccomplished 45 seconds after, when the amber light came\non, and you could feel and hear this one going; of course,\nit was pitch black so we couldn't see a thing.\nThis was\none of the things that we didn 't see, the REI'RO ADAPrER ,\nthe ADAPI'ER , or the RETROPACK.\nLovell\nNo , I didn't see any of that stuff go at all.\nBor:ma.n\nTotal darkness.\nLovell\nBesides that, the thrusters blank out anything you could\npossibly see.\n5.a Communications and 5.9 updat ing\nBor:ma.n\nCom.unmications were rather sketchy there.\nI was very glad\nthough, that we were able to get through to Houston.\nI\nthink it was over Guaym.as when they came up and told us to\nchange in retro angle, and bank angle; I don 't know who did\nthat but that was good work on the ground following up that\ncomputing, and getting us real time updates, I guess they\nmust have done it after tracking.\nLovell\nYes, That 's probably what it was.\nBorman\nThat's probably how they did it. And that was darn good.\nLovell\nYes.\nBorman\nBecause the 35 degrees, I was flying right between 35 de­\ngrees and O degrees most of the time , and if we'd have\nfollowed the 50 degrees, we'd have ended up way short."
  },
  {
   "n": 52,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p52.jpg",
   "text": "42\nSo that was very good work on the gro-.md ' s part.\nLovell\nIt looks like the initial computation of retrofire time\nwas off, and they already had a good o~bit on us.\nBorman\nI don't kno~ what it was, but they corrected it when we\ncame in.\n5.10 Post Retro Jettison Checklist\nBorman\nThe post retro jettison checklist was accomplished with no\nproblem.\nOh, I'm thinking; we did have some discussion about\nas far as the retro goes.\nWith the--we ' ll cover this more\nfully under su.i.ts. The question was whether to leave those\nhoods on or off for retrofire. We found th,'3-t the noise and\nthe--I don't know why ~e didn't notice this at launch, but we\ndid during reentry, the noise from the air blowing in the G5C\nsuits was an impediment to crew discussion.\nLovell\nIt would go on the mikes and make a lot of noise on th;\nmikes.\nThe mikes picked up a lot of whistle.\nBorman.\nPlus the fact that the vision out of that thing certainly\nneeds to be imporved.\nSo, we didn't kno,1 what to do--·,.;e\nfinally decided to leave them on for retro.fire.\n6.0\nREENTRY\n6.1\nReen-gz Parameters '[:edate\nBorman\nReentry.\n400,000 feet, we had that time updated; and at\n400,000 feet I rolled left 55 degrees, because this...or\nfifty degrees, the value of the backup angles at tha t time."
  },
  {
   "n": 53,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p53.jpg",
   "text": "43\n6.2 400K\nBorma.n\nSpacecraft attitude a.t 400,000 feet wa.s difficult to deter­\nmine.\nWe di dn't h.a.ve & horizon until we were below 350,000\nfeet, a.nd I was having & lot of trouble trying to find it.\nJim, you got the horizon first on your side.\nLovell\nYes, the horizon ca.me up first on my side. Well, we did not\nhave it right at 350 ,000 feet, but we coul d look out be­\ntween RCS firings and see the air glow, if you'd stuck your\nface right up there and look out. But when you're doing the\nreentry on the instruments you have the lights up so, one\nguy ca.n't do it, you have to have two guys; one to look out\nand find out where the horizon is and--\nBorman\nThat was a heck of a thing. I'd like to be a.ble to cross\ncheck between the balls and the horizon once in a while to\nmake sure that I knew exactly where we were.\nAs it tu.med\nout this was a completely instrument reentry.\nWe fina.lly\nfound the horizon &nd Jim would tell me yes, it's about in\nt he right pl&ce.\nBut I just watched the ball. And I think\nthat it would be vecy difficult t o back up a reentry by\nwatching out the window.\nOne person could provide backup\nguidance for you, and tell"
  },
  {
   "n": 54,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p54.jpg",
   "text": "44\nyou where you a.re and what the ba.nk angle looks like with\nthe horizon. But, I don't think tha.t a person that i s fly­\ning the reentry ca.n. cross check between the ball a.nd the\nhorizon.\nI think you have to ma.ke your choice and l ive with\nit. Okay, roll commands were just like the simula.torJ t ime\ncorrelation was good.\nThe guidance initiate came right on\nthe money, and the needles jumped indicating an undershoot,\na slight undershoot. From then on we just flew it the way\nwe 'd flown them a hundred times in St. Louie and in the sim­\nulator. I think we were ve-ry well prepared for t his.\nI\ntried to fly it so that we took i t down.range, and we got a\nslight overshoot indication on downrange of about 1 needle\nwidth, 1 dot. Then as we got down to a.round 2 g's or 2½- g's,\nI tri ed to start zeroing it out, so then when 3 g's oameJ\nthe downra.nge was pegged right on the money.\nAnd we were\nindicating zero on the cross range. And at 3 g's I switched\nto flying the roll bug, and. just zeroing the roll bug; and\na.s we came on down further and further the do'Nnrange stayed\nzero, but the cross range started going off full scale.\nWell, this really doesn' t mean anything because all the\ncross ra.nge is indicating is"
  },
  {
   "n": 55,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p55.jpg",
   "text": "45\nyour per cent or miss verses per cent of capa.bility.\nAnd\ndown on that range what it was really doing was, we were\ncoming in a little bit sho~t, and it was sacrificing the\ncross range in order to get the down range cleared up, be­\ncause the cross ra.nge wu vecy sm.e.11 ~•\nLovell\nThere -was a bias in the dow ra.nge needles between his ball\nand m:y ball, a.nd I think, th.&t fortunately,~ ball -wa.s the\none that was out.\nBecause when he was right on.\n:Borman\nYou said we were overshooting &11 the time.\nLovell\nYes.\nRe was right on - I said you were overshooting, it wa.s\nabout a needle and a half width bias.\n:Borman\nOkay.\nThe initial indication of g's, I remember Jim called\nover and sa.id, \"how ma.ny g's a.re we on now.\" I said l ess\nthan one\" and you said \"get serious.\" I think you coul dn't\nbelieve it. The first onset you feel like you ha.ve about a\nton on you, but then as it builds up it never seems to get\nmu.oh worse. It's almost u if it were a. step function.\nAs\nsoon as you get the g you rea.lly notice it, and then you\ndon't notice it much more. And the ma.rlmum g's th.at we\npulled during the reentry were 3.9.\nLovell\nYes, that a.ma.zed me.\nI actu&lly thought we did pull more\ng's.\n:Borman\n3.9 g's. So, it was a long extended time."
  },
  {
   "n": 56,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p56.jpg",
   "text": "Lovell\nYes.\nBorman\nDuring the later part of it I started out in PULSE Mode and\n:rolled over the 55 degrees in PULSE Mode, and. then when we\neot Guidance Initiate I went to DIRECT.\nI was finding that\nin order to keep the cros11 range zeroed, and we had been\ntold that Wally\nhad trouble with his cross range, I was\nbanking back and forth quite frequently maneuvering the\nspacecraft around the full lift point, from one side to the\nother and I was overshooting a little bit in DIRECT.\nI was\nalso starting to pick up some pitch and yaw oscillations, so\nthen I went to single ring RATE COMMAND.\nAnd boy, this was\nreally a great control mode, it \"'8.S steady as a :rock. You\ncould put it right where you wanted and it st~ed there.\nBut pretty soon we eot dow a:round, I guess it was when the\ng's were coming off, after 3.9 g•s. I started losing it in\nsingle ring RATE COMMAND so I threw two rings on and it held\nit like a rock. :But they were sure firing.\nLovell\nOh, yes.\nBorman\nBoh, those thrusters were really firing. And we started\ngetting abla.tion off the heat shield. It was coming back in­\nand hitting the nose of the spacecraft, and that was pretty"
  },
  {
   "n": 57,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p57.jpg",
   "text": "47\nsensational. Jim was giving vivid descriptions on what was\nhappening, a.nd I was watching the ba.11.\nLovell\nThat's one thing that no one had ever told us before. I was\na.ma.zed.\nMaybe it was peculiar to the spacec.raft.\nBorman\nNo, Tom and Wally\nh.a.d mentioned it.\nLovell\nOh, is that ri ght? That ablative material went back and hit\nthe forward end near the recovery section, rather the RCS\nsecti on; and I thought well, I never heard of this before,\nand I was a little worri ed that maybe we were too fa:r off,\na.nd the stuff was going to start getting into recovery\nsections. But it tiirned out to be okay.\nBorman\nAnother thing was that the windows really got scrounged up\non that ree.ntry; that's something else. I could hardly see\nout of my window.\nStu.ff was coming over from the heat\nshield and hitting it. It was really gunky.\n6.3 Aceelera.tio!!,_Pro.file\nBorman\nOkay.\nThe acceleration profile was very smallo It was a\nvery high 11.ft reentry, and of course, this results in a\nlow g and long duration build up.\nNo problem at all.\n604 Spacecr&ft Control\nBorman\nSpacecra.ft control was excellent until we g'Ot down to\n100,000 .feet or even below 100,000 .feet.\nWe turned on"
  },
  {
   "n": 58,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p58.jpg",
   "text": "48\nthe LANDING SQUI:B a.t 100,000 feet and sat th.ere and watched.\nit.\n6.5 lOOK Feet\nBorman\nI started losing it; I think we may have run out of RCS fuel\nbetween 100,000 feet a.nd 50,000 feetJ at lea.st I thought we\nhad.\n6.6 50K Feet\nLovel l\nWel l, didn't you turn off the RCS?\nBorm8Jl\nI didn't turn th&t off until a.fter we got on the drogue.\nWe\nwere starting to build up the yaw and pitch rates. Then at\n50,000 feet, I was anxiously a.wa.it :lng the drogue, because\nthese rates were building up a little. They weren't very\nbad yet, though. I pushed the drogue expecting it to de­\ncrease, and all it did wa..s a.m.plify th.em.\nAnd we got a. .real\nride on the drogue for a. whil e, sounded like the one Jim and\nEd discussed. It was r e&lly going pretty bad.\nLovel l\nOur angles were what? About 70 degrees.\nWe pitched up?\nBorman\nOh no, I estima.te we were oscillating back and forth maybe\n20 degrees.\nLo<rell\nFrom the drogue here pitching up we were rolling back a.:nd\nforth more than 20 de.grees on that initial pa.rt."
  },
  {
   "n": 59,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p59.jpg",
   "text": "49\nBorman\nWe'll have to see.\nWe don't have readings on that .\nLovell\nOkay, because I'm sure we did more than 20 degrees.\n:Borman\nThen I t hrew the motor valves back open age.in on the thrus­\nters, and that seemed to stop it. So I left them open a\nwhile and finally turned them on again and it stopped, and\nit settled out, and it was pretty smooth on the drogue. As\na matter of fact, when we got dow to ma.in chute, it we.a\nsteady as a rock on the drogue.\nLovell\nYes.\n6.7 35K Checklist\nBorman\nI turned off the RCS motor valves a.nd blipped t he thrusters\nto clear the lines between 30,000 feet to 26,000 feet. And\nJim then opened--The 40K ba.rostat worked fine.\n6.8 Communicatiol_!!!\nBorman\nAnd we gave the reentry status report. I 'm not sure th&t\nHouston heard it, but we told them the drogue was all risht\nand okay.\n6.9 26K Checklist\nBorman\nJim, at 26,000 feet you opened the vent air snorkel"
  },
  {
   "n": 60,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p60.jpg",
   "text": "50\nand we got a cabin full of I don't know what it was.\nLovel1\nYou had your hood off. Why?\nBorman\nI took my hood off to try to find the horizon, so I made\nthe reentry with the hood off .\nLovell\nOkay, I had my hood on, and I think when we opened up the\nsnorkl e; the way that works, the snorkl e draws air through\nthe suit compressor, and then into the suit circuit•\nI had my hood on; and the flow comes out of an opening\nback here in the hood, and flows down .\nI got an eye\nful l of something that was an acid.\nBorman\nAcid, eh?\nLovell\nYes.\nReally burned my eyes.\nMy eyes were watering when I\nfinP,lly got the hood off.\nBorman\nWe11 , we accomplished all the checklists, and we had no\nproblems; as a matter of f act, i t went pretty smooth\nin\nthe time between the drogue deploy and the 10.6 barostat.\n6.10 10. 6 K Barostat\nBorman\nIt was just like the si mula t or. One thi ng I did notice,\ninitially, when we were on the drogue, t he altimeter was\ncompletely inaccurate.\nYou couldn't even read it. We\nwere oscillating so badly that it was jumping in thousands\nof f eet per second· , oh maybe not thousands, but the needles\nwere going al l over the place; and I remember thinking boy,"
  },
  {
   "n": 61,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p61.jpg",
   "text": "51\nif this oscillation doesn' t s top, I' ll have to punch the\nmain chute on the amber l ight, rather than the altimeter.\nBut the oscil l~tions did stop.\n6. 11 Hain Chute Deployment\nBoman\nI punched the main chute at 10 , 600 f eet as indicated on\nthe altimeter , and just a millisecond. aft er that, the\nyellow l i ght came on the 10.6 barostat l ight .\nThe\nthing deployed immediat ely into a reefed condit ion , and we\nexamined it in the reefed condition and it l ooked very good_\nLoveJl\nFrank thought it was in the reef ed con<lition for 3 months.\nBorman\nIt seemed like it s tayed reefed for a long time, then it\nunreefe<l , and I couldn ' t find one gore or one panel that\nwas ripped or frayed or anything.\nLovell\nIt was a good chl1te .\nBorman\nPerfect chute.\n6.12 Post Main Checklist\nRorman\nWe accompl ished the post main checklist, anrl then we\nbraced oursel ves very well and went to the single point. of\nattitune.\n6.13 Single Point Rel ease\nBormim\nWhen we went to the single point attitude it was exactly\nthe same as we had had it at St . Louie--where they' d\nrigged--they had a test after John and Gus ' s fl ight .\nThey\nput a test capsul e suspension at St . Louis, and this was"
  },
  {
   "n": 62,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p62.jpg",
   "text": "52\ne:x:actly the same.\nYou get a. good whack and then you sit\nthere and vibra.te ba.ck a.nd forth for a little bit.\n6.14 2X Checklist\nBorman\n2,000 foot checklist we accomplished with no problem. About\nthis time, at 2,000 feet, I heard Air Boss calling and we\nstarted communicating with Air Boss.\nI saw him flying around\nwhile we were still on the chute. Houston came throU8h\na.bout this time and wanted to lmow if we had a. main chute.\nI'd ca.lled a.11 these things off, but I guess th.at the com­\nxmmica.tions-maybe the Auto Cats weren't working or some­\nthing.\nLovell\nAir Boss should have called back a.nd said•••\nBorman\nBut I called back and confirmed main chute.\n6.15 Landing\nBorman\nWe hit the water with a. pretty good thud, and your window\nwent under water, didn't it? Jim's window went under watero\nWe hit in a drift. We were drifting to the right rear, and\nthere was a 14 knot wind, and when we hit the sp&eecra.ft\nrolled to the right, and your window went under the W&ter,\nand mine eticy-ed up. Nothing serious tho'U8h,.\nLo-vell\nNothi.ng serious.\n6.16 Postlanding Checklist\nBorman\nWe extended the .RF antenna. to get e. test for them &nd went\non HF-DF; I hope that somebody heard it. But they had"
  },
  {
   "n": 63,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p63.jpg",
   "text": "53\nswimmers there in a.bout 4 minutes, and so I put the HF\nantenna back down to keep it from getting da.maged.\nAnd we\nconducted the electrical check. I musts~ that I'm gl ad\nthat the electrical check was simple, because it was hot in\nthere, and we were tired.\nI was worried about this before\nand I would never have been able to sit there Blld go t hrough\nthis complicated, long check.\nLovell\nWe had both pl8l'llled, that what we were going to do was take\noff our suits in the spacecraft, and wear our orbital flight\nsuits. And I think that we probably would never have gotten\nout of the suits, because we were just too hot and too beat .\n:Borman\nIt was even hot in the spacecraft, so Jim came through with\nthe idea of opening the :repress valve, and this wa.s great.\nWe bad a.11 that oxygen and you weren't going to use it. It\nblew all that cool oxygen out and we had o2 HI RATE and the\nsnorkel on.\nSo we stqed pretty cool when you get right\ndown to it. So it was a. good idea. I don't know if you got\nthe blood pressure measurements or not, did you?\n6.17 Blood pressure measurement\nLovell\nI took them, I don't know whether they came out or not. I\nput the reprogre.mmer on in the water and started ta.king blood"
  },
  {
   "n": 64,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p64.jpg",
   "text": "54\npressure measurements a.nd--but that ' s harrl to do.\nI\nought to comment on that. Because to take a blood\npressure measurement you had to pump up the thing and\nleave your handsstill, and leave your arms still until\nit bleerts down; well it takes a little while for it to\nbleed down.\nMeanwhile, Frank' s got the checklist out and\nthe guys out there are putting on the collar, and we're\ntrying to throw switches and take this and that; I ,just.\nthought I might as well start doing it with my other ~a.r.n.\nIlorman\nSame way with the blood pressure they requested over\nGuayrnas during reentry, I make a comp1ete testimonial here;\nI think once the reentry starts that everything else cets\nl eft aside, and you <lon ' t nP-ss around with blood pressures,\nor experiments or anything else.\nFrom then on it ' s sort\nof a case of surviving the darri thing.\nI didn't want rim\nmessing a.round looking for a bl ood pressure; so we diiln 1 t\ndo it. About thA.t time we couldn' t find the horizon any­\nway.\nLovell\nWe got called up from the MCC\nBorman\nBut, anyway, we didn ' t do it. So it didn ' t bother us .\nLovel]\nThat' s the first I 'd heard of it when they cal l\nup.\n7.0 .LANDING AN]) RECOVERY\n7.1\nImpact\nBorman\nWe were drifting backwards, blunt end forwar d, rather, as"
  },
  {
   "n": 65,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p65.jpg",
   "text": "55\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBoI'J'llan\nLove11\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nwe hit the water, Although it was a good jolt, I wouldn't\nsay it WR.S anything outstanding. We hit, and Jim, your\nwindow went under water, right?\nThe snacecraft rolled to the right, I believe.\nYes.\nWe hit, rolled to the right, and you went uncier water\nand bobbed right up.\nRight\nI released the parachute and it fl oated in front of us for\nseveral minutes.\nI saw part of it on the left hand side there, or rather on\nthe right hand side as i t fl oated by my window,\nIt stayed there for several minutes . It' s just the way\nit 's been described before.\nThere was an awful lot of fog on the window, though.\nI\nnoticed tha t the humidity was such that you could hardly\nsee out. Very foggy .\nI'm not sure that was humidity or that was from reentry.\nMight have been from reentry, I don ' t know.\nI did see the S2F on the chute.\nWe saw it while we were\nstiJl on the chute coming down,\n7.2 Checklists\nThe onl y thing I had about the checklists; during the\nrecovery phase, I had a hard t ime doing the checkl ist, in\nfact, I had to give it to you, because I couldn't move my"
  },
  {
   "n": 66,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p66.jpg",
   "text": "56\nann doing the blood pressure work.\nAnd that compl icates\nthe recovery phase of it quite a bit .\nBonnan\nYes .\nLovel l\nI think it also compromised the blood pressures that way\ntoo.\nBorman\nWe didn't feel like running foot races when we finally hit\nthe water.\nWe had planned to get out of our pressure\nsuits into that orbital flight suit, but the effort was\njust too great. So,we just opened the repress valve to get\nsome more cooling in there and sat.\nLovel 1\nThat ' s right.\nWe opened up t he repress valve; di d we have\nthe cabin fan on?\nBorman\nNo, we didn ' t have the cabin fan on .\nHe had the snorkle\nvalve with the suit fans and the o2 HI HATE and the re­\npress valve open.\nBorman\nThe checklists were all right then as far as you're con­\ncerned?\nLovell\nYes.\nI thought the recovery phase was very good.\nI t hink\nI missed one or two.\nI know I didn' t turn all the s tack\nswitches off, but the power and control switches were off\nduring the reentry phase; so, there was no problem there.\n7, 3 Communications\nBoman\nUHF.\nWe had communicat ions with Air Boss whil e we were\nstill on the chute, and we had very good communications"
  },
  {
   "n": 67,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p67.jpg",
   "text": "57\nwith them in the water. The communications with Houston\nvia UHF were poor. Once we were on the drogue they kept\ncalling us asking us to confirm main chute. I' m not sure\nthey ever heard us conf irm main chute.\nLovell\nI've often wondered about t hat . Watching the other apace­\ncraft come in, why they don't call; and I found out that\nthey do call but they ca..~•t get through.\nMust be the\nrel ay pl anet troubl e or something.\nBorman\nCommuni cations with recovery forces on UHF was excel lent.\nHF:\nwe ext en<ied the HT<' ant enna, put out HF­ DF t one for\nawhil e. Again I am not sure if anyone picked it up or not .\nWe retracted it af ter i t had been up only 8 minutes , be­\ncause of the fact that we did not want to get the HF\nantenna broken of f during the recovery operation.\nLovell\nThere was no need for HF communications since we vere so\nclose to the recovery group.\nBonnan\nThe chopper was over us about 5 or 6 minutes after landi ng.\nWe had much better UHF communications, so, we di d not use\nHF.\nOn point of impact, onboard data. Within the l i mits\nof the readability of that scal e, it was excellent .\nDown\nrange and cross range needles were fine.\nWe actually\nended up about 8 or 9 miles from the carrier. You just\ncan't get much finer infomation out of the down range and"
  },
  {
   "n": 68,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p68.jpg",
   "text": "58\nLovell\nBoman\nJ.ovel l\nBoman\nLoveJl\nBoman\nLovell\nBorman\ncross range.\nDid you have any kind of a mal function in the acceler­\nometer?\nNo, but Spacecraft 6 did.\nI don't remember that being\na condition of the bet.\nI didn ' t either.\nGround Information.\nThe ground gave us excellent inforl!la­\ntion, as far as everything we needed to know, including\nrecomputing the guidance angles after retro.\nThe ground\ndid an excellent job.\nTracking data, I don ' t remember\nreceiving that.\nWhen Spacecraft 6 was ent ering, they\nkept telling them that they were fine, a.nrl they wer e goi.ng\nright down the s l ot anti everything.\nJ do not remember\never hP.aring from the ground on anything Jike that on ours,\ndo you? Perhaps we did and we were so engrossed in flyi ng\nit, thRt we did not notice it.\nWell , we had good communications pri or to blackout over\nGuayrnRs .\nAfter we started guiding, going into the atmos­\nphere, communications went t o pot.\nStatus of recovery. I <lo not think recovery cou1d have\nbeen any better.\nVery smooth .\n7. 4 Systems Configuration\nThe ECS, as we said before, we had o2 HI RATF. with both"
  },
  {
   "n": 69,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p69.jpg",
   "text": "59\nsuit fans, snorkel valve open, and the vent valve open.\nWe a]so opened the repress valve. Electrical: We per­\nformed a simple electrical check.\nWe turned off 3 and 4J\nl eft 1 anrl 2 on, and watched for the variation in voltage\non the main buses. The bus that is fed by land 2 bat­\nteries varied with wave action.\nLovell\nThat is right. But 3 and 4 dirl not move from zero.\nBorman\nAnd then you turned off squib batteries land 2 also didn't\nyou?\nLovell\nI left squib battery 3 on.\nBorman\nSquib battery 3 was the only one that was on.\nLovell\nControl:\nWe turned off the platform, the computer,\nthe circuit hreakers to the thrusters, and the RCS\nthrusters.\nBorman\nHe l eft the comput er in PRELAUNCH for 48 seconds or more,\nbefore we turned it off. Aeromedical, no comment.\nExcept\nblood pressure being a nuisance, anrl perhaps even a\nhindrance when we were trying to go around the cockpit\nwith the switches and you had to ho 1d one arm stil1.\n7.5 Spacecraft Status\nBoman\nRCS fumes:\nWhen you open the snorkel at around 26,000\nfeet you get a good load of them.\nLovell\nI am not sure what kind of fumes they were.\nThey were not\nfamiliar to me.\nI have smelled the results of fuel in the"
  },
  {
   "n": 70,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p70.jpg",
   "text": "60\nRCS system,and I know what that smells l i ke i t . It did not\nsmel l that way.\nI got a burning sensation in my eyes ,\nwhich was different .\nNow, I might have got a mor e con­\ncentrated one .\nI still had my helmet on , and zipped up ,\nYou had your helmet off .\nI be1ieve, t hat witr. the snorke l\nopen, the compressor ~u1Jed the ambient air through the\nsnorkel through the compressors and into the suit circuit .\nThat i s why I got a concentrated rlose of whatever was on\nthe outside, which causert my eyes to wat er ann to burn.\nWhether it was the ablative material , the shing1 es , or\nthe RCS f umes , I do not know.\nBorman\nThe main chute was perf ect.\nLovell\nLooked beaut iful .\nBorr.tan\nI coul d not see a rip or a t ear or any fraying or any­\nthing; i t wa.s just perfect .\nThe windows were fo(!gy in\nflight .\nI thought they fogged over and the visibi lity\nout of them during the hot part of the reentry , was very\npoor al so .\nLove11\nThey started to burn a little bit . Started to peel off\non the outside. I do not know what i t was.\nRorman\nWhen we eot on the water they were fog~ed over with hu­\nmidity and salt spray.\nI guess you have to expect that ,\nLeaks:\nThere were none , that I know of.\nConldn ' t see"
  },
  {
   "n": 71,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p71.jpg",
   "text": "61\nany or hear any.\nLovell\nI did not see a:ny leaks.\nBorman\nElectrical Power:\nWe mentioned we had 1 and 2 main\nbatteries on, and when we evacuated the spacecraft, we\nturned all four of them on per the checkl ist. Turned off\neverything but the rescue beacon.\nF.lectrical power was\nampl e, very good.\nWe were running both suit fans.\nLovell\nOxygen:\nWent to repress valve open.\nBorman\nWe went through that swiftly, as a matter of fact , to\nkeep cool.\nLovell\n'vie noticed before we got out that both the bottle pressures\nwere down to zero.\nBorman\nHatches:\nAfter one of the swimmers said we were clear to\nopen the hatches, I unlocked mine. It operated very\nfreely and easily.\nI could budge it about 2 i nches, but\nI could not lift it. I probably could have if I had\nexerted a l ot of effort, and gotten my Jegs up under me.\nHowever, the swimmer was right outside, and I asked him\nto hel p. Ile helped and it came right open, worked very\nwell .\nWe had the suit on and left them on.\nLovell\nWe were warm, undoubtedly. Getting out of the spacecraft\nas quickly as we did helped us.\nBorman\nThat was the smart thing to do."
  },
  {
   "n": 72,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p72.jpg",
   "text": "62\nLovel l\nI wouldn't want to sit in there with our suits on.\n13onnan\nPlus , I thought the visibility of that suit during re­\nentry left a l ot to be desired. That is why I had to\npu1 1 my hood back to find out where we were end what\nposition we were in. I think the suit is an exceJ.lent one,\nbut i t is going t o have to be improved. We better grab it\nand start working, modifying it; to make it acceptabl e for\nApollo. The sea condition was very goon; 2 to ,1. foot\nwaves .\nWe bobbed around, although I got a 1ittl e queasy,\nI did not get nauseated, Jim didn't either.\nLovell\nThe sea condition was outstanding for landing.\n7.6 Postlanding Activity\nBorman\nPostlanding act ivity was well organized.\nWe were a lit t l e\nbusy. We did not get thru until about 10 o'clock that\nnight. Is that right?\nLovell\nYes, that is right.\nBorman\nHe harl a little misunderstanding about riding a bicycl e.\nWe understood we were not supposed to rirle until 18 hours\nafter impact.\nThey wanted us to ride it thA.t night after\nwe had been through a full day of medical exams, and\nfinally had a good supper.\nSo, we told them they would\nhave to hold off until 18 hours after impact.\nFCSD Rep\nYou are still in the spacecraft for this part."
  },
  {
   "n": 73,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p73.jpg",
   "text": "Borman\nOkay.\nOn :postland.1nc we just sat there.\nLovell\nWel l, we went through the check-off list. That took al1\nthe time.\nI saw the swimmers, checked the electrical\nsystem, that they wanted us to do for postlanding.\nBy\nthat time the swimmer had the collar up.\nI couJrl see the\ncollar going up, and then he got the jacket on .\nBorman\nWe ha.d good commun i cation with the swir:uner through thA.t\njack.\nLovell\nExcellent communicati ons with the swimmer.\n7. 7 Comfort\nBorman\nIt gets pretty warm in that sp~cecraft. I would hate tn\nspend any great deal of time in there without any F.C:i .\nLovell\nI can speak as an authority on that.\n7.8 Recovery Poree Personnel\nBorman\nWe covered communications, it was excellent.\nFlotation\nco1Ja.r was fine, wor ked good.\n7,9 F.gress\nBorman\nEgress was normal, just as we practiced in Galveston Day\nseveral times. These helicopters did a fine ~oh.\nI\nthink someone said it was about 23 minutes after we landed\nthat we were on our way back.\n7.10 Survival Gear\nBom an\nEven the underarm life pr eservers inflated this time.\nWonder of wonders.\nNo prob1em ."
  },
  {
   "n": 74,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p74.jpg",
   "text": "64\n7.11 Crew Pick Up\nBoman\nThe crew pick up was nominal.\nLovell\nNothing else. Everything was fine .\n8.0 SYSTEMS OPERATION\n8 . 1\nPle.tfom\nBorman\nWe aligned the platform 3 t imes.\nW:ach time it worked\njust as advertised.\nDaytime alignrnent,of course,was no\nprob] em.\nWe got very ample yaw reference out the window.\nLovell\nCaging, for fast heat dropout took approximately 23\nminutes.\nBoman\nNight time, the initial alignment is a litt1e difficult i f\nyou do not have a full moon.\nWith a fu 1 1 moon it is al­\nmost as easy at night as it is in the daytime. It rea1.ly\nlit the terrain up.\nLovell\nTo get your initial spacecraft attitude, the full moon\nis very nice .\nBorman\nRight, without a full moon, I think it woul d take you a\nlittle while to align to get your Spacecraft BEF, so that\nyou would not have to torque the platfom too far for\nalignment.\nLovell\nYou get to know the stars.\n\"!3orman\nYes, you have to use the stars . It would be difficult\nto pick up the ground and track it. Platform Morles: CAGE.\nJim ~aid that took 23 minutes for a fast heat drop out."
  },
  {
   "n": 75,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p75.jpg",
   "text": "65\nSF.F worked perfectly.\nBEF worked perfectly.\nORB RATE\nseemed to be fine ,\nWe used it preparing for the rendezvous\nwith Spacecraft 6. After running OP.BRATS for\napproximately an hour, and then going back to align SP.P,\nwe did not notice a great amount of misalignment.\n?he\nonly time it was on F'RF:E was during reentry, I cuess the\nFREF. worked fine .\nLovell\nNo probl em about displays , were there?\nBoman\nlfo , not at all ,\nLovell\nBeen using- them for a couple of years now.\n'Borman\nNo probl em about control s .\n~'h~ PLATFORM mode worked\nwell ,\nDuring our last alienment, we had degraried opera...ion\nin thrusters~ and 4; so we aliened it manually for 2\norbits .\nIt was very easy to no , ann it worked fine.\nWe had eJ l the confidP-nce in the worl ri as far A. S attitude\nreference is concerned,\n8 . 2 OAJIS\n'Rorinan\nOAMS\noperational check, Pad:\nI tr.ink we went arnunn\nthe horn about~ times before they were satisfieri.\nLovel 1\nIt took three circuits to set them,\nBorman\nRi grt ,\nInflight O~J~S :\nThe on ly ooerati0nal er.eek we harl\nis when we lost the complete authority in yaw richt,\nthrusters 3 and 4,\nWe noticed this first 1n PULSE mode;\n•"
  },
  {
   "n": 76,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p76.jpg",
   "text": "66\nwe switched to DIRECT and in DIRECT we did not e;et. a.ny\nignition at all as far as I could tell .\nIn t he OAHS PULSE\nyaw righ c, we were getting slight little pops . It seemed\nwe had about { control authority that we had before we\nexperience~ the probl em.\nWe went to DIRECT, to see what\neffect\nDIREC11 ha<l on it and we got some thrust, but i t was\na.\n'1•hishing.\nWe weren't getting any sound of the\nthrusters. It was a whishing sound.\nT think we were only\ngetting an impulse either from the oxi<lizer or the fuel\nescaping.\nLovell\nWe couJd hear a cJicking of the solenoids or the operation\nof the valves, whatever they were back there .\nThey were\nworking all r ight, but we were not eetting any resuJtant\nthrust.\nBorman\nRight.\nSystems Monitoring:\nSource pressure was fine .\nWent right down the predicted sche<lule.\nLovell\nAs a mRtter of fact, the source pressure dropped, just a r\npre<licted, when we ran out of initial 0.Al18 fuel before we\nwent to the reserve tank.\nTt came back in at;air. when we\nactuated the squib.\nIlorman\n?To , that wasn't the source pressure, that was the regul ated\npressure.\nLovell\nI mean the regulated pressure, I'm sorry.\nBorman\nThe source temperature worked fine throughout the flight."
  },
  {
   "n": 77,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p77.jpg",
   "text": "67\nThe regul at ed pressure stayed at 300, r ight on the money,\nthroughout the ent ire flight until the auxiliary tank was\nactuated.\nWe ot:>erated the auxiliary tank when the nressure\ndr opped about 30 psi .\nLovel l\nYes . It went down to about 260 or 270.\nIlonnAn\nRight. It crune right back up , and the system worked just\nexactly as advertised. The prope1.1ant ouantity gauge\nworked fine. Por most of the flight it was right in\nae-reement with the ground comt:>utations.\nLove] J\n1:/hat wa.s the final pro\"9elJant quantity reading?\nBorman\nAbout 2 percent to 3 percent.\nLovell\nAnd we still had 300 psi r egulated pressure.\nBorman\nSource pressure remained about 1,000 psi.\nMonitoring of\nOAMS propellant remaining:\nOn board infomat ion I thought .\nwas good.\nThe OAMS propellant quantity gauge, worked fine .\nLovell\nAt least it was on the s i de favoring us .\n:Sorman\nYes.\nThe ground in.formation was excellent. At the end of\nevery da,y they gave us ground r undown of how much O.AMS fuel\nwe had remaining. It worked out fine. We were short on\nO.&MS fuel. Any time we di dn't have a s~ecific assi gnment,\nwe were in drif t ing f l ight. That's one thing we want men­\ntioned. Every time we powered down we' d turn off the ACME\nbias power and the ACME inverter, and invariably t hi s would"
  },
  {
   "n": 78,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p78.jpg",
   "text": "68\n•\nf\nend up in two pulses o\ntibump, II \"b\nti\nump, th t\na\nld\nwou\nd\nten to\nyaw left and roll left. And the natural tendency of\nthe spacecraft to yaw left due to water boiler venting,\nI guess, and perhaps ECS venting, was aggravated by this\nadded impulse of two blips when we shut down the ACME.\nHow about the selector controls and switches i n the\ncockpit?\nLovell\nNo comments there.\nBorman\nI don't have any either. The attitude controller, I thought,\nwas fine.\nNo problems.\nManeuver controllers were fine.\nLovell\nThe right hand maneuver controller was a very nice operating\ncontroller and it was very handy.\nVery easy to operate.\nBorman\nAs far as inflight malfunctions or irregularities, we lost\nauthority on thrusters 3 and 4.\nWe got some of our yaw\nrigh t capability back by turning off the circuit breaker for\nThruster 12 and then thrusting backwards with the maneuver\ncontroller in order to give us yaw right. This wor~ed very\nwell and enabled us to check yaw right drift rates and\nenabled us to make yaw right maneuvers. The only thing-­\nyou couldn't get very small control inputs with this mode.\nLovell\nAnd you used a lot of gas.\nBorman\nAnd you used a lot of gas.\nI was very happy when we finally"
  },
  {
   "n": 79,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p79.jpg",
   "text": "69\n··-◄ -\n..-...\n'ii\n.;J,, ... ,:·-\n-\nL.\n:-...\n.. •-t\n._~\naligned the platform for reentry that we were able to get\nenough control out of 3 and 4 to align the platform.\n'When\nwe did this, of course, in order to get yaw control we went\nto roll jets - pitch, and that worked fine. I don't have\nanything to add to that malfunction.\nWe heard the solenoids\nworking. When we went to DIRECT we could feel we did get an\nimpulse, but we did not seem to get ignition. It sounded\nmore like a swishing noise. The ground ana.lyzed it and\nseemed to think it we.s a problem with the valve seats. I ' m\nnot certain what it wa.s. I do know that we also tri ed secon­\ndary drivers and that didn't help.\nI coul d tell that wasn't\nthe problem when we f i rst heard it.\nLovell\nWe tried different modes--PULSE, DIRECT, a.nd RATE COMMAND ,\nbut tb.a.t didn't help.\nI think it was mechanical problem.\nBorman\nRATE COMMAND is a very tight control mode.\nI'm very glad i t\nwas there. I think it is very important to have that for\nretrofire.\nWe also used it for reentry. I think it is a\nvery good mode.\nOf course, it is expensive in .f'uel .\nWe\nused it also for all our thrusting when we were making orbi t\nadjust maneuvers.\nLovell\nLet me ask a question.\nWhen did you go to RATE COMMAND\nduring the reentry?\nBorman\nI went to RATE COMMAND during reentry Lfte:r guidance initi­"
  },
  {
   "n": 80,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p80.jpg",
   "text": "70\nate and after I started f lying the needles.\nLovell\nBecause you were overshooting with DIRECT?\n:Borman\nRight.\nI was not able to get the fine control I wanted.\nIt would not stay in there. It seemed like the spacecraf't\nwas picking up a torque in roll also, and I was having to\nwatch it too close.\nLovell\nAnd this was different th&n what we had in the simulation.\n:Borma.n\nYes.\nREENTRY RATE COMMAND we never used.\nDIREC'l! we used\nonce for tracking the Reentry Minuteman in order to catch\nit. It was moving so swiftly.\nWe al so used it in the ini­\ntial phases of reentry, and it worked fine.\nThe PULSB mode,\nof course, was the one we lived with most throughout the 14\ndays.\nI thought it was an excellent mode.\nLovell\nIt is a gas saver and even when you do have a platform the\nPULSE mode is adequate for most of the work you can do-­ for\nany attitude control, ground terrain observations-except\nfor rapid rotations where you need a faster authority.\n:Borman\nRight. All ground tracking, PULSi was adequate.\nWe did\nnot have any problem at al l.\nWe were able to track the\nPolaris using PULSE.\nEverything except the reentry~ we\ncould use PULSE mode.\nThe IlORIZON SCAN mode was fine.\nThe\nonly thing I noticed there was at sunrise and sunset some­\ntimes, we were driven to a 30 or 40• nosedown pitch attitude"
  },
  {
   "n": 81,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p81.jpg",
   "text": "71\nby the thrusters.\nThe scanners worked great except at sun­\nrise and sunset.\nLovell\nThey woul d l ose lock•••\nBorman\nSometimes they wouldn't lose lock but, remember, they drove\nthe spacecraft nose down.\nAbout 40° pitch down.\nLovell\nThe one big thing, which wa.s the question in all our minds,\nactually b•PP4D•d,\nAnother spacecraft nearby will interrupt\nthe HORIZON SCAN mode.\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nIt does effect the scanner operation, so it i s something you\nhave to take in consideration.\nBorman\nThat' s right. When 6 got between us a.nd tha aun, the scan­\nners were inoperative and lost lock. PLA'Tlt'ORM mode worked\nexcellently when we had it, and we 'll.lled it to align the\nfirst two time ■ we had the platform.\nI think that you can\ndo a finer job, and, you can a lign the platform more closely\nmanually. Thie is because the deadband on the PLA.TFOlffl mode\ni a l arger than you can control manually. But it certainly\ni a a worthwhile mode and for station keepin&' it is a super­\nior type of operation. Tra.nal&tion maneuver• at apacecr&ft\naepa.ra.tion at SECO + 30--I did not hear the thrusters. I\njwst thrwsted.\nJim hit the SEP spacecraft. Did you hear\nthe thru.aters?"
  },
  {
   "n": 82,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p82.jpg",
   "text": "72\nLovell\nNo.\nI did not hear the thrust ers. One reason why we didn't\nhea.r the thrusters in t h.at particular case, whereas we did\nlater on, was the fact t ha.t we ha.d our hoods on and the air\nwas blowing in and making a lot of noise. It Wl!.S strictly\nby feel and by sight. No sound.\nBorman\nRight. Peri gee Adjuat Translati on. Accel erometer bias was\nwhat they thought it was prelaunch, and it remained that way\nthroughout the f light.\nThis was a. no platform Perigee\nAdjust, so, really that doesn' t have any meaning there. The\ntiming on the first Peri get Adjust Maneuver was off, thanks\nto me.\nJim ma.de the maneuver. We did it without a platform\non a. star. And, as I mentioned earlier, about this time we\nwere in cl ose proximity to the booster, and we started fly­\ning through some particles, but I wa.s not sure exactly what\nit was, so I told him to stop thrusting as we approached\nthis. Then, when we got in there, when we stopped th.rusting,\nthis wire came forward, hi t the hatch, and I lost the timing\nagain.\nWe thrusted, I guess , a little too l ong.\nI a.m not\nsure exactly how l ong i t was.\nI think we were aiming for a.\nperigee of about 102, and ended up with about 120. M.&¥be\nthey changed their minds and went for a perigee of 120.\ndon't know.\nLovell\nWell, that time which they gave us was not consistent with\nI"
  },
  {
   "n": 83,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p83.jpg",
   "text": "73\nthe flight plan. They e;a.ve us one minute and 16 or 17 sec­\nonds, &nd the flight plan called for 46, I think.\nBorman\nWell, we may get that cleared up when we talk to the ground.\nBut, it was greater than I thought we had planned to do.\nUpdating throughout the flight was excellent. Checklist\nwa.s fine and, of course, we did not use the computer.\nLovell\nWe might mention here that both Frank and I think making\nadjust maneuvers without a platform is very feasible.\nYou\ncan use the reticle for alignment and use the stars a.s a\nreference. Since you a.re usu.a.lly using the aft thrusters,\nyou do not have thruster light to worry about. You can\nturn down the lights. It takes two people thoughf one per­\nson to burn, hold attitude on the star, and watch the star\nreference and the other person to time. It required two\npeople, but it is & very feasible method of doing it. I\nthink you get some very good accuraciea with it, because we\nfound out from the second burn.\n8.3 RCS\nBorman\nRCS operational checks were nominal.\nWe had no problems at\nall with the RCS.\nSystem monitoring was perfect and it did\nnot drop one bit during the 14 da.ys. After we actuated it,\nit vent from 3,000 to about 2,600 to 2,500 psi on the source\npressure. No problems. Control mode-s, RATE COMMAND.\n.AJJ I"
  },
  {
   "n": 84,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p84.jpg",
   "text": "74\nhave said, it is a very tight and fine mode.\nWe used it\nduring most of the reentry.\nREENTRY RATE COMMAND we did\nnot use.\nDIREC~ I used for the first part of the reentry,\nand it seemed that we were picking up rolling torques , and\nI was also starting to pick up pitch and yaw oscillations\nas the gs were coming on.\nThey were slight ones but I\nreally wanted to get the spacecraft steady, end I was really\ntrying to lock it in on the attitude indicator, so we went\nto RAT~ COMMAND.\nI didn't see any reason to bring back a\nlot of RCS fuel anyway.\nREENTRY RATE COMMAND we did not use.\nThe PUISE mode wa.s used in the reentry prior to guidance\ninitiate, and it worked fine. Retrofire attitude control\nwas excellent and I'm gl ad we bad RATE COMMAND there because\nwe had no outside reference at all. Retrofire was done on\nthe ball with the rate needles, and I thought the rockets\nwere outstanding. Yes.h, outstanding, I thought they were a\nlittle more powerful than I had anticipated.\nLovell\nQ;uite all right.\nBorman\nReentry attitude control deadbands and rate damping was\nfine. The only thing, I guess, that was wrong with RATE\nCOMMAND was the fact that it uses an awful lot of fuel.\nBut, it certainly holds that spacecraft steady as a rock.\nThe heater lights - we solved that problem very easily.\nWe"
  },
  {
   "n": 85,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p85.jpg",
   "text": "75\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nturned on the RCS Heaters on the second dtcy and left them\non through the entire £light. They sequenced and went on\nand of£, I am sure, but we did not know about it. We never\nsaw the light, and we did not have to worry about it.\nThe temperatures kept right around 80° all the time.\nNo comments on thruster firing, worked fine.\nWe shut the\nRCS system down initially around 35,000 feet, shut off the\nmotor valves and then the oscillation on the drogue built\nup even greater than it was.\nSo we turned them back on\nagain, and I'm not sure if it is my imagination or not but\nit seemed like this had some effect on damping the oscilla­\ntions. It may have been just the position in the reentry,\nthough. I had the feeling that perhaps we had run out of\nRCS fuel prior to drogue depl oy. I am not certain, but if\nwe di dn't then the RCS didn't have the authority, because\nwe were oscillating before drogue deploy. I didn't notice\nany RCS fumes after impact.\nDid you, Jim?\nAfter impact? No.\nI think that our system of turning the\nRepress on and getting the..•\n8.4 ECS\nWhy don't you comment on suit mobility?\nThis was a flight that actually did some\nsuit. We had the new light weight suit.\nevaluation on the\nMobility is better"
  },
  {
   "n": 86,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p86.jpg",
   "text": "than the 4-C suit, but mobility in the Gemini cockpit with\nthe 5-C suit still restricts the person such that it de­\ngrades his performance for long duration missions. It is\nstill quite inunobile in the 5-C suit. We still have a lot\nof trouble with it. The suits checked out all right prior\nto the flight.\nWe did not do any integrity checks with the\nlight weight suits during the flight.\nThe\nair flow\nthrough the suit was adequate where the flow got to the\nbody.\nHowever, there were many pockets where the &ir became\nstagna.nt, especially in the crotch area.. It would heat up\nin local areas of the body and would not provide adequate\ncooling. Humidity goes right a.long with temperature.\nThe\nareas where the air flow did not go across the body, was\nvery humid.\nWe also noticed that it gave you sort of a wet\nclammy feeling when the cool air went in there. It gave you\nsort of a. cold, clammy feeling where the flow went th.rough.\nPlaces where the air did not res.ch were hot and clammy.\n:Sorman\nAlso, the humidity in the ca.bin was very, very low when we\nwere in the suits. The ca.bin was dry and hot. Very, very\npoor.\nLovell\nThe humidity dew point was between 52 and 58 most of the\ntime.\nWe have some accurate figures on that.\nI don't recall\nany instance of even seeing the CO2 gauge move other than"
  },
  {
   "n": 87,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p87.jpg",
   "text": "77\nduring tape dumps.\nWe h&d no evidence of co2• Com.fort in\n~\npressure suit is compromised. It restricts mobility\nand the Gemini cockpit is just not th.at big for long dura­\ntion flights where you can live with the suit. Suit con­\ntrols were very a.dequate. no problems there.\nWe bad abso­\nlutely no problems with the o2 demand regulator. The elec­\ntrical umbilical is unga.inly a.nd heavy.\nThe connection\nright angle sticks out in the cockpit. It could be better\ndesigned. We did not have fingertip lights.\nOur mode of\noperation. with the suit on, was pr:1.ma.rily with the hood\noff, the cover visor on, and the gloves off. Maey' times we\nalso unzipped the big zipper through the crotch and up the\nback, and left that zipper open.\nWe found that the big\nopening in the neck, with the crotch zipper closed, most of .\nthe air would go out through the neck and would not adequate­\nly vent the lower stoma.ch area. We had planned in our flighl;\nplan to try going suitless. As per plan, about the second\ncl&y, I got out of my suit and found after settling down to\nthe environment that the skin became drier. There were no\nwet spots or dampness in the underwear area. I put my suit\ninlet hose along side of me on the center stowage area with\nthe opening facing aft blowing air do-wn alongside the seat\nblowing &ft. The exhaust hose was put back into its stowage"
  },
  {
   "n": 88,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p88.jpg",
   "text": "78\nposition, with the screen on, along the lower right hand\nfootwell e.rea. This provided adequate ventilation du.ring\nmost of the time. When we exercised we found out we built\nup quite a bit of extra heat.\nI would then move the inlet\nhose to a position along side of me, along my left leg,\nand tie it down along the side pedestal with the opening\nfacing upward. This would provide more cooling into the\nbasic cockpit area and woul d actually keep me a lot cooler\nthen I had been before.\nWe found out that without suits on,\nthe cockpit actually became bigger. There was more oppor­\ntunity to move a.round.\nYou could move the body, there was\nlees hesitancy to exercise, less resistance to exercise,\nyou could get to things easier. You actually had more con­\ntrol and more comfort without the suit on.\nWe stowed the\nsuit on the seat, putting the visor a.long the outer part of\nthe top of the seat rest a.nd doubling the legs back against\nthe back of the seat.\nWe stowed the harness in the juncture\nof the back and the seat of the ejection seat. During zero\ng we were floating up and we never touched the back pa.rt of\nthe seat.\nBorman\nI have some flight notes tha.t I will just read out for the\nrecord. Ventilation without suits, The bypass hoses on the\nGemini provide excellent return ducts for the suit compres­"
  },
  {
   "n": 89,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p89.jpg",
   "text": "79\nsors. They were mounted with the inlet on the outside wa.11\nnear the individual crewma.ns outboard knee. The suit inlet\nhose wa.s then positioned to secure different !low patterns.\n]ecause no provision had been made for special inlet hoses,\nonly two positions were tried. The one most often used was\nthe suit inlet hose located near the inboard shoulder point­\ning forwa.rd.\nThis produced a flow pattern from righ.t to\nleft down across the body. The body was never really in the\nflow but a very comfortable circulation pattern was set up.\nThe other primary pattern consisted of leaving the suit out­\nlet hose in the same place, but putting the inlet hose nea.r\nthe outboard lrnee, pointing 90• from the direction of the\noutlet hose. This pattern al so produced a comfortable flow\npattern. In truth, I believe the cabin is so small in\nvolume compared to the amount of air introduced by the suit\ncircuit that almost any- arra.ngement would provide enough\n&ir to provide efficient cooling.\nWe also have some sketch­\nes of how this went.\nLovell\nWe also believe, after spending several dteys without suits\non that the theory that at zero g there would be no con•\nvec'Ji.on cooling•••\n:Borma.n\nI am sure that there isn't a:riy, due to oha.nge in the heating\ncondition."
  },
  {
   "n": 90,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p90.jpg",
   "text": "80\n..\nLovell\nThe mass of the air being pushed out by the compressors is\nenough to give adequate flow throughout the entire Gemini\ncockl)it.\nWe had no problems with air flow.\n:Borman\nIt would have been a very, very difficult task to stay in\nthose suits for 14 days, i f not impossible.\nWe cer tain­\nly woul d have been in much worse shape when we got down.\nLovell\nI believe so.\nWe were requested from Houston to try the\nhose position evaluation where by the inlet and outlet hoses\nwe.re together.\n:Borman\nYes.\nLovell\nWe tried it and to be perfectly honest, with the small cock­\npit and the 8.lllount of flow out of the inlet hose, we did not\nfind much difference, it was adequate, but it was awkward\nto use it that way.\nWe di d find out that if my exhaust hose\nwas put on Frank's side t hat we would get stagnant spots on\nmy side of the cockpit where although I wasn't uncomforta­\nble...\n:Borman\n•..that is with yo~ inl et hose being turned off. So all\nthese flows were introduced on my side and both the return\nhoses were on my side.\nLovell\nThat is right, they were on your side. I found stagnant\nareas, I wasn't uncomfortable, but I did find stagnant area.a\nwhere there was no flow going on on my side. You have to"
  },
  {
   "n": 91,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p91.jpg",
   "text": "81\nhave adequate positioning of the exhaust and inlet hoses.\nBorman\nI think really to solve the whole problem, if you want to\ndesign efficient cooling for suits off operation in space­\ncraft, design it the same as you would on the ground.\nLovell\nRight, I think you are right.\nBorman\nYou would have no problem. For instance, in J110st 0£ the\nairplanes now that are pressure cooled the flow is so great\nacross them that you have a continuous flow patte:r.n 1n there,\ncoming out usually .f.'.rom one inlet located up around you:r\nright shoulder a.nd a couple 1n around your feet. I don't\nthink you have to worr:, about the bll88,boo of no convection\nin zero g because it is overshadowed by the large kinetic\nenergy input through the l arge amount of air.\nLovell\nCabin pressure was 5.5 on lift-off, came dow.n to 5.1 and\nst!cy-ed there exactly 5.1 for 14 dqs. It did not move when\nwe jettisoned the ad&pter and went on the bottles, it stqed\nexactly 5.1. The only time I saw it move was on the water\nwhen we used all the o:zyge. up and it went to ze:ro.\nBorman\nWell, i t was below 5.1 when we opened the :Inlet Snorkle.\nLovell\nInlet Snorkle.. yes, that is right.\nBorman\nYou were talking about the inlet bottle pressure.\nLovell\nYea, tb&t•s right, the bottle pressure."
  },
  {
   "n": 92,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p92.jpg",
   "text": "82\n:Borman\nThe temperature va.ried with the suits on and the suits off\noperation.\nI have gone through my notes here, and I note\nthat it says when we both had suits on and we were just\nbarely cool enough with both suits on and the :B pumps run­\nning.\nOn the other hand, when we were both out of the suits,\nthe :B pumps only running, we were very comfortable.\nWhen\nwe were up working and opera.ting, we noticed that the temp­\nerature level in the cockpit was just right.\nWe were run­\nning most of the time with the suits full cold, the heat\nexchanger full cold, and maximum air flow on both controls.\nThen for several days when we went to bed, we left the con­\ntrols that way, a.nd we would wake up very cool.\nLovell\nWell, there a.re several factors.\nI think the size of the\nGemini cockpit and the fact of & completely closed loop\nsystem is very dependent on 2 factors.\nOne was the heat\noutput of the people and two was the amount of heat you get\nin through the windows due to the sun. At night our heat\noutput decreased, we put up shields on the windows, includ­\ning some aluminiz~d foil to reflect the sun, and I think\nthe combination of both these things with the systems we had\nduring the day time really dropped the heat in the cockpit.\nThen, during the day when we were active and had the windows\nopen a.gs.in, the temperature increa.aed inside the cockpit so"
  },
  {
   "n": 93,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p93.jpg",
   "text": "it was very com.fortable.\nBorman\nThat is right but the last couple of dqs we turned dollll the\nsuit flow at night and it helped out.\nLovell\nTo compensate for this thing we turned down the suit flow.\nBorman\nThere's a lot of inertia in the cooling system and it takes\n& long time from the time you make a move on the oontrols\nbefore you can feel it.\nLovell\nJust to regress here one minute.\nWhen I was out of the suit\nand Frank was in it, we put my suit flow to .i'ull decrease\n&nd his to full increase to give him ma.rlmum cooling in the\nsuit. I was not uncomfortable with the full decrease flow\nin the cockpit.\nBorman\nThe humidity in the ca.bin was higher with the suits off.\nIt W&s a much more comfortable cabin. Your skin di dn't get\ndry, and the nose problems we ha.d the first 3 or 4 cla3\"s went\nawa::,.\nI am not sure that we ca.n contribute this solely to\nbeina' out of the suits or whether it was the fact we were\nbecoming more acclimated to the 100 per cent o:r:ygen.\nLovell\nWe have some accurate figures. I believe thou&h, that with\nsuits on the humidity-temperature ra.nge w&s &bout 20 degrees\ndifference. With the suite off they went a.round 10 degrees,\nI suapect.\n:Bo:rman\nWe have them &11 there. The only time the CO\njumped at &11\n2"
  },
  {
   "n": 94,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p94.jpg",
   "text": "84\nwas dlll.\"ing t ape dumps, it would go up a.nd then come b&ok\ndown but we lrnew this before flight though.\nComfort dq\na.nd night, with and without suits .. .There is just no com­\nparison.. I have the notes that I wrote down while we were\nstill up there. There is no comparison between suit on and\nsuit off operation. The suit off is 1,000 per cent better.\nI think I may have been conservative. It wa.s ma.ybe a lot\nbetter than tha.t.\nComfort without the suits was by and\nlarge very good.\nWe used the cabin fan only once in the\nentire mission during one of the checks with the suit off.\nThis was when we had Jim's ■uit inlet hose blocked off &nd\nmy inl et hose operating in my side &nd the two suit outlet\nhoses in my side of the spacecraft. As we already mentioned\nhere, Jim noticed some stagnant areas in the ap&oecra.ft, and •\nwe turned on the cabin fan to see if this aleviated the pro­\nblem, and it did help. There was a definite circulation\nwith the cabin fan on. The only problem is the cabin £an\ndraws a considerable electrical load, and we did not have\nthe power to run it continually. The cabin pressure r egu­\nlator worked perfectly, it never worked at all.\nLovell\nThat is right, never heard it, thank goodness.\n:Borman\nThat's the pressure relief valve. Right, never hea.rd it.\nIt never actuated.\nThe cabin pressure regulator was ae"
  },
  {
   "n": 95,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p95.jpg",
   "text": "85\nLovell\n~SD :rep\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\n:Borman\nsteady as a rock.\nAB Jim ha.a already mentioned it st~ed\n5.1 the whole flight, a.nd•I never saw it budge at a.11, until\nyou opened the snorkel.\nRight.\nCabin vent va.lve.\nWe had a double vent valve with the tip bent up to protect\nthe stop. We never used tha.t until we got down to the\ncheckl ist during the reentry portion of the flight.\nThe Cabin Repress V~lve was on the entire flight because we\nhad the M-1 Experiment hooked to it.\nThen, of course, we\nactuated it aga.in when we got on the wa.ter just to get some\ncooling oxygen into the spa.oeora.ft.\nI have no oomments on\ni t, we bad no problem with it, the friction had bean in­\ncrea.sed on it so tha.t it worked quite well. It st!cy\"ed in\nthe open posi t i on for the entire flight.\nl et Valve, we used•.•\nJust during the reentry phase•.\nRight. Just during the reentry phase.\n•.•with the snorkel valve, th&t is when I\nwhiff of that stuff through there.\nThe Ca.bin Air In­\nthink I got a\nAll the time with the suits off, we were running with the\nCabin Air Reci.rcula.tion Valve closed. The r est of the time\nwhen there was one person in the suit and one person out of"
  },
  {
   "n": 96,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p96.jpg",
   "text": "86\nthe suit we r&n. with it in a 45 degree position.\nWhen both\npeople were m the suits, we ran it in the 45 degree posi­\ntion.\nLovell\nI'd like to make one comment· on the C&bin Inlet Valve, I\nthink a. future procedure woul d be to either open the visor\nor unzip the hood prior to using the snorkel va.lve, so you\ndo not get this concentrated ambient flow into the suit in\na small concentrated area. Okay.\nPrimary o2 System\nMonitoring.\nBorme.n\nPrima:ry o System Monitoring was no problem.\nThe cryogen­\n2\nics bottle for ECS o2 orygen did vent•.. I think i t was\na.bout the 8th d~ it started venting.\nPerformance of the\ncryogenics bottles have been outstanding.\nThe first one,\nECS o2, started venting tod~. And we were still adding\nheat to the other two bottl es. Let's see, this was Sunday\nmorning so that woul d have been the 8th day that i t started\nventmg. The quantity measuring system worked fine.\nThe\nflow rates were adequ&te .\nI just ca;nnot emphasize enough\nthe desirabil ity of going without suits. The pressure a.nd\ntemperature remained just nominal.\nWe had dome plots &boa.rd\nthe spacecraft, and we checked them out.\nWe had to use the\nauto heater on the ~S o2 bottle perhaps, the first two days\nor so and then we were able to turn the heater off complete­"
  },
  {
   "n": 97,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p97.jpg",
   "text": "87\nly. That bottle had a big enough heat leak so that it main­\ntained pressure itself. As I said, it started venting on\nthe 8th day.\nWe never used the manual heater on the E'.JS\no bottle.\n2\nLovell\nAs a matter of fact, the prilna.ry o2 helped, rather we util­\nized the primary o2 to pump up the pressure on the ro o2\nsometime in the early pa.rt of the portion of the flight.\nBorman\nYes, we used the crossover valve. When you hit the squib\nor when you hit the switch to open the solenoids, even\nthough we had been led to believe that i t takes some time\nfor that pressure to build up, it looked to me that it went\nto about 250 in the FC o bottle almost immediately. It\n2\nwent from 100 to 250 almost immediately. I imagine it will\ncome down when we talk about the FC o2 problem.\nBorman\nSecondacy o\nSystem Monitoring was nothing, we checked it•••\n2\nall the time, but GO/NO GO decision once a~. It stS3\"ed\nexactly the same throughout the entire flight--5400 and\n5300.\nLovell\nIt did not budge at all.\nBorman\nQuanti ty meaauring.•we do not measure except for pressure,\nand as we said that stayed constant. Flow rates, pressures,\nend controls were nominal in the secondary o2• You could\nnot tell when we had gone off the primary onto the seconda.ry"
  },
  {
   "n": 98,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p98.jpg",
   "text": "88\no2.\nWe have already talked about the co2 partial pressure.\nIt was below zero the entire flight except during tape dumps\nwhen it jumped up due to a glitch that the tape dump puts in\nthe TM system. Radiator operation and configuration•••We\nran radiator on all the time except for two checks that were\nmade. Actually when we opened circuited the fuel cells be­\nfore we brought them back on the line, we went to RADIATOR\nBYPASS twice.\nThen we went to ·RADIA'IDR BYPASS once when we\nwanted to get the water out of the ECS System.\nOne time\nduring the flight we were picking up water.\nThis might be\na good place to cover that.\nWe were picking up water coming\nout of our suit inlet hose, in quite large quantities.\nWe\ncalled the ground, and they suggested that perhaps the vater\nboiler was not venting. They called up the procedure that\nincluded putting on evaporator heat, turning off the radia­\ntor and going to bypass on the radiators and rota.ting the\nspacecraft at 10 degrees per second. This threw out large\namount of water and things got back to normal.\nLater on in\nthe flight we noticed the same thing, but we were busy align­\ning the platform and other things and we did not want to\nsetup roll-rates. All we did was put the suit coolant to\nwarm and put both suit fans on and blew the water out of\nt he system, and that worked also.\nWe did notice that during"
  },
  {
   "n": 99,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p99.jpg",
   "text": "89\nthe flight, down in the vicinity of my right foot in the\ncenter pedestal lower area there, around the cabin heat\nexchanger, we got a lot of condensation. It was very wet\non the walls a.nd the blotter paper was sopping wet, a radius\nof about 12 inches on the lower right pedestal, on my side.\nI do not know how it was on your side.\nLovell\nIt started getting wet on my side, the inboard.\nBorman\nYes, inboard side. That is the only place in the spacecraft\nthat I noticed any condensation.\nAs far as I know the evap­\norator only operated during launch and the first orbit. We\nalso had one other day when we woke up and were tumbling\nquite badly and the wall temperatures were 16 degrees to 20\ndegrees lower th.an we ever recorded tb1;!m before. I suspect\nthat the evaporator might have worked that night.\nWe men­\ntioned this to the ground and••.let's see, I have some notes\non that.\nLovell\nIt probably got filled up from the moisture going into the\nsystem.\nBorman\nThis was noted in the data for the cabin temperature surveys\nalso. I don't remember exactly what day it was, where we\nnoticed this big change in temperature.\nLovell\nIt was &bout 5 or 6 days after the mission started, wasn't\nit?"
  },
  {
   "n": 100,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p100.jpg",
   "text": "90\n\" orma.n\nYes ..here it is here•••it was 158 hours a.nd 27 minutes when\nwe got up, a.nd we had a. wall temperature of 64 degrees and\na. pilot ha.tch temperature of 66 degrees. Comparing this\nwith 144 hours and 5~ minutes, the hatch temperature had\nbeen 84 degrees, so there was a. 20 degrees drop du.ring this\none evening. ~ I attributed this, plus the fact th.at we no­\nticed la.:rge drift rates when we woke up, to the fact that\nthe water boiler must have been opera.ting during the night.\nIt was the only time during the flight that we noticed these\nlarge drops in tempera.ture.•. the very cold wall tempera.tures.\nWe were on double loop, B pumps most of the time. Finally,\nwent to A pump twice in the flight when people were in the\nsuits in order to at~ cool.\nWe went to double A pumps, of\ncourse, when we were powered up.\nLovell\nWe bad one time when we bad one A pump on.\n:Borman\nTwice we had it on.\nLovell\nTwice, but just one primary pump.\nWe did not go to two A\npumps.\nl3orma.n\nNo. A pump in the primary loop was on twice to keep cool.\nLovell\nRight. The second.a.ry loop A pump was not on.\nBorman\nNever on except during periods when the platform we.a running.\nLovell\nRight.\nBorman\nNow, as I mentioned before, when we were running both B"
  },
  {
   "n": 101,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p101.jpg",
   "text": "91\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\npumps with the suits off, it was comfortable.\nWhen we got\nthe suits on, &nd both B pumps going, it was not enough to\nhandle the load.\nIt was .marginal.\nThat is right. Normal mode was all we used on water manage­\nment.\nNever touched the--­\nNever touch the condensator.\nThe drink gun worked as advertised.\nOne thing I would mention is the fact that this logging\nevery ounce you drink was an operational nightmare.\nI think the gun is adequate for flights if all you want to\ndo is to know the total quantity of water that is going out\nfor balliet purposes or CG purposes. I do not think there\nis a requirement to know just how much each crewman is drink­\ning as long as it is adequate. There is no need to log, all\nyou have to do is report counter readings once a da,y for the\nguidance people and .fuel cell people to know just how much\nwater is being consumed.\nRight. It says flush mode.\nWe never used the Flush mode or\nEvaporator Fill mode.\n8.5 Communications\nThe interphone Operation and Quality was okay, without the"
  },
  {
   "n": 102,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p102.jpg",
   "text": "92\nhood on. The G5C suit ma.de communications poor, because of\nthe flow of the air to the hood.\nOther than that I thought\nthe interphone was pretty good.\nBorman\nYes, we should mention the fact th.at the G5C suit with the\nhood zipped did introduce a lot of noise.\nLovell\nYes, a feed back into those two mikes and there was a lot of\nnoise.\nBorman\nThe quality of the interPhone was excellent. With the suits\noff we didn't use them most of the time, just like t alking\nin a room, so we didn't need it. My UHF was a little fuzzy\nduring countdown.\nLovell\nMine was good.\n:Sorman\nYes, yours was good and mine was a little fuzzy.\nI could\nhear people all right but they claimed that I was a little\nweak.\nIn orbit, I just can't say enough nice things about\nthe UHF.\nLovell\nUHF was excellent in orbit for the entire 14 da;ys.\nv~~~\nlittle static. High quality reproduction.\nBorman\nWith the squelch on zero.\nLovell\nRight, the s~uelch on zero.\nBorman\nThe UHF performance during recovery wa.s excellent. No peo­\nblems with that at all.\nLovell\nWe did have trouble getting back to Houston."
  },
  {
   "n": 103,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p103.jpg",
   "text": "93\n:Borman\nI was very pleased with the entire Voice procedure operation\na.round the world. I thought they did 8J1 excellent job. We\ndidn1 t have a:ny problems at all. They were quiet when they\nwere requested to be during our sleep period.\nLovell\nThey were outstanding.\n:Borman\nThey were outst&nding, yes.\nLovell\nThe voice tape recorder operation was fine. There were\nno hitches as far as operating the voice recorder. It was\neasy to, well, that's three feet of change.\nWe used mostly\nthe CONTINUOUS mode rather than the MOMEN111A.RYa\nI used\nMOMENTA.RY when we just wa.nted to m&ke a comment.\nAs a. mat­\nter of fact, I think the MOMENTARY position does save a lot\nof voice tape, because you dontt have it on and forget it.\nHowever, we had a procedure with the voice tape that was\ngoing to record the quantity of urine that was dumped.\nAnd\nthis led us to leave the voice tape on quite a long time\nwhen we weren't doing anything or saying anythin~-and using\nquite a bit or tape.\nI think that i t would be helpful if\nwe had some sort or a little light of some sort to let you\nknow that t he tapes on. When we have a flow meter which was\nbeing evaluated for future flights and might be a standard\npiece of equi pment then it would certainly be nice to have"
  },
  {
   "n": 104,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p104.jpg",
   "text": "94\nsome indication if the tape is on.\nOn long flights you\ncan't ha.ve the tape on all the time like the short flights-­\nyou ha.veto conserve tape.\nCartridge change was no problem.\nThe controls were adequate. Data Recording? We tried to\nrecord as much data as we could.\n:Borman\nWe didn't indulge in a luxury many times of recording both\nin the log book and on the tape. We only had 20 tapes for\na 14 day mission. If we got a good representation of it in\nthe log book-we didnJt put it on the tape.\nNow, we find\nout we probably brought back some unused tapes, too.\nLovell\nWe did. It was hard for a 14 day mission to adequately\nbudget the tape.\nWe would try to budget it so th.at we could\nget the in:f'orm&tion on there 'Without leaving long periods of\ninactivity on the tape. However, we didn't budget it well\nenough, and we left about 1 or 2 tapes without any record­\nings.\n:Borman\nDigital Command System updates were good, no problem--every­\nthing worked fine. Real-time transmitter, and delay-time\ntransmitter were no problem.\nAs a matter of fact, tb.at\nwhole system I thought was excellent. The only problem we\nhad in the area of Digital Command System or the telemetry\nwas th.at we lost the tape recorder and•••goofed up the de­\n1,cy-ed time. The procedure that we worked up for operating"
  },
  {
   "n": 105,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p105.jpg",
   "text": "95\nwith Spacecraft 6 in the air, I thought went very well. It\nposed no problems.\nCommunications Controls &nd Switches­\nVoice Control Center, Audio modes, Keying and Antenna Selec­\ntion, were all nominal.\nWe might mention in Sleep Configu­\nration--we never used the Sleep switches bees.use we had the\nsituation where we pretended it was night and went to sleep\nevery evening and the ground never call ed us. I don't think\nthey ever violated that for the 14 days.\nThey never called\nus during the sleep period.\nLovell\nSo that worked very well.\nBorman\nBeacon Control was no problem.\nWe didn't use the Reentry\nC-band Beacon until reentry.\nThe TM controls, tr8Jlsmitter,\nand antenna again were no problem. It was operated just a.a\nadvertised due to all instructions from the ground.\n8.6 Electrical\nBorman\nNow we have some interesting things to talk about.\nLovell\nWell, we monitored the electrical system pretty closely.\nBorma.n\nYea.h, I guess we did.\nLovell\nThe only thing we can say here is reiterate what we have\nprobably said before.\nOn lift-off we had delta Plights\ncome on for fuel cells--both sections.\n1 blinked on and\noff several times and went off.\n2 blinked on and off\nseveral times and stayed on through insertion and stayed on"
  },
  {
   "n": 106,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p106.jpg",
   "text": "96\nmost of the t ime during the 14 days.\nWe have recorded in\nthe flight book of the flight pla.n--those times th.at it went\noff and on to the best of our lmowledge. I'm au.re we missed\nseveral of them.\nBorman\nWhen we were sleeping particularly.\nLovell\nWhen we were sleeping we missed them, but it appears to me\nthat there are two things now that these fuel cells have &\nlot more latitude than we really first realized:\n1) We can\noper&te with the fuel cells with delta Plights on more than\nwe thought we could.\n.As a matter of fact , we were doing\nnormal purges with the .t'uel cell delta Plights on whioh the\nsystems book said flatly not to do. But we had some excel­\nlent guidance a.nd assistance from the ground in keeping the\nsections running.\nBorman\nI think so, too.\nLovell\nI think that's what kept Stacks 2C and 2A going as l ong as\nthey did go.\nThe gauge is a little inaccurate to monitor\nthe system. If we are going to have troubles with fuel cells\nas we did on this flight, and if the ground is going to keep\nrequesting accurate stack a.mp readouts.\nThe gauging system\nis poor because it is ha.rd to read accurately the amps when\nthey are down in the low 1 and 2 amps.\nEach indicator is\ncanted a different way-alternately throughout the 6 stack"
  },
  {
   "n": 107,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p107.jpg",
   "text": "97\nreadouts.\nThe ones that are canted inward away from\nyou are hard to read.\nBor:ma.n\nThe fuel cell, as Jim said, was an interesting thing.\nWe finally lost stacks 2A and 20 about the 11th or 12th\nday. stack 2B re.mained on and I'm sure there is a\nwhole history written on the ground of the things they\ndid and tests they ran at McDonnell when we were in the\nair to see just what they could do and how far they could\ngo with these fuel cells. I thought they did a.n excellent\njob,and we ended up being able to run them the whole time.\nAs a matter of fact, we turned on our Squib batteries about\nthe 10th day-used the Bua Tie switches and were running\nentirely on the f'uel cells the latter part of the flight."
  },
  {
   "n": 108,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p108.jpg",
   "text": "98\nBorman\nThe onboard cues for monitoring the el ectrical system are\nadequate.\nWe found out one thing in this f light , t hat is\nthe Delt a Plight s really don't mean a lot.\nWe had been\ntold before the flight never to purge if you had a Delta P\nlight. We ended up violating every single one of t he ca.r-­\ndinal rules that we had.\nI think the t hing to note about the entire electrical\nsyst em was the f ine work done on the ground.\nThey came up\nwith solutions. They evidently were running similar type\ncel ls at MAC, St. Louis, and they kept them working\nf or l onger than they should have.\nFuel cel l operation, as far as I was concerned, Section 1\nwas i deal. Section 1 maintained its share of the load the\nwhole flight. Section 2, we lost stacks 2-A and 2-C\nevent ual l y, I believe on about the 12th day.\nI was a\nlittle concerned on the 13th day with the status of Secti on 1\nbecause we had had a delta Plight on Section 1 f or the\nfirst time and we had been running almost 24 hours.\nBut, t he ground came through and read us up a technical\nreport from St. Louis that explained the whol e thing.\nIt\nmade me feel a lot easier when they did that. Rather than\nhaving t he ground comment blindly on it, \"the fuel cells\nare going to be good for 24 hours,\" I would like t o get a"
  },
  {
   "n": 109,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p109.jpg",
   "text": "99\nBorman\nlittle background information on it. How else could we\nknow it was going to be good for 24 hours, and what had\nthey done to prove it would be good for 24 hours? They\nread it to us over CS~, it eased my mind a lot because I\nwasn ' t anxious to miss the WASP.\nOn the 13th day, I\nwanted to be able to go the full 24 hours rather than have\nto land in the Pacific. So the whole story of the electri­\ncal monitoring, as far as I a.m concerned, was great work by\nthe ground.\nThe main batteries held constant between 22.5 and 22.7 amps\nfor the entire mission, and we checked them once a day at\nthe GO/NO GO stations. When we turned them on ·2\nhours\nbefore retrofire they carried their share of the load and\nwere operating fine when we were in the water.\nWe turned\noff the squib batteries about the 10th day and used the bus\ntie switches.\nWe ran entirely on fuel cell power for the\nlast five days.\nWhen the squibs came back on, the voltage\nwas 25.5 after they had been turned off for five days.\nThey operated properly for the last 2 hours of the flight.\ns.7 Onboard computer\nDuring t he l aunch it was absolutely a nominal case.\nThe\npitch status, yaw status, and roll status, were zeroed\nexcept for a brief period at guidance initiate when they went\nout about 2 to 3 degrees,and then zeroed.\nWe had no violent"
  },
  {
   "n": 110,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p110.jpg",
   "text": "1JO\npitch down at guidance initiate.\nAttitude indications were\nnominal all the way through.\nAt insertion, the nomi nal\nvelocity on address 72 was 25,804 and when we read it up, i t\nread 25,804.\nThe orbit maneuvers using the computer and\nthe platform were right on the money.\nThe accelerometer\nbias did not vary, and we burned them off on the IVI\n1a by\ninserting them through the MDIU, and it came out very well .\nI did not burn on time, we burned on t he IVI's.\nBorman\nThe updates were all made in the PRELAUNCH mode as agreed on\nbefore fli ght .\nThere was no problem, no mi sunderstanding,\nI think F0D did very well i n this regard.\nI know that in\nGemini 5 t here was a little mix-up, but we had none of that.\nBorman\nRetrofire occurred automatically at the exact second. All\nfour Retros f ired and the IRS was right on the money.\nReentry\nguidance was nominal.\nIt was very simi lar to the simulations\nthat we had f l o.m.\nThere was one little anomaly in the guid­\nance, in t hat we were gi ven back-up reentry angles of\n50 degrees.\nWe computed wi th our onboard char ts a reentry\nangle of 50 degrees, back-up angle of 50 degrees.\nBut then\nafter tracking, the ground called up a 35 degrees which proved\nto be closer to what we actually f l ew.\nI am still not aware\nof the reason for change; why it changed from 50 degrees t o\n35 degrees. The important t hing i s t hat it did change and the\nground was able to update us in real time, and it agreed very\nwell with the a"
  },
  {
   "n": 111,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p111.jpg",
   "text": "101\nBorman\nBorman\nThe MDU worked perfectly the entire flight.\nComputer modes,\nPRELADNCH, ASCENT, CATCH-UP, RENDEZVOUS , REENTRY, were all\nperfect, no anomalies in any of those,\n8.8 Crew Station\nControls and di splays,\nThe sequenti al tel elights o~erated\nexactly as programmed.\nAt minus 2:56, t hey came on to the\nsecond.\nThey al l turned green when they were punched, no\nprobl ems there.\nThe event timer was used only intermittantly\nthroughout the flight for timing, and for the last 20\nminutes. It worked f ine.\nThe IVI's also worked exactly as\nplanned.\nThe Flight Di rector Indicator was again, a nomi­\nnal case.\nOne sli ght difference between the simulator and\nthe Flight Director Indicator i n the spacecraft, was the\nlittle outer roll gimbal i ndi cator in the simulator always\ncame up to the top. I'd grown used to flying the reentries\nby using that as a lift vect or. In the spacecraft when we\ngot all set up for reentry, low and behold, the outer roll\ngimbal was down at the bottom, so I had to fly the reci­\nprocal of it. But it was just a minor change and I ended\nup acclimating to it with no problem.\nI think it is just a\nfunction of how you happen t o go through zero.\nIf you go\nthrough zero just a little bit to one side, the gimbal goes\nto the top, and if you go through the other side, it goes\nto the bottom."
  },
  {
   "n": 112,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p112.jpg",
   "text": "102\nBorman\nGLV fuel and oxidi zer pressure gauges were nominal.\nThe\nconcept of sticking the decals on the outside of the gauge\nis poor at the best. But, we all know this has been done,\nand they're not going to change the gauges, and it worked\nfine. I would suggest never going this way again. I think\nwe ought to change the meters in the future.\nBorman\nThe altimeter worked fine.\nThe only problems we had with\nthe altimeter was\nwhen we were oscillating violently on the\ndrogue , it was not indicati ng descent.\nAs soon as the\ndrogue oscillations st eadied out , the alti meter came down\nvery well.\nRate of descent indicator was likewise. As a\nmatter of fact, I can't tell you what the rate of descent ·\nwas after we opened the main chute. The main chute was so\ngood when we looked at it. We didn't see any gores or\nfrays. And when we went to si ngle point release, I didn't\neven look at the rate of dascent indicator. Did you?\nLovell\nI couldn't see it.\nBorman\nDid you even think about it?\nLovell\nNo, you mean to tell me you didn't look at the rate of\nI descent indicator?\nBorman\nWe could tell from the altimeter we were going down very\nslow.\nThe acceler ometer seemed to give us slightly lower\nvalues thttn the recorded.\nI think on the reentry the highest\nvalue we got was 3.9 g's. During launch the highest that"
  },
  {
   "n": 113,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p113.jpg",
   "text": "103\nwas recorded on the a~celerometer was about 6.75 g's. I\nunderstand that the actual value was over 7.\nOn the nominal\nprofile, it i s.\nLovell\nWas the reentry a little higher than 3.9?\nBorman\nI don' t know, I doubt if it was, it was so near ful l lift.\nSwitches and circuit breaker panels.\nWe had a coupl e of\ncases knocking of f circuit breakers. We did have one fuel\ncell control ci rcuit breaker pop on us twice.\nLovell\nI am not real sure i t popped.\nI don' t know whether I hit\nit ina.dvertantly twice.\nBorman\nNo, you didn't.\nThe second time I watched it pop.\nOther than that, I thought the switches and circuit panel s\nwere well located.\nI think it i s very important that we\nhave those guards on there, particularly with changing suits.\nLovell\nThe fuel cel l switches, the power and control switches,\nshould be LIFT to move switches.\nThey should be over center\nlocks that you have to lift to move them up.\nThere was a\nguard over i t, but still it was so easy to reach up there\nand hit those things.\nI was always worried about throwing\nthe control switch of f, which would have really foul ed up\nthe fuel cells.\nBorman\nYou mean like the squib switches? ...\nLovell\nYes, like the squib switches. I think that is the way they\nought to be ~ecause you never touch them unless deliberately."
  },
  {
   "n": 114,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p114.jpg",
   "text": "104\nBo·-m.a.n\nYes, that is a switch that is never moved unless there is\na failure in the fuel cells.\nLovell\nThey should be a little better type of switch than they are.\nBorman\nMirrors.\nOperating without suits on, I found that I seldom\nneeded the mirror.\nI don't believe I used it more than\n2 or 3 times except to check and see how far m;r beard had\ngrown.\nRow about you, did you?\nLovell\nWell,\nthey were good for things like looking way back in\nthe corner, and shining a light back there.\nBorman\nI was mobile enough that without a suit on I could turn\naround very easily and see all around.\nThere is no question\nyou need the mirrors. I am not suggesting even remotely\nthat you take them out. With the suit off it cuts down the\nneed for them.\nThe swizzle stick we used once to pry up\nthe center line stowage bracket. When we opened the center\nline stowage after launch, the bottom bracket sprung down\nabout ~/4 inches, and we bad great difficulty to close it.\nWe only closed it twice during the flight after that. We\njust kept it velcroed partially shut.\nLovell\nI think the boost acceleration sprung it out of position.\nBorman\nEither that, or when they put that fix on there to beef\nit up, it resulted in an out-of-tolerance eitua.tion. I hope·\nthat the people did not fo~ce it shut and then let us take\noff that w~. That was a pain in the neck to get it shut."
  },
  {
   "n": 115,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p115.jpg",
   "text": "105\nLovell\nWe had to use the levers of the swizzle stick to get the\nthing back together again. This was bad.\nWe also used the\nswizzle stick to keep the manual heater switch down on the\nFC H\nwhich is a real big pa.in. I t is a very a.mall swit ch\n2\nand you have to hold it for a long tiine. That gets to be\na lot of trouble.\nBorman\nLighting, indicators and instruments.\nThere is one\ninstrument in the spacecraft that should be lit that i s\nnot. Tba.t is the digital timer. That is the most\nvaluable instrument onboard.\nWe used it continually, it\nnever varied one second in 339 hours.\nWe never had to\nreset that once. It was exactly on the money.\nWe checked\nit periodically and it never gained or lost a second.\nLovell\nBut it had to be lit.\nBor.man\nIt should be lit because it is right on the center panel,\nand there is no lighting on it except for the bright l i ght\nfrom the back. Ma.ny times at night and when you are trying\nto :maintain dark adaptation you end up having to use the\nflashlight on it.\nLovell\nIt should be a red light for night work.\nIn the day time\nyou don't need it because the cockpit is lit up anyway.\nIt really ruined night vision to turn on that flashlight\nto find out what time it was.\nBor:ma.n\nThe left panel was fine when it was lit up with the display\n~"
  },
  {
   "n": 116,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p116.jpg",
   "text": "106\nlight. The center panel and the right panel were all right.\nThere is no question that the lighting system on the LEM is\nsuperior.\nLovell\nWe used the red lighting more than I thought we would ever\nuse it. We never used it in simulations.\nThe red lighting\nturned out ve-ry nicely when we started looking out the\nwindow, using the stars, getting oriented and things of this\nnature.\nBorman\nThe pedestal, console and circuit breaker areas just aren't\nlit. Same way with the water management panel, when you\nwanted to check that,the only thing you could do was use\nyour flashlight. It was not a big problem.\nThe little\nflashlight that CSD developed, and put in, was one of the\nmost valuable pieces of gear we had.\nWe used it continually\nthroughout the flight, it is much more valuable than finger­\ntip lights. I see no reason for fingertip lights because\nyou're not going to fly with gloves on most of the time.\nIf we would have had them, they would have been stowed.\nThis little flashlight turned out to be a little jewel.\nThe\nutility light I did not use once in the whole flight.\nLovel l\nI turned mine on once to see if it worked.\nBorman\nThe flashlight was much easier to get to.\nWe velcroed it\nright in front of us, and it was very handy.\nAnd at the\nend of 14 days it seemed as bright as it was before.\nOne"
  },
  {
   "n": 117,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p117.jpg",
   "text": "107\nof the serious deficiencies in the flight was the dirty\nwindow.\nLovell\nI just talked to John Erinkman about the film.\nHe said a\nlot of it was good, but a lot of it they could tell the\nwindow was dirty.\nEorman\nWhat about the booster film?\nLovell\nThey haven't processed two rolls of film yet and they don't\nhave the Polaris launch yet.\nThe Houston one turned out\nsort of hazy and I thought it was a clear day.\nHe told me\nthere was haze on the ground.\nBorman\nDid they see Houston all right?\nLovell\nThey could make out the International Airport.\n:Borman\nYou took that with the 250 mm. lens.\nLovell\nThe high speed film.\nThey don't want to process it until\nthey talk to us to find out what kind of ex:posures we used.\nWe had all kinds of ex:posures.\nI think the picture that was\nin the paper was from the 16 mm. camera.\nThe window was very dirty. And I have a ... a picture was\ntaken of it. Shows the ...\nBorman\nJim drew a sketch of the window in the S-8/D-13 log.\nLovell\nThere was a greenish, greasy film over the whole thing right\nin the center.\nOutside of that was a sort of a haze or fog\neffect. Right along the outer edge, it was clear. If I\nfocused on the nose of the spacecraft it would be blurry."
  },
  {
   "n": 118,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p118.jpg",
   "text": "108\nJust off the nose it woul d blurr out.\nThere are two theories,\none group of peopl e sey it's the nose cover that is ablating\non launch, others sey it is staging.\nWe saw quite a bit of flame at staging and it looked like\nthere were several streaks there caused by staging.\nThere\nis also a general deposit like a stagnation point right there\nthat might have been built up during the entire launch, which\nmight be the nose cover.\nSo, it might be the combination or\nboth.\nBorman\nIt might have accumulated due to the urine dumps throughout\nflight.seve~al times we saw urine crystals come·back e.nd hit\nthe nose cone. We never saw them actually hit the window.\nI am not sure that some of it, that was practically invisible,\nmight have hit the window.\nIt did seem to get worse with\nflight.\nl-zy- window was not nearly as bad as Jim's.\nLovell\nFrank's was better than mine.\nWhenever I could I would\ngive him the cameras to take a picture.\nHe did a lot of\nthe Apollo landmark and S-5 and S-6 pictures while I was\ncontrolling the spacecraft.\nWe have to improve the windows somehow.\nWe've got to have\nsome sort of cover or get some certain ty:pe of material.\nThe windows were perfect when we got in the cockpit.\nThe\nproblem they had on GT-5, where they had fog and humidity\nbecause of the difference in temperature when the White"
  },
  {
   "n": 119,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p119.jpg",
   "text": "109\nRoom was dismantled, was not there this time.\nIntensity control was good, no problem.\nWe had two white\nlights in the center cockpit, this was our request a long\ntime ago, and after using it I think we ma.de a mistake. We\nnever did use the thunderstorm light that we stuck in place\nof the red light. Right now Frank and I think we could\nhave used the red light again because we both did use red\nlights a lot more than we thought we were going to, for\nnight work. It gets your eyes accustomed to the night, and\nyou can see the airglow and stars a lot better. If you have\nbright lights on in the cockpit , at night, with glare off the\nwindow and your eyes adjusted to the white lights, you could\nnever see out. It ' s just black.\nOnboard data: checklist cards preparation, excellent.\nI\nthink the people who made them up , Chuck Stough, has to take\na personal bow because I think that he did an outstanding\njob of making up all the onboard data books and cards.\nThey\nare very, very good.\nWhat we did was, tear off the lift-off\ncards prior to reentry and just had the reentry section, so\nwe wouldn't get mixed up.\nThere are several minor things\nwhich we could change to make it a little bit more compatible,\nlike getting one card with all the data on it so we didn't\nhave to flip the cards back and forth when MCC gave it to us.\nAs a matter of fact that i s exactly what I ended up doing,"
  },
  {
   "n": 120,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p120.jpg",
   "text": "110\nI took the core card, and after I read the various cores for\nthe reentry parameters, I got the nominal IVI's, also the\nbank angle updates and things of this nature, all on one\ncard·.\nThen I went back to the other section and transposed\nthem in there.\n:Borman\nOne of t he most import ant things about the checklist on\nthis flight was t he fact that we had them about a month\nbefore the flight.\nWe used them in training, and the peopl e\nresponsi ble for that di d a great job, Chuck Stough and Ted\nGuillory.\nLovell\nThat is important.\nOn GT-4, because of the newness of the\nsystem, we were still rearranging cards and books just prior\nto the f light.\nLearning from that flight, on GT-7 we really\ngained a lot by having the cards and books early in the\ngame so we could train with them.\nChecklist cards useful ness was outstanding.\n:Borman\nThe maps and overlays were fine.\nWe carried the larger\norbital display m.e.p.\nI'm not really sure we needed it. It\nwas a little cumbersome i n the coclq)it. It was all right,\nbut general areas would have been just as readily available\non a small map.\nWhen we were doing the Apollo landmarks,\nparticularly those with coastal features, I thought Apollo\nlandmark •\nmaps were entirely adequate.\nI did not see any-\nreason for photographs. If you really want photographs, the"
  },
  {
   "n": 121,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p121.jpg",
   "text": "111\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nbest way to do it would be to fly over them with an airplane\nand then change the scale to whatever you wanted it.\nThe photographs were important , but I don ' t think you have\nto spend\nvaluable\nfuel and time to get them.\nAn airplane\ncan do the same job getting photographs that we need for\nApollo landmarks.\nThat's right.\nNo questi on about that.\nI found it difficult to move the map overlay.\nIt got better as the flight went on.\nYes, because we wore it in.\nThe overlay we have, with\nperiods, orbits , and the map underneath, I think that can\nbe improved. We needed a very simple device with two rollers\non the end, or some system a little bit more elaborate, but\na lot easier to handle.\nI don't know, it worked all right toward the end, Jim.\nIf\nyou get it too elaborate, or too easy to roll , then it is\ngoing to change on you.\nIt has to have a system where it can' t change.\nIt was valuable.\nYou knew where you were all the time.\nWe used it more than we used the star charts. Mainly, we ­\nused the star charts for the no platform burns, for retro­\nfire positi on, and for SEF and BEF positions.\nBy and large the maps and overlays were well prepared.\nThey\nwere available early to us. We knew how to use them and i t"
  },
  {
   "n": 122,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p122.jpg",
   "text": "112\nwas a very, very fine job by FCSD people responsible for\nthem.\nBorman\nData books:\nWe were using a system that was started in GT-4,\nfurthered in GT-5 and I think it is working out very well.\nIf there is any derogatory remarks on it at all, it is the\nrequired amount of logging you have to do. It is really a\ndouble entry system. But, hopefully this will cut down the\npostflight activities and give people a better idea of\nwhat they are looking for.\nI would not suggest even for a\nmoment that we change it. We did delete some of the redun­\ndancy to endeavor to save voice tape.\nWe tried to log\neverything in the book, but many of the things we did not\nput on voice tape that were already in the book because we\nwanted to save the tape. We only had 20 tapes for 14 days.\nEverything that was done is in the books.\nMost of the\ncritical things that were time significant are on the tape .\nBorman\nStar cha.rte, Polar and Mercator.\nWe used the Mercator almost\nexclusively.\nLovell\nI'm not saying the Polar was not any good, but the Mercator\nwas very adequate and we knew how to use it. I enjoy that\nparticular ty:pe of chart a little bit bett er.\nBorman\nIt was preference more than anything else. We did check the\nPolar out during flight and it was apparently accurate.\nI\ndidn' t see any reason to change those star charts either,"
  },
  {
   "n": 123,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p123.jpg",
   "text": "113\ndid you?\nLovell\nNo, I think we have enough stars on there.\nI think they're\nadequate.\nBorman\nStowage at l aunch was a l i ttle gruesome.\nWhen we got in we\nfound all the stuff stuffed on the floor over our feet.\nOnce we got into orbit and started going through our pre­\narranged procedure there was absolutely no problem.\nWe used\nthe food bags to put the refuge from each meal in.\nWe usually\nstored three meals in the front until we were ready to\ndispose of them, and then we would put them behind the seat.\nWe filled the debris guard areas we had behind the seats in\nabout eight days.\nA.fter that we stowed the used ones in the\nbags we had.\nFor reentry, we placed them over the seats as\nwe had done before. It worked fine.\nLovel l\nWhen we first started training for the flight , there always\nseemed to be a de-emphasis on exactly how much we were going\nto stow.\nFor instance, the size of the food bags was a lot\nsmaller than i t turned out.\nThe size of the tissue we used\nwas a lot smaller.\nI think that we ought to look at it\nrealistically early and make sure that we get the right\ns i zes.\nWe were led down the path there on that first\nstowage revi ew in St. Louis.\nBorman\nYes.\nWe caught up with it on the third one\nthough. We\ndoubled the si ze of everything."
  },
  {
   "n": 124,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p124.jpg",
   "text": "114\nLovell\nThat i s right.\n:Sorman\nWe took an actual meal and ate i t and got the refuse.\nLovell\nIt was very fortunate that we did this. It caused us to l ook\nfor new places to s tow t hings.\n:Sorman\nAs it was it worked out real f ine.\nThe cockpit was cleaner\nwhen we reeentered than when we left.\nAnother i t em that\nwas very helpful from the cockpit cleanliness standpoint\nwere these by-pass hoses with the screens on them.\nThey\nacted as vacumn cleaners on the whole flight. All the gar­\nbage and refuse would get collected on them. We could clean\nthem off and put them in the bag and it worked great.\nLovell\nWe never had any l arge amounts of dandruff or anything\nfloating around.\nBorman\nThe harness we took off. All you can say about the harness\ni s it is a necessary evil.\nOnce you get it off, it is tough\nto stow.\nJ i m, you sat on yours , didn't you?\nLovell\nI stowed mine between the seat and the back of the ejection\nseat because it was a dead space for me .\n:Sorman\nI stowed mine on the outboard si de of t he seat. We never\ntook the life vests off the harness.\n:Sorman\nWaste disposal and stowage.\nWe used the aft food boxes for\nthe defecation gloves and the urine sample bags.\nJi m filled\nup his first and then I started filling up mine.\nWe ended\nup putti ng one day of food and some other refuse in the\nt"
  },
  {
   "n": 125,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p125.jpg",
   "text": "115\nleft- hand food box in addition to the defecation gloves and\nthe urine sample bags.\nOne thing we :might note is the\nhorrible odor every time we opened those boxes to put some­\nthing away.\nLovell\nIt was a necessary evil, Frank.\nBorman\nWe were a little concerned when we opened the vents on the\nboxes for the reentry that the smell might be with us for a\ncouple of hours, because we had to open them early before we\nput our suits on.\nBut evidently the vent is just fine. It\nis large enough that it equalized the pressure, but it is\nnot large enough that it lets the odors escape into the\ncockpit.\ne.9 Biomedical\nOral temperature measurements and thermo.meter, no p:roblem.\nAlthough, it seems strange to .me that we have to have a TM\ntemperature. That thing got in the way.\nLovell\nYes, the tube got in the way and floated around, and you\nalmost poked your eye a couple of times with the thing.\nI t\nis a thin probe. It is very awkward because there are two\nof them.\nOne is in the lightweight headset, and i f you do\nnot have the suit on, you have to stick it down through\nhere. If you have the helmet on, it is supposed to be\nsticking out here, and it gets in the way. If they want\ninflight te.mperature, we should take along a regular"
  },
  {
   "n": 126,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p126.jpg",
   "text": "116\nthermometer.\nWe had a lot of glass in the cockpit.\nI do\nnot see why we cannot carry some sort of a plastic thermo­\nmeter. It seems ridiculous to me to have to TM a temperature,\nBorman\nI must admit I did not even know I had a blood pressure cuff\non except when I filled it up. It did not cause any skin\nproblems or anything. It is probably as good a way as we\ncan go.\nLovell\nIt seemed like I pumped up nzy- cuff a lot more inflight than\nI had to on the ground for the same measurement.\nSometimes\nwe would not get the comment that, your \"cuff is full\" from\nthe ground until after your arm was quite puffed up.\nSome­\ntimes your arm really got to be sore.\nI do not know what\nyou can do about it.\nBorman\nWe used the M-3 equipment not only for the medical or the\ncrew status passes, but we used it regularly three times a\nday. It is a very valuable piece of equipment. It ca.me in\nvery handy and it certainly was useful for this reason.\nguess there is some reason for it for medical data.\nI did\nnot understand why we could not stow it the last day.\nWe\nhad already checked and they said, \"All right, go ahead and\nstow it, you do not need it.\" Later they said, \"You have to\nunstow it. We want to get one more pass on you the last\nmorning of the flight.\" After 14 days of flight I did not\nunderstand why we needed it, but we did it. Jim left it out,\nI"
  },
  {
   "n": 127,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p127.jpg",
   "text": "117\nactually.\nYou left it right over the circuit breaker panel,\ndidn't you? Did it come out during reentry?\nLovell\nNo.\nThere was no problem.\nBorman\nThere is no water problem.\nLovell\nThere might have been a little air in it because we got air\nin the food all the time.\nI do not know how it got in\nbecause the food packages were evacuated.\nWe would put the\ngun in and pump it up with water, and yet there was air in\nthe food every time you opened it up.\nThere was probably\n1\nsome air in the water, but it did not bother us too much.\nBorman\nNo.\nI thought it was a minimum amount, too.\nThe water\ntasted good. It was cool•\nThe gun, as we have already\ncommented, was very adequate.\nI think it is inconceivable\nthat we continue to have to log drinks the way we did. I\nthink if people want to know how much water you drink, you\ncan read them off the counter on the gun, and that is it.\nWe went crazy logging these things by numbers and counter\nnumbers and everything else. It is operationally unacceptable.\nLovell\nFor flights that are not primarily medical all they have to\nhave is a counter reading once or twice a day for the systems\np~opls, They could just divide it by the number of crew and\ncome out very close to what the actual consumption per man\ni s .\nBorman\nThe food, I thought , was by and large very good.\nOne"
  },
  {
   "n": 128,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p128.jpg",
   "text": "118\nLovell\nsuggestion on the food is that they try to reconfigure the\nmeals so that Meal A is more like you would think of as a\nbreakfast, with :maybe SQme toast, cereal bars, and sausage\npattiess rather than fish, potato soup, and clam chowder\nfor breakfast. The idea of .making our day like a regular\nHouston day was a very, very valuable one.\nI t would also\nbe rather nice to have the meals correspond to the type of\nmeal you would eat on the Earth. We ought to have a break­\nfast that is brea.kfasts a.nd so on with lunch and dinner.\nOne breakfast we bad shrimp, sauce, peas, and I think\npotato soup. This is all right, but it would be more\ndesirable to have had something like cereal cubes and sau­\nsage patties and things like that, so.mething you are more\nused to.\nThe disinfectant pill crumbles. They would crumble\nwhen we got them out.\nThe pieces would flbat about, and if\nthey got in your eye they burned because i t i s a chlorine\nbase pill of some sort. It happened to me once early in the\nflight, and it happened to Frank towards the end of the\nflight. We had to use the exhaust hoses to vacuum down the\nspacecraft to get rid of these things so we wuld not get\nthe'!D. in our eyes.\nI think tha.t we can probably go to eo.me­\nthing better in the future. There is a lot of roo.m for\nimprovement in food. It was good. It was adequate.\nWe"
  },
  {
   "n": 129,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p129.jpg",
   "text": "119\nlasted 14 days.\nWe could have lasted a lot longer on the\nfood. But that does not mean there is not room for improve­\nment.\nBorman\nThe concept, as far as packaging and everything goes, is\ngood. What is lacking now is really an adequate quality\ncontrol for uniformity. If everyone of the food bags had\nbeen as good as the good ones, there would have been no\nproblem.\nSome of them did not have velcro on the.m, some\nof them burst, and that sort of thing.\nLovell\nYou could get the soups out of the spout very easily, but\ntrying to get tuna salad and shrimp and sauce out of there\nwas a real job.\nWe should change the size of the spout\naccording to the type of food we have.\nWe noticed at the\nbeginning of the flight that dry solids were especially bad.\nBorman\nYes.\nBeef bites and bacon and egg bites are horrible and\nshould be deleted from the menu.\nLovell\nGT-5 reported that the beef bites were crumbly.\nEvery\nsingle package of beef bites that I got out was crumbs.\nThey would float all over the place, and you had to get out\nyour exhaust hose and gather them all up again and throw\nthe.m away. If we did not ba.ve that technique, did not have\nthe screens on the exhaust hoses, they would either go into\nthe ECS syste.m or float around.\nI could see where GT-5\ngot an awful lot of crumbs floating around."
  },
  {
   "n": 130,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p130.jpg",
   "text": "120\nBorman\nSleep periods.\nThis is one of the areas where we really\nmade a wise decision.\nWe decided that we would sleep simul­\ntaneously on the regular Houston schedule.\nWe did slide it\nback every day to correspond with the precession of the\norbit .\nWhen we were scheduled for house-keeping and sleep,\nwe would close up the windows.\nWe found that the polaroid\nfilters were not adequatet so, we cut up an aluminized food\nbag and placed it between the window and the polaroid shield.\nThen, it was really dark inside, it cut out the heat, and\nthis left us with a real simulated night. As far as we were\nconcerned, it was night time.\nWe would get up the next day ,\ngo to work, and it kept us regular. It kept ue relatively\non a constant type of schedule.\nI thought it was very,\nvery good.\nLovell\nWe are going to have to go to that for any of the long\nflights , any of the lunar missions.\nFor any of the long\nflights we are going to need to use a regular Houston or\nCape day and not change the routine.\nBorman\nOn Apollo, with three men, you probably will have to stand\na watch.\nLovell\nTrue.\nBut still, you are going to have to keep from getting\ntoo irregular.\nI thought sleeping in zero-g was very com­\nfortable .\nI slept like a log that first week.\nBorman\nYes, I had troubles sleeping.\nThe M-1 was the culprit. It"
  },
  {
   "n": 131,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p131.jpg",
   "text": "121\nwas a pain in the neck.\nWe decided to leave it on though\non the theory that if we turned it off the first thing the\nexperimenter would say was, ''Well you turned it off'. It\nwas not a valid test.\" Then some crew in the future would\nhave to fly with the thing.\nSo, we left it on for two\nweeks and listened to it \"clank\".\nAs far as I know it\ndidn ' t do any good.\nMaybe that ' s the end of the M-1.\nInvariably, in a state of semi- consciousness it would rouse\nme again.\nI did not like that.\nLovell\nSleep configuration was very easy.\nYou just clasp your\n.\nhands t ogether and hold them there.\nWhen you wake up your\nbands are still clasped together.\nThere are no pressure\npoints.\nYou can have a book up there, go to sleep holding\nthe book, and wake up the next morning and the book is still\nright there, still at the same page. It was outstanding.\nIf mattress companies ever find out how to make a zero-g\nmattress they would really have a fortune .\nBorman\nSleep period mission briefing. It followed the way we were\nbriefed.\nVery good.\nLovell\nFlight controll ers were very outstanding.\nKeeping quiet\nduring the sleep period.\nAs a matter of fact, they even\ncalled up Wally one time and told him to be quiet.\nYes,\nthey told him to be quiet .\nIt was our sleep period.\nBorman\nEverything went fine."
  },
  {
   "n": 132,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p132.jpg",
   "text": "122\n9. 0\nOPERATIONAL CHECKS\n9.1\nApollo Land.mark Investigation\nBorman\nWe should first mention the weather because this casts some\nreflection on the whole i dea of Apollo l andmarks as a navi­\ngational aid. The weather was the big bugaboo in this\nflight as far as achieving any Apollo land.mark photography.\nI do not know whether it was the particular t argets we were\ntrying to get or what. Invariably, there were clouds.\nLovell\nAs can be seen from the map , anything south of 15 degrees\nnorth latitude in Africa is no good for Apollo landmarks\nbecause it is i nvariably cloudy.\nSouth of 15 degrees north\nl ati t ude is invari ably too cloudy for Apollo land.marks.\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nAll of South America is out .\nAs a matter of fact everything.\nsouth of 15 degrees north latitude all the way across the\nm~p is no good.\nWe found out that North Africa and South­\nwest United States and parts of Mexico, as previous crews\nstated a long time ago, (that includes Saudi Arabia, Paki stan\nValley) have predominantly clear weather in the morning, but\nnot in the afternoon.\nBorman\nThe Red Sea area was one of the clear areas all the t i me .\nEven the South-west U.S. and Mexico were clobbered most of\nthe time on our flight ."
  },
  {
   "n": 133,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p133.jpg",
   "text": "123\nLovell\nRight. Weather is the big bugaboo on Apollo landmarks, or\nusing earth land.marks for Apollo.\nBorman\nThe acquisition data was good.\nThe pointing data was good\non all the experiment updates, except for one. They missed\nthe time on an S-5.\nWe caught it, and did it ourselves be­\ncause we knew where the a.rea was supposed to be. The point­\ning data given was great throughout the flight. The updat­\ning wa.s fine.\nWe bad no problem.a at all. Pointing instruc­\nt ions were good.\nBorman\nConcerning taking acquisiti on photographs for the Apollo\nl andmarks, it was pretty dam hard to determine anyt hing\nwhen we pitched 30 degrees down to pick up the landmarks.\nWe could not pick out the air f i elds or anything.\nWe would\npoint the camera and take a picture, but we did not lmow\nwhat we were taking pictures of.\nWe could not see it with\nthe naked eye.\nI am thinking of the airfield in Brazil.\nWe took this acquisition picture without any idea of what\nwe were taking a picture of until we finally got to the\nnadir. Then, we looked down and could see the runw~. I\nthink it was in Belam Province in Brazil .\nThe weather was\na very definite f actor in photographing the Apollo l a.nd­\nma.rks, and of course, it wuld be a very definite factor in\nusing the Apollo landmarkso\nLovell\nWe had to use the sun angl e that we had at the time we got"
  },
  {
   "n": 134,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p134.jpg",
   "text": "124\nover the target.\nBorma.n\nEvidently the people who called them up were taking this into\nconsideration, because the sun angles for all the Apollo\nl andmark attempts were good as far as photography goes.\nSightings were tough on a lot of them, primarily because\nof clouds.\nLovell\nApollo landmarks of i nterior Afri ca, whi ch they gave us\nseveral times, (like islands, lakes, Leopoldville in the\nmiddle of the Congo) , were very difficult because there is\nnothing down there but jungle and little streams and things.\nBorman\nBy far the best l andmarks are interfaces of beaches and\nwater.\nLovell\nThat i s right .\nSandy beaches with blue water. There is\nno doubt about that.\nBorman\nThere i s good contrast, and with a good map you do not need\nthe photographs .\nI do not understand the value of the pho­\ntographs, I do not see why they do not engage the Army Ma.p\nService to aerial photograph these areas and print the\npictures accordi.ng t o the see.le they want. It would be a\nrelatively easy j ob to do and certainly would be much less\nexpensive than taking the fuel to do it on an operational\nmtssion.\nBorman\nThe designated targets were clouded over more often than\nnot. We did take some alternate targets and pointed out"
  },
  {
   "n": 135,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p135.jpg",
   "text": "125\nsome prominent featu:res along coastlines in Africa.\nWe\nhave them logged and we will be able to go over them with\nt he Apollo landmark people. Even an area like Dakar, which\nyou would think would be a r elatively clear area, we tried\nthree times to photograph and each time it was cloudy.\nLovell\nMostly in the afternoon.\nBorman\nThe maps and Apollo landmark data package was all right.\nOne of the problems with the maps was it is difficult to\norient the map segments on the page, so that several of the\ntargets were anywhere near the middle of the map.\nYou might\nend up with a map with an Apollo landmark right on the edge\nof it. It is then difficult to associate the surrounding\nterrain with it.\nThe big map that we had in the front of\nthe book solved a lot of this problem.\nWe could get the big\npicture from the big map and then go to the detailed one for\nthe detailed pictures.\nBorman\nPhotographs, 350 and 352, the Cairo area, you don't need a\nphotograph of the Nil e River running into the Mediterranean.\nThat was one of the most prominent features we had. The\nSuez Canal , the Red Sea, and the coast of Arabia were loud\nand clear the whole flight. The junction of the two rivers,\nthe white Nile and the blue Nile, were also very prominent.\nAgain, you did not need a photograph to"
  },
  {
   "n": 136,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p136.jpg",
   "text": "126\ndetermine those.\nLovell\nThe Red Sea and the Gul f of Eden as it goes into the\nArabian Sea were very prominent.\nBorman\nYes.\nLovell\nThe 90 degree bend was very, very prominent .\nBorman\nWe have a difference of opinion here, but I thought the maps\nwere entirely adequate.\nMountains were, as far as we could\ntell , adequately portrayed, al though, we did not have any\nlandmarks that were in the mountainous area.\nMost of ours\nfor some reason were in the tropical areas and they were\ncloudy all the time.\nThe cities that we saw were by and\nlarge over the United States.\nLovell\nWe did not really see much in the way of cities. We saw the\nAustralian cities at night, we could see the lights from\nthem.\nBorman\nWe saw small towns along the coast of Mexico.\nLovell\nAlso South America.\nI wonder what the difference in alti­\ntude does to visibility of landmarks? I am sure that your\nvisibility is going t o really go down.\nI think that is\nwhat happened.\nBorman\nMaybe, although when we were in an orbit of 120 by 178 , I\ncould not tell the difference.\nOne difference of course ,\nis we were in the darkness at 178.\nWhen we were r eally\nlooki ng we were around 120 to 140.\nI never got the feeling"
  },
  {
   "n": 137,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p137.jpg",
   "text": "127\nthat I was going up hill or going down hill in the elliptical\norbit.\nLovell\nWe saw one good airport.\nI thought it was Ellington, and it\nturned out to be Houston International.\nBorma.n\nWe also saw that one in South America very well.\nI t stood\nout loud and clear, that white runway on the Apollo landmark.\nWhen we finally got over it there was a break in the clouds\nand at the last minute we got a picture of it.\nLovell\nAirports in general would stand out.\nBOl!l!liBl1\nCoastlines are the answer.\nThey are by far the beet land­\nmarks you have.\nI do not think islands a.re too good for\nlandmarks unless they are relatively large; small islands\nare tough to pick up.\nLovell\nAnd they are usually covered by clouds.\nBorman\nColor contrast between land and water was very good, parti­\ncularly along sandy beaches.\nWe had onboard some photographs\nthat were taken on GT-5 with the actual scene we were\nviewing.\nWe were able to compare the color of these photo­\ngraphs.\nWe found it then to be very, very close.\nOne\nstrange phenomena is that greens don't come through.\nThe\nvery green jungles of Brazil and Africa appeared almost a\nbrownish-mustard color. The predominant color is blue,\neven at night time with a full moon.\nLovell\nI thought the jungle even iooked blue, bluish-brown."
  },
  {
   "n": 138,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p138.jpg",
   "text": "128\nBorman\nPerhaps , the colors were a little deeper i n the photographs\nthan were the landmarks but photographs are very adequate\npresentati on of colors .\nI think probably any variance in\nthe photographs i s due to vari~nce i n sun angle.\nLovell\nWe understood the targets well enough, I don ' t see any\nproblem there at all.\nWe didn't use the maps with gloves\non.\nYou can hardly use anything with gloves on.\nBorman\nThe best thing you can do with gloves i s t ake them off\nand stow t hem as soon as possible.\nLovell\nThe Apollo Landmark Book size was adequate.\nAny smaller\nsize in maps gets to be too thick or too small , and you\nreally can't read them in detail. I did like the big map of\nthe world broken up in four sections, because that gave us a\ngood approach to the targets. We could use that much better\nthan we could the orbital plotboard.\nBorman\nProbably all you need is that big map cut up in four sections\nand then a small scale map of the specifi c area.\nWe don' t\nneed the darn phot ographs.\nLovell\nIt's the thickest thing we had to stow.\nBorman\nSpacecraft control.\nAs far as tracking ground targets, you\ncould always achieve the rates in PULSE mode. Fuel was nominal,\nPULSE was no diff iculty. We tried to take everything at a\n90 degree angle. We had no problems wi th spacecraft control\nto acquire and take pictures of the Apollo landmarks."
  },
  {
   "n": 139,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p139.jpg",
   "text": "129\nBorman\nCertainly this factor of weather l eads me to believe that\nthe whole idea of na:vigating Apollo by a landmark needs t o\nbe reevaluated. It seems to me that a much more desirable\nfeature woul d be a series of radar beacons placed throughout\nthe world, similar to the ones that are used by SAC, or some\ntype of electronic gadget not dependent upon cl ear weather.\nYou cannot choose the weather you want, and in our f ourtee.n\nday mission, for about el even days we had lousy weather.\nThe number of primary targ~ts photographed.\nHow many did\nyou photograph?\nLovell\nWe have nine Apollo l andmarks logged in the Apollo land.mark\nsection:\nSequence 85 - clouds at nadir.\nSequence 137 - no luck, clouds overhead.\nSequence 94 - unable, because of c~0uds.\nTook a point of\nland nearby.\nSequence 58 - Cloudy.\nSequence 70 - Okay.\nSequence 85 - Just weather is the remark.\nSequence 108 - Clouds, resulting in poor picture.\nSequence 130 - Weather.\nSequence 97 - Weather.\nMost of the landmarks they gave us, that were down below\nthe 15 degrees north l atitude ended up with weather."
  },
  {
   "n": 140,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p140.jpg",
   "text": "130\nBorman\nThe number of primary targets photographed was 1. Evalua­\ntion of sequence 350B and 35IB, I maintain that the maps\nare entirely adequate.\nWe evaluated them looking at the\nCairo area and the Dead Sea, and I see no reason for the\nphotographs.\nJim ha.a a different feeling about that.\n9.2 Cabin Lighting Survey\nBorman\nWe did not have.\nWe have already talked about the lighting,\nglare, the dirty windows, and so forth.\nI felt that this was a pain in the neck, and I would like to\nmake sure that somebody got some useful data out of that.\nWe went around the earth in the HORIZON SCAN mode once with\nthe HF transmitter on, and I wonder i f there i s anything at\nall going to be learned from it.\nLovell\nI am beginning to wonder whether the HF system is worth the\ncost to put it into orbit.\nBorman\nYou might be better off with another UHF set.\nLovell\nThat is right.\nGo to something that is compatible, like\nsingle side band.\nBorman\nHF was adequate when UHF was adequate.\n.As far as any over­\nthe-horizon transmission with HF, there was not any.\nLovell\nIt was very, very poor."
  },
  {
   "n": 141,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p141.jpg",
   "text": "131\nBorman\nThe reception on HF during the fli ght was very poor.\nLovell\nRight.\n10.0 VISUAL SIGHTINGS\n10.1 Countdown\nBorman\nWe did not have any visual si ghtings. No wasps, bees, bugs,\nor anyth:iJlg in the spacecraft.\n10.2 Powered flight\nBorman\nI did not look out at l i ft-off.\nLovell\nI think we went throu,gh clouds , didn't we?\nWe went through\nan overcast.\nFCSD rep\nI t looked like Frank steered i t right through a hol e in the\novercast.\nLovell\nCould anyone see us after we went through the overcast? Or\nwas that the end of i t?\nFCSD rep\nNo, the hole was big enough so that you were in sight.\nLovell\nCould you see staging?\nFCSD rep\nNo, you dis&ppeared from sight before staging.\nBorman\nAt BECO the spa.cecra.ft was enveloped. in a yellow flame. BECO\n&nd sta.ging &re so cl ose that you cannot tell the difference.\nEngine 2 ignition was very smooth, no noise, no bang.1.ng.\nThe horizon ca.me into view just like the simulator. Ve-ry,\nvery adequate presentation. At SECO I did not notice a\nthing, just & stop and a oessa.tion of noise. I did not see"
  },
  {
   "n": 142,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p142.jpg",
   "text": "132\nany flames, debris or anything. Although you did at\nFairing Jettison and Spacecraft Separation.\nLovell\nOn Fairing Jettison, I saw debris fly, especially during\nthe turnaround.\nl0.3 Orbital Flight\nBorman\nAs for .man-made objects sighted, we took sightings of the\nbooster.\nWe had no difficulty in sighting the booster at\nturnaround and in station keeping with it. We maintained\nthe flashing light in sight throughout the firs t orbit, we\nsaw them on the second orbit, and the third orbit during\nthe night phase.\nLovell\nBut you could not tell distance by the flashing lights.\nBorman\nNo.\nAs a matter of fact, I think it would be impossible\nto tell distance at night unless you have some sort of\nillutnination.\nLovell\nYes, if the lights are illuminating the vehicle, by spread­\ning it over the vehicle, maybe you could tell. You cannot\ntell the way they are now.\nWe picked up Spacecraft 6 on\nthe final rendezvous phase, I guess at about five miles.\nIs that right?\nBorms.n\nRight.\nAgain, this is entirely dependent upon where the\nsun is. Spacecraft 6 was able to see us a long time before\nwe could see them, because we were in a position where the sun"
  },
  {
   "n": 143,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p143.jpg",
   "text": "133\nwas reflecting off our adapter, and they were in a position\nso that the sun was not reflecting off their adapter. It\nis a strange phenomenon, but it is entirely dependent upon\nthe sun.\nOnce we acquired Spacecraft 6, it certainly was\nno problem of maintaining a visual on it. It was no\ndifferent than it is on the ground in the daytime.\nLovell\nI agree.\nBorman\nWe sighted two satellites. We saw the Minuteman reentry\nat exactly the right time and exactly the right place.\nIt looked l i ke a meteorite.\nLovell\nVery brilliant. It broke up toward the end.\nBorman\nVery brilli ant, it broke up toward the end, and there were\nseveral different pieces flying around.\nI was surprised at\nthe speed at which it went in.\nI was also surprised at the\ncontrol authority required to track it. We did get on it\nthough before it broke up and went out.\nI hope they got\ngood data on it.\nLovell\nWe saw, what we think, were two satellites moving.\nBorman\nYes, we took IR readings on one of them. It was a de£inite\nsatellite in a polar orbit.\nWe took photographs of two\nsatellites in the polar orbits.\nOne of them was below us,\ncrossing from left to right, and the other one wa.s above\nus, crossing left to right.\nWe picked them up first in the\nhandle of the"
  },
  {
   "n": 144,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p144.jpg",
   "text": "134\nBig Dipper. It was definitely a satellite, and ~e tracked it\non the IR and we used the recorder. It will be interesting\nto see if they got any data of it. We were never close\nenough to see any satellites and to pick them out as far as\ndefinite features.\nLovell\nThey were just points of light.\nBorman\nJust light points.\nThere certainly was not any problem\nviewing the ground. As we have already mentioned over the\nradio, we were able to see the Astrodome.\nThe horizontal\nmarkings, or the east west markings, on the S-8/D-1, pattern\nstood out loud and clear when we acquired it. It is very\nakin to flying an ai rpl ane at high altitude.\nRoads stood\nout well, rivers stood out well, and beaches particularly\nwell.\nTowns were a little more difficult to determine, but\nwhen you had them you could easily see the l ayout and appar­\nent size. Also, the atmosphere made a vast difference. If\nthere was any sort of haze or cloud, it definitely cut down\nyour vision.\nWhen we finally got over the Himalayas in\ndaylight, it was easy to see why it was so clear.\nlovell\nHaze does affect sightings from space as well as it does from\nairplanes. It is very similar. If the area is pretty hazy,\nit is goi ng to decrease tr:e contrast of the ground, and\nmakes viewing ground objects very difficult. Where you have"
  },
  {
   "n": 145,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p145.jpg",
   "text": "135\nexcellent viewing is where the ai:r is clear. It is the\nsame way with airplanes. But, I think you ha.ve a better\nchance to look below than you do in an airplane.\nThere is\na better chance of seeing something, but you still have the\nhaze problem.\nBorman\nWhen we first got up a.nd had a f'ull Moon, we did not see\nlDA1'cy' more stars than you see on an ordin&ry flight at thirty\nor forty thousand feet. However, during the latter pa.rt of\nthe flight with a quarter Moon, we found that there were\nmore stars visible. We have a d:rawing here of the number of\nstars we could see in the Pleiad.es, which b.&e been recorded.\nLovell\nThe big thing to remember here is the fact that the Moon has\na big effect on the number of stars you see and which ones\nyou can use for celestial navigation.\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nIf the M::>on is full, it is the predominant feature in the\nsky, and s:n:y stars near the M?on at the time are washed out;\nand they are very hard to use for sextant sightings.\nBorman\nRight. Same way with the Milky Way. It is not very appar­\nent when the M:>on is full.\nLovell\nIn reverse though, when the Moon is full the Earth is a very\ngood reference.\nBorman\nThat's right. It's a blue reference with white clouds, very"
  },
  {
   "n": 146,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p146.jpg",
   "text": "visible. Cloud coverage, there was a lot of it. The first\nthree days were relatively clear and from then on there\nwere lots and lots of clouds.\nAbout the only area that was\nconsistently clear was the Sahara and the Red Sea a.rea.\nThe States were cloudy, as was Mexico, South America,\nSouthern Africa, and a great deal of the ocean was cl oudy.\nLovell\nThe entire area of the Paci fic Ocean was cloudy.\nBorman\nAgain we ca.n reiterate that i t would be pretty tough to\ncount on being able to observe specific landmarks at ari::t\"\ngiven time. The horizons were interesting. In the daytime\nI never noticed much of a difference between the horizon.\nWe've drawn pictures of them with little notes beside them\nthat have been carried back, and which will be published.\nWe noticed the difference in the horizon end the air glow\nl ayer between a f'ull Moon and a no Moon.\nWhen we had a f'ull\nMoon there was a definite Earth l~er, then almost a normal\nblaclmess, and then a definite band of air glow.\nWhen we\nhad no Moon or a quarter Moon, the area between the Earth\nand the outer air glow wa.s more milky.\nLovell\nThat's right. For sextant sightings the best thing to use,\nduring a full Moon, was the bottom part of the air glow or\nthe Earth's horizon, which was probably the upper air hori­"
  },
  {
   "n": 147,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p147.jpg",
   "text": "137\nzon. And with no Moon, the best sextant sighting spot to\nuse was the upper air glow, because it was the sharpest of\nthe two.\nThe area between the upper air glow area and the\nearth's horizon was too milky during a no Moon to get a good\nsharp contrast (you could see stars through it), but you\ncouldn't find out exactly where the horizon was.\nSo it\nvaried between full Moon and no Moon.\nBorman\nVery drastically too. Also, your ability to pick out the\nearth, and determine yaw from earth's passage wi t h no Moon,\nwa.s zilch. With the full Moon it wa.s just as good as it was\nin the daylight.\nLovell\nThe fuon is very bright up there, very bright.\n:Borman\nBoth atti tude a.nd translation thrusters firing were apparent.\nThe a.ft firing thrusters were not apparent. But the- forward .\nthrusters were apparent &t night and so were the transla­\ntional, up, down, sideways. The attitude t hrusters were\nalso apparent with puffs, sort of like subdued flashbulbs\nappearing out to the side of the window.\nThey wer e just\nlittle flashes of light in the background, and we couldn' t\ndetermine &nything from them.\nwvell\nWe couldnJt determine a.nything.\nl3orma.n\nBut you could on Spacecra.ft 6.\nwvell\nOn Spacecraft 6 t he thruster firings looked as though they"
  },
  {
   "n": 148,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p148.jpg",
   "text": "138\nwent out about forty feet against a dark background.\nYou\ncould see this light haze going out about forty feet. It\nwasn't a bell shaped pattern, as we thought it was going\nto be, but it was like a garden hose, straight out. At\na distance we could not see the bright flash of ignition\nin the chamber itself. All we could see was the haze\ngoing out. But as we got in closer, we could start\npicking up the bright flash, ma.inly because of attitude I\nsuspect, as we were getting closer to see it. It had no\neffect on our spacecraft at all. They actually fired\nabout twenty feet away with their forward firing thrusters\nto us, and departed.\nl3or:man\nThey got in back behind us in the adapter and fired their\nforward firing thrusters and .made the curtain jiggle. 1\ndon I t know how far away they were when they did this.\n1\nhope they can tell us, and give you some idea of the effect\nthat these thrusters :might have on the EVA Mission. It ' s\njust like firing a rocket at night. I guess that's the way\nwe expected it to look. That is exactly what you are doing,\nfiring a rocket at night.\n10.4 Reentry\nBorman\nWe retrofired in the darkest, .most dis.m.al part of the night\nslcy-, and we didn't see anything. We didn't see\nAdapter\nSeparation. We didn't see My of the retros fire. We d.idn't"
  },
  {
   "n": 149,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p149.jpg",
   "text": "s.ee Retro Pack&ge jettison. At reentry we didn't have a\nlighted horizon at 400,000 feet. We didn 1t have a lighted\nhorizon until we were below 400,000 feet. This was not\nparticularly to my liking; although we picked it up about\n330,000 feet. After then, it was all right.\nLovell We saw ionization.\nBorman Yes, we did.\nLovell The whole window started to be just a glow outside. Then it\ngot into the ri?18S of this ionization layer. It started out\nto be just glowi?18.\nBorman When we went subsonic it looked like there was a bunch of\nsteam and flame that engulfed the nose eection. I think\nthis may have been when the spacecraft finally went subsonic,\nright before drogue deploy. You could see the spacecraft\noscillations, and you could reference them with the drogue,\nwhich was relatively steady. You could also reference them\nwith the sky. You didn't have any stars or anything, but\nyou could just pick out the motions across the sky. At\ntimes it was pretty violent. It would be intereeting to see\nthe magni~u.d.e of the oscillations and the rates.\nBorman The drogue deploy was very evident.\nWe saw the drogue chute.\nWe saw the Rand R Can come off, and then I saw it following\nus down in the parachute, off to one side. Main chute"
  },
  {
   "n": 150,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p150.jpg",
   "text": "140\ndeploy was very nice.\nLovell Ma.in chute deploy, vecy enjoyable to watch.\nBorman During landing and recovecy we had the S2F in sight before\nwe ever hit the water.\n11.0 EXPERIMENTS\n11.1 Celestial, Space, and Terrestrial Radiometry (D-4/7)\nBorman I think we have more valuable data on D-4/D-7 than all the\nothers put together.\nLovell Right.\nBorman Updating techniques and communications procedures were\nexcellent. Evecything cal led up on D-4/D-7 was right on\nthe money, including the time and pointing locations for the\nreentcy vehicle.\nLovell They did an outstanding job of giving us the right\ninformation onboard.\nBorman\nWe were perfectly trained in equipment setup and usage.\nJim didn't have a question about it. I think there was\nno problem at all.\nLovell We got evecything going. I hope that we got some good data.\nBorman Cooled Spectrometer checks were nominal."
  },
  {
   "n": 151,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p151.jpg",
   "text": "141\nI don't know what else to say, as far as we lmow, every­\nthing was perfect, it's all logged, they have the records,\nthey have the TM.\nLovell\nWe saw the needle go down when we jettisoned the fairing\ncover after the fifteen second timer delay, after we did\nour separation maneuver. I saw the cover go by when we\njettisoned.\nBorman\nDid you?\nLovell\nIt is r ight above the right hand window.\nBorman\nI did not see that .\nThe booster measurements were no\nproblem at all. It was ju.st like the wa;y the simulator\nworked. It was just fine.\nVery good.\nWe had no problems\nmaking the reticle measurements.\nThey were very close\nto zero on both the IR and the spectrometer.\nPower-\ndown procedures.\nDid you have any?\nLovell\nNo.\nBooster background measurements were no problem\nat all.\nBorman\nOkay.\nThe Milky Way measurement without the cooled\nsensor was performed exactly on t ime.\nWe had no problems\nwith the equipment.\nNo problems with any of this."
  },
  {
   "n": 152,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p152.jpg",
   "text": "142\nThe Void was very easy to pick out a~d to take the\nreadings.\nThe Zodiacal ligh t test was deleted in real\ntime. We substituted Sirius for the Zodiacal light.\nBorman\nThe star measurements were done with no problem.\nNight\nl and measurements are noted on the tape and in the log\nbook.\nWe did ~ave some problem with these because t he night\nland was covered with clouds.\nSo we were trying t o skew the\nspacecraft al ong and avoid clouds. I'm afraid that we may\nnot have always missed the clouds. The same situation\nexisted with t he night water measurem,~nts.\nWe had very\ngood luck on the Pola.:~is.\nWe had good luck on the Polaris a~d good luck on the\nbooster.\nWe should h,ive had pretty good luck on\nGemini 6.\nWe were abl e t o t rack it.\nWe had good\nluck on the sled.\nLovell\nWe hope we had good luck on the sled.\nBorman\nThey called us up from the ground and said they had\na thousand percent on that."
  },
  {
   "n": 153,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p153.jpg",
   "text": "143\nLovell\nYou could track the Polaris launch in PULSE.\nBorman\nYou could track everything in PULSE except the reentry\nvehicle. The reentry vehicle was pret ty fast and you\nhad to go t o DI:-tECT.\nLovell\nI have to give credit to the personnel, the experimentor ,\nBrentnall.\n:Borman\nHe hust l ed and he did his work.\nHe made sure that we knew\nwhat we were doing. It was well done.\nLovell\nThis is the first mi ssile t hat was ever l aunched\nfrom a submarine, their ORI, I guess.\nTo launch\nat the exact ti.me so that we would be in the exact\nposition, I thought was an amazing piece of coordination\namong all people involved.\n:Borman\nI just hope t hey got all the data."
  },
  {
   "n": 154,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p154.jpg",
   "text": "144\nBormar1\nWe always had the ACQ off when we were transmitting.\nThe only possible problems that we could have had with\nthis expe=lment was when we lost our ~ape recorder.\nWe\ncould not put some of the data on tape.\nWe had to always\ntake the data over a receiving station.\nLovell\nOr use the recorder.\nBorman\nOr use a recorder.\nLovell\nOne problem which we did ha.ve a.nd which I was not briefed\non was the fact that I inadvertently l eft the gear on one\ntime and it gave a nine second pulse on the main ammeter\nsystem.\nWe could not figure out what this glitch was\ncoming in on the Main Bus.\nBorman\nThis was right after we lost the thrusters.\nWe thought\nthere might have been something in the ACME bias power\nor something in the in,rerter that was breaking down and\nputting out a glitch.\nWe called the ground to tell them\nwe found it and they said t hat i t was exactly what the\nground had thought it was.\nBorman\nCloud illumination lightning; we got some good\nlightning shots for them.\nDay land measurements, we\ngot.\nAscension Calibration was done twice."
  },
  {
   "n": 155,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p155.jpg",
   "text": "145\nLovell\nListen, that was do.ne twice?\nBorman\nYea.\nLovell\nWas this the NADIR t o 35 degrees West?\n:Borman\nYes.\nLovell\nOf course we never saw Ascension so I di d not ...\n:Borman\nYeah, we never saw Ascension but i t was the location of\nt he area where we wanted t o find.\nLovell\nI think we did that once, or di d we do 19 once?\n:Borma.n\nYes, i t i s t he same thing.\nCumul us clouds. We got some\ncloud measurements. Star measurements, the only the thing\nwe got there was the l ightning.\nCel estial measurement.\nWe got that. The stars, we did not get the Zodiacal l ight.\nWe got the stars, the mil kyway, the void.\n23 Moon measure­\nments.\nWe got the Moon.\nWe got all the missil e measure­\nments.\nI do not think it is necessary for us to record i t off\nour log book.\nLovell\nWe missed the Titan launch.\nBorman\nYes, we di d not get the l iftoff because of clouds.\nBut\nwe picked t hem up when we picked up their contrail s.\nLovell\nYes.\n:Borman\nWe also thr ew i n an extra satellite. It wil l be i nteresting\nt o see if they got any data out of that. The"
  },
  {
   "n": 156,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p156.jpg",
   "text": "146\nSun measurement was done.\nThat was a real interesting\none, because in order to get the Sun, we had to put\nup t he polaroid lights, and wear sun glasses, and\nthen poi nt at it.\nLovell\nHot Earth Measurement s: we had that bi g fire in North\nAfrica that was there all the time. That was a t arget\nof opportunity.\nWe got Hot Earth Measurements of\nthi s f i re in Nor t;h Africa.\nBorman\nThe t ape recorder was used properly.\nVoice recorder\nusage was adequat;e.\nFlight cont rol procedure: the only time we had to do anything\na t; all different was to go to DIRECT t o pickup that\nreentry vehi cle.\nThe rest of the t ime it was a very\nwell organized, well bri efed, well t rained, and I\nthought a well-run experiment.\nLovell\nThat i s r i ght.\nI thought i t was quite a bit of data\nand work to do in that experiment.\nBorman\nAs a matter of fac t , I t hink the equipment on these\nrepresented about 3½ million dollars.\nSo it was a\npretty hefty piece of equipment .\n11. 2 Star Occulation Meaw,_e~e.~-t. _(~})\nBorman\nNow we go from the sublime to the ridiculous. The star\nocculation measurement D-5.\nThe equipment"
  },
  {
   "n": 157,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p157.jpg",
   "text": "147\nnever worked and we fooled around with it for hours trying\nto ma.lee it work.\nI a.m sure somebody is going to sit down­\nstairs now and ground check it okay, but, it did not work.\nLovell\nWe did everything and we traded it back and forth to .make\nsure that both of us saw the same results.\nBorman\nWe had been briefed on this, we used it in the set up\nat St. Louis where we had seen how it changed.\nWe had\nbad adequate briefings. We had accurate presentations\non it.\nLovell\nPrimarily you could not calibrate the equip.ment, the\nreticle would not change fro.m red to green.\nBorman\nWe made a couple of measurements where we just used the\ncalibration lmob at a certain setting and let it alone.\nBut this equipment was inoperative.\nI thought it was a\nlittle strange, too, when they called up and said, ''We\nhave just found out that this equipment is sensitive to RF\ninterference.\" \"Turn off all your transmitters and see if\nthis affects it.\"\nI think we ought to know before\nwe go charging into the 3rd or 4th day of flight that\nthe equipment is sensitive to RF interference. It see.ms\nto me tba.t perhaps there was not a very good Qual.\ntest done on this piece of gear.\nI have"
  },
  {
   "n": 158,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p158.jpg",
   "text": "148\nnothing else to say about the D-5 except the equipment\ndid not work.\nLovell\nWell, star acquisition and identification, which has\nnothing to do with the equipment, was outstanding with the\nchart. Actually, I would like to put in a little pitch\nhere, for the sill!Ulator, because the visual part of the\nsimulator was a big help. It gave us a good idea of what\nwe could expect in flight. And the Planetarium's work was\nvery valuable in conjunction with the simulator. I think\nthat we did not waste time with any of our star recosnition\nstuf'f. They did come in handy.\nAs a :matter of fact, if you\nreally get to know that celestial sphere, you can really get\naround without the earth.\n11.3 Simple Navigation D-9\nBorman\nJim used this test exclusively. He was trained at Ames.\nBut we actually used the sextant down here before the flight\nmany times with the experimenters.\nWe used it in the\nsimu.lator.\nLovell\nLet me give so.me comments on this sextant. There are a\nlot of co.mments on the tape. Number one, the D-9 sextant\nalignment"
  },
  {
   "n": 159,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p159.jpg",
   "text": "149\nwas fine, the stop watch was an excellent idea.\nThe\nlighting on the sextant angle reading was too bright . It\nwas a whi te bright light. Everytime you read the sextant\nout you lost your dark adaptation because we were looking\nat this whi te light.\nAnd all it had to be,since the\nspacecraft is dark anyway if you are l ooking a t stars,\nis red, or dimmer l ight to read the angle out.\nThe r eticle was f ine during the first pa.rt of the flight,\nand then f or some reason it became a double i mage .\nI\nfound out that I never used the reticle during the full\nM.oo.n or eve.n at hal f Moon\nI\ncould\nsee the dark lines\nwithout having to light up the reticl e. One of the big\nthings about the sextant, the mechanical aspects, was the\nfact that the l ight was not split 50- 50 between the upper\nprism and the lower telescope. It was a 20-80 split and\ntherefore one image woul d be bright and the other one dim.\nThis was fine if you went from the start of the horizon\nwhere you would have a bright star a.nd a dim hori zon.\nYou had a control , but if you went from, say, two stars\nto measure the angle between two stars to check the al i gn­\nment of a sextant, (because the angl es are already known)\none star woul d be bright and the other star real dim\nif you got them within a certain angl e of each other. But\nas soon as you got that other dim star, then the bright"
  },
  {
   "n": 160,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p160.jpg",
   "text": "150\nstar, you could not tell when they were over lapping.\nLovell\nYou had to have two stars of the same magnitude in lock.\nSo, I had practi ced and trained in the one with the\n50- 50 split which I thought was a lot better than this\n20-80 which we f i nal ly ended up with.\nAnd this also is\ntrue when you t ook star t o Moon limb shots because they\nhad it arra~.ged that most of the light ca.me from the Moon.\nEighty percent of the light passage was from the Moon and\nthey had f ilters t o cut that down.\nAnd 20 percent came from\nthe star .\nWell, the filters were not dark enough for\nthe Moo.n, and as soon as you got those stars somewhere near\nthe limb they just faded out of view. You coul d not see\nit so you had a hard time getting star to Moon limb shots .\nLovell\nWe noticed one big thing in navigation with the sextant.\nWi th a ful l Moon , you a ~e going t o have a hard time using\nthe stars under the Moon. It just blanks out the light.\nI t\nis just too bright, i t dims the stars and rui.ns your dark\nadaptation.\nOn no Moo.n nights or quarter Moon nights, most\nof the stars come out and the na.vigatio.n i s a lot better.\nWe found out al so on full Moon nights as we said before, that\nwe'd use the bottom Earth's hori zon, whi ch i s probably an\nupper air horizon and had the sharpest l i ne of i dentification\nf or angles."
  },
  {
   "n": 161,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p161.jpg",
   "text": "151\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman ·\nLovell\nOn no Moon nights, the whole ai r glow layer seemed to be\nof the same consista.ncy.\nAnd the sharpest part was t he\nupper air glow l ayer where we could bring stars down to it.\nDid you f ind it difficult at times to get the stars\nacquir ed at the angle?\nRight.\nWe found out, due to the window design, tllat if\nthe stars were not lined vertically with one another, if\nwe were taking star to star shots or star to Moon shots,\ni t was hard to get the sextant lined up.\nThe best way to\nhold the sextant was t he way it was developed originally,\njust up a.nd down. If you had to move it around here to\nget a star over here,or horizontal\nor angle shots,\nyou had to move the spacecraft around to get the window\nin line, to get all the view.\nNow we ooul d shoot angl es\nup to about I think 45 degrees, if we had the right window\nalignment and had bright enough stars. But anything above\nthat and most of the time around 35 to 40 degrees, one of\nthe two, either the upper prism or the l ower t elescope\nwoul d get in the way of the rim of the window and get\nlost to view.\nThen we couldn't do anything with it.\nI remember there were a couple of t imes when you picked\nup the wrong star too.\nYes."
  },
  {
   "n": 162,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p162.jpg",
   "text": "152\nBorman\nEven though you know the star very wel l , using the system\nof estimating the angl e i n ahead of time, you l eave your­\nself open to picking the wrong st ars.\nLovell\nYes, one of the big things about t he sextant is you have\nt o be sure you can identify the star when you are looking\ninside t he sextant after you get the thing down because\nyou might get the wrong star. That is why you should use\nstars in sextant navigation that have identifying features\nin the fiel d of vi ew of the sextant.\nFor instance Capella\nwas a very good one because it has the 3 littl e stars\naround i t, I guess there were 2 stars, I forget .\nBorman\nThree stars .\nLovell\nThree stars, but anyway you coul d tel l Capella when you\nlooked through the sextant!But,a star that was al l out by\nitself, even though it was bright,you really could not\ntell whether that was a star or not until you went out\nand l ooked again,and tha t was sort of difficult .\nBorman\nWe did not have any radar but I know darn wel l , if I was\nout trying t o ef fect a rendezvous , I woul d much rather\nhave an operati.ng radar wi th range and range rate than I\nwould that sextant.\nLovell\nWel l the thi.ng i s:\nthere are a l ot of factors that\naffect this thing:\nwindow glare , the fact that we had to\nt urn on white light everytime we got a reading, because"
  },
  {
   "n": 163,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p163.jpg",
   "text": "153\nwe had to read the digital clock to get an exact time\nof the reading, the reflection from the Moon, all that\nstuff complicates visual sightings.\nBorman\nRow about picking out a proper horizon? You even\nhad trouble doing that. What horizon were we going to use?\nLovell\nThat is right.\nWe don't know what horizon we are going\nto use.\nBorman\nThe horizon is dependent upon the Moon.\nLovell\nSo sextant sightings are going to be very difficult.\nBorman\nAnd the accuracy of this instrument, as advertised,\nis phenomenal.\nBut the accuracy to what? If we\ndo not\nknow what horizon we are measuring to. Did you mention the\nfact that the green filter cuts out everything?\nLovell\nWell that is right. Yes, the green and blue filters, one\nof the modes as a matter of fact, was to use the green\nfilter for the horizon. Unfortunately you stick the green\nfilter in there and then look for the horizon and it is\ngone.\nBorman\nEverything is gone.\nThere is nothing. All you see are\nthe stars up above, you do not see any horizon.\nLovell\nSo the filter idea was useless as far as the sextant goes.\nBorman\nAlso the blue filter, you stayed dark adapted and then\ntried the blue filter in daylight as was requested."
  },
  {
   "n": 164,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p164.jpg",
   "text": "154\nLovell\nThat was a little scientif ic experiment which we were\nasked to do: to see if we could see the blue horizon\nline, blue air glow in the daytime by keeping dark adapted\nand using the blue filter.\nBorman\nThe r esults were negative.\nLovell\nThat is right.\nBorman\nAnything else?\nLovell\nI think we hit everything on the sextant.\nBorman\nWe had no equipment malfunctions with the sextant other\nthan the f act that you got double vision.\nLovell\nAnd the sextant was not as bulky to operate on t he space­\ncraft as it i s on l and. It is a pretty bulky piece of\nequipment, but it is not bad.\n11.4 Visual Acuity and Astronaut Visibility and Vision\nTest (M-9)\nBorman\nUpdating techniques and communications proceduresi\nThis was an\narea that was outstanding. I t seems redundant to comment about it\neverytime, but is is true. Equipment set up and usage for the\nvision test and the M-9 experiment, no problem. We tried this\nin the simulator and we tried it in flight and it was the same.\nLovell\nThe photometer left a little bit to be desired.\nBorman\nOh , I think we are talking not just about the tests that"
  },
  {
   "n": 165,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p165.jpg",
   "text": "155\nwe did every morning.\nThe vision test and the other one.\n'Borman\nThe M-9 vision test also caused no problem.\nAs a matter\nof fact we did a little interesting experiment of our own.\nWe used the brace, the head brace and the bite board\neverytime but once, and then we co.m.pared the results,\nwith and without using the head brace or bite boards, the\nlast day.\nWe noted this in the log book.\nThere was no\ndifference in the outco.m.e, so I have begun to wonder if it\nis necesary.\nOne of the great points o:f interest, was trying\nto observe this ground observation at Laredo a.nd we picked it\nup 3 times, I believe. Acquisition is very difficult, be­\ncause of the poor terrain features. I never did really\nsee the smoke pots, but we did see the dashes that they had\nin the block.\nWe had a real good pass at it a.nd we had\nit acquired excellently and I called off 3 numbers and they\nare listed in the l og book, I think there was a 3-1-3 or a\n1-3-1.\n'Borm.a.n\nI would be interested to know if I was right on a:ny of\nthese because you could see the:m.\nI should have been able\nto see the.m. on that one. 1-3-3, I gu.ese it was we called\noff. No, 3-1-3 ground observation.\nLovell\nI had one pass where I saw it and by the time I got to\nsee the squares or the rectangles we were already by it"
  },
  {
   "n": 166,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p166.jpg",
   "text": "156\nI guess from what I could see of the thing, I think\nit was a 2-3-4, that was all I had of it. Basically, we\nhad a picture from Gr-5.\nBorman\nWe had pictures from G'11-5 with us in the cockpit to help\nus acquire it.\nLovell\nWe could see the red ground with no strain at all .\nWe\nknew where to look and it was just difficult to find.\nBorman\nYou might mention that if they had gone to Yuma, if we\nhad not had to change our launch trajectory, it would\nhave been great. You could pick out the area of the\nSalton Sea there even from where we were, 3 or 4 hundred\nmiles south, it stood out l ike a sore thumb.\nLovell\nI do think though that for the amount of time that you\nare over the target, the amount of squares they were\nexpecting you to read are too much.\nBorman\nYes.\nLovell\nBecause you just cannot read that much.\nYou have to\nacquire it, examine it, and then by that time you are\ngoing over it.\nBorman\nThe window measurements.\nWe did this; it was called to do\nit twice, but we did it three times because of the fact\nthat the tape recorder was shot a.nd they had to get real\ntime ™• They did not get good TM on o.ne pass, so we did it\nagain at an opportune time.\nUnfortunately, the photometer"
  },
  {
   "n": 167,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p167.jpg",
   "text": "157\nI\nhad not had a chance to warm up for 10 minutes.\nWe were at\nsuch a low fuel state then that it was either then or never,\nso we did it, and I hope they got the data.\nNow this window\nmeasurement business was always a l ittl e nebulous to me.\nam not sure exactly what they were going to get out of it.\n:But it seems like they a.re scratching.\nLovell\nI do not understand the procedures too well. I mean I went\nth.rough the procedures, followed them exactly, but the pho­\ntometer left me out to lunch. We tried to get the dope, but\nI do not see what they are going to get out of it.\nBorman\nWe did not have mu.ch confidence in that.\nWe did it exactly\nthe wa;y it was practiced.\nWe did practice it in the simu.la.­\ntor and it is recorded on voice tape. They came ba.ck though\nand said that TM did not make much sense to them, and I\nthink that is probably right. Voice tape recorder usage,\nby and la.rge this wa.s another experiment that was well han­\ndled, preflight a.nd during flight.\nWe admit that we spent\na l ot of time on this one 8Jld with all the visu.a.l a.cuity\ndata they got a.head of time, and were briefed by the princi­\npa.l experimenters ma.ny, many times.\nI thought that it was\nhandled a.s well as it could be handled.\nThe site in Aus­\ntralia. We were over Australia"
  },
  {
   "n": 168,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p168.jpg",
   "text": "158\nin the daylight--of course the site was not manned because\nof the few passes we'd have to have .\nWhen we were over\nAustralia we didn't have attitude control .\nLovell\nWe might menti o.n one thing.\nI think with the l ong flight\nlike we had, if we had the fuel we could have become more\nskilled in observing the site and probably have gotten\nbetter results .\nBorman\nNo, we coul d not have on thi s o.ne, because after the 3rd day\nthe clouds were the factor the whol e t i me.\nWe had only\n3 days to observe that, a.nd everything el se was cl oudy.\nLovell\nOkay, it was cloudy, but I suspect that the more passes\nover the thing, you woul d get better. But we just did\nnot have the fuel and the weather was bad.\n11, 5 Synoptic terrain (S-5) and weather (s-6) photogra phy\nBorman\nSynoptic terrain a.nd weather photography.\nOn unusual\nor significant subject matter. Well, it turns out we did\nnot have any unusual or significant subject matter as far\nas I know .\nWe t ook the sequences and we took a l ot of\nit as genera l photography that was not even called up.\nMost of the time, it had t o be done in drifting flight.\nWe were sorry about this , but there was not the fuel\navailabl e. The two sequences that wer e called up (where\nwe were allocated the fuel from the ground) we t ook them.\nI\nhope they were well done.\nWe did get some"
  },
  {
   "n": 169,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p169.jpg",
   "text": "159\npictures over Brazil that have never been gotten before.\nThey were not called up. We took them with the IR color\nshifted .f i l m.\nWe got some pictures of Mexi co that\nwere not called up.\nLovel l\nWe ·got a good sequence over North Africa.\nBorman\nWe got several good sequences over North Africa..\nLovell\nBut I am sure tha.t they have been used before.\nBorman\nWe al so took a seque.nce al ong the southern coast from\nNew Orleans through Fl ori da using color shifted IR t o\nevaluate the f ilm more than anythi ng el se.\nI hope this\ncomes in handy.\nWe got some shots of the island chai ns\noff Florida, to see if they can determine any effect from\nthe hurri cane that went through, Betsy.\nLovell\nAs a matter of f act, we got a strip sequence of Cuba too .\nBorman\nAl l these are target s of opportunity done without atti tude\ncontrol, but they were all targets that were listed before\nf l ight. We got the mouth of the Amazon, and I think that\ni s the first time t hat has been photographed.\nNow on the S-6 the weather photography we tried in\nthe l ast pa.ss to ta.ke a successive revol ution picture of\nweather devel opment.\nVe got one good shot over the\nAndee. We al so got some good shots of wave cl ouds over\nthe Andes\nduring the l atter part of the flight.\nWe\nl ooked for hurricane or tropical storm Alice in the"
  },
  {
   "n": 170,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p170.jpg",
   "text": "160\nIndian Ocean but we never did see it.\nLovell\nWe had an S- 6 weather to get that too, but we never did\nsee it.\nBorman\nAir to ground relay of data was good.\nVoice recorder usage,\nthis is one area where we are not r edundant.\nIf we had time\nt o record all t he photographs we put in th8 log book and\nnot on the voice recorder in an effort to save tape.\nEverything that was done, though, was logged either S-5,\nS- 6, or in general photography.\nNow, another item that is\ngoing to degrade this was the scum on your window.\nLovell\nYes.\nThe window is an area which we are going to have\nto work on.\nBorman\nAs it got worse and worse, we shifted so that I was\ntaking the pictures, but I had scum on my window also. The\nmajor problem t hough, here was just lack of fuel .\nWe could\nnot orient t he spacecraft t o cont rol it the way we wanted t o.\n11.6 Protron El ectron Spectrometer, Tri-Axis Flux-Gate\nMagnetometer.\nBorman\nWe turned the switch on and l eft it on. I think we should\nhave reruns and reains of data, although unfortunately wit h the\nt ape r ecorder being shot , I do not know what good it is going\nt o do.\nLovell\nWell, they got real time telemetry over the station.\nBorman\nRight."
  },
  {
   "n": 171,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p171.jpg",
   "text": "161\nLovell\nAfter seeing GT-6 1 s film of our back area, the straps\nhanging off our spacecraft looked like they were all\nintertwining in that boom area. It could probably foul up\nthat boom somewhat in future flights.\nI mean in a\nfuture flight if we still had that same problem it mi ght\nfoul up that boom and tear off tha t wire. There is a\nwire that goes out to the end of that thing.\nBorman\nAll the experiments we talked about so far were well\npresented before hand.\nWe knew exact ly what we were\ngoing to do, and the only reason we weren't able to\nuo it was 1) weather, 2) lack of fuel, and 3) in the\ncase of the D-5, the equipment broke down.\nI think\nwe got a substantial amount of S-5 and S-6 done.\nAs a matter of fact we got everything done that was\ncalled up and we got a lot more done just in general\npho tography.\n11.7 Optical Communications\n(MSC-4)\nBorman\nOptical communications, MSC-4.\nOkay, acquisition of the ground t arget.\nI have never\nbeen bet ter locked in on White Sands in my\nl ife than"
  },
  {
   "n": 172,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p172.jpg",
   "text": "162\nwe were, when we went by there, and saw two blinks of the\nlaser.\nWe had the photograph in front of us marking where\nthe laser was located.\nWe saw Holoman , we saw White Sands\nbut we never did see the beam except the short flashes .\nLovell\nThe magnitude of this laser is a lot less than either Frank\nor I suspected after our briefings by the experimenters and\nby actually\nlooking at one at Houston.\nObviously this\nlaser at Houston was a lot shorter and can be very much\nmagnified.\nBorman\nTracking was no problem~\nWe\nacquired one\nover Hawaii;\nwe\nwere able to\nt rack it easily.\nThe pr oblem is acquisition of the light.\nLovell\nThe light beam is a lot smaller point than we suspected.\nBorman\nAnd then again the big bugaboo in this whole experiment\nwas weather.\nAscension never got up, we never got ground\nequipment at Ascension.We never got really good passes\nat White Sands because we were always about 300 mil es South.\nAnd Hawaii was available to us on only 2 passes .\nWe\nacquired the laser on both passes, but were not able to\nget the handheld laser on the beam on the ground.\nBorman\nOkay, how about the field of view?\nLovell\nThe field of view.\nWell, let me t alk about the equipment.\nBasically the equipment was fine, except for the telescopes"
  },
  {
   "n": 173,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p173.jpg",
   "text": "No. 1) i t did not have as much l ight gathering as was\nrequired for thi s particul ar equipment. It should have\na larger magni f i cati on. 2) It had a green f ilt er over it\nwhi ch was supposed to enhance picking up the beam, but\nal l it di d was fade out everything.\nYou could not see\nterrain features a.nd you needed to see ·terrain features\nt o find out where that beam was located .\nBorman\nYes. to know where the beam was.\nLovel l\nYou coul d l ook out a.nd .. ..we had photographs of the area\nwhere the beam shoul d be coming from.\nAnd we coul d acquire\ni t by our naked eye by just looki.ng out and seeing i t.\nBut.as soon as you went to the telescope of the laser,\neverything faded out to this green color. Unl ess you\njust happened to pi ck up the beam you're l ost and I never\nwas abl e to pick up the beam thru the t el escope .\nThe\nfilter was just too stro.ng.\nI much prefer to have a c lear\nview.\nSo I coul d pick out the terrain features . The\nreticle of course ....\nBorman\nOf course. we knew that was shot before we took off.\nLovell\nWe never had a good check of this thi.ng thought at night,\nand I wish we had had a good night pass over something,\nbut we never did.\nBecause I feel that we probably could\nhave probably picked up the beam a l ot better at night."
  },
  {
   "n": 174,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p174.jpg",
   "text": "164\nProtective glasses.\nTo tell you the truth the one time\nwhere I was really trying to get onto the Hawaii pass I\ntook them off.\nI did not use them.\nAnd they were in the\nway, they were cumbersome and together with the telescope,\nit was just too hard to find.\nBorman\nI used mine, but I did not put them on until right before\nJim was supposed to transmit .\nLovell\nOf course, I had them, I had them on and I transmitted\nand found out that I could not see anything so I just\npulled them off and started transmitting by going back...\nbecause as I understand it the operator really does not need\nthem if he i s right next to it .\nBorman\nThe big word on this one as far as the reticl e goes , w~\nshould go back to that is for the day time you do not want\nthat green in there. At night time you are going to need\na lighted reticle.\nYou cannot see the reticle at ni ght.\nLovell\nThat is right .\nSo you need a better acquisition device\non the laser, a better, bigger telescope with more light\ngathering and clarity of the te.rrain of the target.\nI\nwould imagine PULSE mode would be great for tracking the\nthing.\nBorman\nYes.\nI tracked one at Hawaii very easily.\nNo problems.\nThe tracking is a nominal task, there is nothing to it."
  },
  {
   "n": 175,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p175.jpg",
   "text": "165\nBut the other business of acquiri.ng,is very difficult, .\nParticularly with the reticle set.\n11.8\nLandmark Contrast\nBorman\nWe did one of these with the D- 5 photometer.\nWe knew it\nwas bad, but we put the calibration needle in the full \"up\"\nposition, told the experimenter that we were doin8 this\nand took the data. Nowt they will have to check it to\nsee how it worked.\nLovell\nWe did :just one,\nBorman\nWe had an equipment malfunction. Right.\nNo sense talking\nabout it anymore.\nSpacecraft control was\nno problem.\nWe accomplished all the meoha.nios of doing\nit, but unfortunately the equipment we knew was mal funo­\ntioning before we did it. Right?\nLovell\nRight you are."
  },
  {
   "n": 176,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p176.jpg",
   "text": "166\nEOt~FIDEt~TIAL\n11.9\nCardiovascular reflex conditions (M-1)\nLovell\nGot that started at, I think it is 3 hours and 8 minutes,\nor something like that.\nAt 2:39, I turned on the M-1 experiment.\nBorman\nOkay.\nProcedures and operational problems.\nWe had the\nhose coming all the way across your whole lap to get\ninto your right l eg when it should have been put in the\nleft leg.\nLovell\nThat is right .\nBorman\nPeriods of operation. The thing was operating continuously\nfor 14 days.\nAnd I might point out it is a pain in the\nneck.\nBecause of the clanking noise.\nEven though it\nseemed you would get used to it; many times just as we\nwere about to drop off to sleep that thing woul d clank,\nand wake you up.\nThe only reason we did not turn it off\nat sleep\nCO~◄ FIDE~~TIAL ."
  },
  {
   "n": 177,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p177.jpg",
   "text": "167\nperiod, was that we did not want to have the people say,\n\"Well, you did not run it the whole time so the experiment\nwas not valid.\" We left it on and put up with it in the\nhope that we could get rid of it once and for all.\nLovell\nObviously, it did not work.\n:Borman\nSo far as we know it did not make any dif£erence.\nAnd\nit did not seem to make any difference inflight or post\nflight.\nLovell\nIt was a waste of time.\n11.10 In-flight exerciser (M-3)\n:Borman\nIt is a valuable piece of equipment.\nWe used it not only\nfor the crew status passes, we exercised with it 3 times\na day and I thought i t was vecy worthwhile. It is a\nsimple piece of gear but it is a good device.\nRight?\nLovell\nAlthough, I imagine we can improve on exercise equipment\nin the future spacecraft.\n:Borman\nPerhaps, the biggest deteriorati on that we noted in the\nmuscles was in our legs, and that exerciser was-I do not\nknow how you can improve on that much.\n11.11 In- f l i ght phonocardiogram (M-4) and In-flight sleep\nanalysis (M-8)\nBorman\nWell, the equipment problems with M-8 were that the thi ng\nis operationally incongruous.\nYou cannot have those"
  },
  {
   "n": 178,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p178.jpg",
   "text": "168\nwires on your head and stringing down the back of your neck,\nand not expect to catch them on something in a small space­\ncraft. Now, we found that we couldn't keep the helmet on.\nI kept it on for two days, but my head became extremely hot,\nand I was uncomfortable. So when I took it off\nI\nripped all four of the leads off. And I think that the\nwhole thing is extraneous a:nyway.\nI felt after 14 days I\nwas perfectly capable to judge my own condition, and my own\nawareness, and my own degree of alertness\nI did not\nneed that bunch of wires hanging on my head to tell me or\nto tell somebody on the ground how awake or how asleep I\nwas.\nLovell\nInflight phonoca.rdiogram, I have no comments because it was\nstuck on me at prelaunch, and it stayed on me during the\nentire flight.\nBorman\nWell, did it bother you? Did you get any sensor problems?\nLovell\nNo.\n11.12\nBioassay body fluids (M-5) and calcium balance study (M-7)\nBorman\nUrine samplings bags, well, actually the bags were pretty\ngood.\nWe had one break around the head.\nMarking was all\nright a.nd stowage was fine.\nI might point out that the\ntracer accumulator we changed with no problem.\nThe mixing\nbag was all right, but they left out the most important\nthing here, the condom device that we used to"
  },
  {
   "n": 179,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p179.jpg",
   "text": "urinate into is unsatisfactory.\nWe ended up with urine\nall over ourselves everytime we t ried t o use it. I t\nwas sort of happenstance.\nIf you lucked out, you didn't\nget a leak.\nBut based on the experience that we had up\nthere, I would think that the we.y to go is\na simpl e\noverboard device where you vent r ight to the atmosphere,\nand urinate into a tube•Esse.ntially the same thi.ng you\ndo in C-47,\nBorman\nWe carried the flow meter along and the Delta P across\nthe f low meter and the filter can be i ncorporated with\nit. I am sure this is enough to al low you just to urinate\nright into a relief tube right overboard. I do not see any\nreason to go through this stage where you have urine all\nover yourself 4 or 5 times a day. A very unacceptabl e\ndevice.\nDo you agree?\nLovell\nRight. I thi nk we can improve on the urine dump system\ntremendously.\nBorman\nI think they ought to start looking into just a dump\nright overboard.\nYou do not use a rubber condom or\nanything.\nLovell\nBecause that things puts back pressure whi ch i s really sort\nof dangerous I think, and besides that, it is uncomfortable.\nAnd when you have back pressure. ..\nBorman\nYeah. When you have a big enough receiver and you urinate"
  },
  {
   "n": 180,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p180.jpg",
   "text": "170\na stream into a vacuum, it is going to go right on over­\nboard.\nI do not understand wby•••okay.\nThe defecation\nbags were fine. And we really used them this time. The\ndefecation bags were really put to use in this flight. I\nthink we used a total of 15 of them.\nLovell\nYes.\nBorman\nAnd they were fine. I have no comments on those. It seems\nto be the best solution you can have to the situation.\nLovell\nFor this particular type spacecraft.\nBorman\nFor this particular type•••For the Gemini Spacecraft. I\ndo not know what other approach you could have to them. I\nthought their marking was easily done. The finger hole I\nnever used that at all. One of the big assets, we might as\nwell put it in here, was the fact that the food that we ate\ncaused well formed bowels, so we did not have any loose\nstools or any of that problem. I never had any occasion to\nuse that finger device in there at all .\nAny other comments?\nLovell\nNo.\nBorman\nThe water intake, the W&ter counter number.\nThe gun was\nsatisfactory. The recording that goes with it is completely\nunsatisfactory.\nI think the only way we should"
  },
  {
   "n": 181,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p181.jpg",
   "text": "171\n•\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\n:Borman\nLovell\nconsider using that gun again is to read down a daily\ncounter number, and let the people use that as a--we\nra.n into a regular nightmare. Recording drinks used and\ndrinks.•••\nIt was too much.\nI think our water intake was adequate.\nAnd again I do\nnot think this is something we need to be hounded\nabout from the ground.\nA person seems to have enough\nproblems without being reminded that he is drinking enough\nwater; I do not see any reason at all to have this com~\nplica.ted bookeeping system. The food intake was not\na problem.\nWe recorded the food.\nOne thing we might\nnote, the food was pa.eked out of sequence.\nSo when we\ngot it out, we did not end up eating Day 1, meal A, B,\nC, Meal 2, A, B, C, but we did always eat Meal A first,\nMeal B the second meal of the de.y, and Meal C, the third\nmeal of the day. Although, it might be day 1, meal A,\nday 13, meal E, and day 6, meal C.\nAlso, while we are talki.ng about food, we better talk\nabout the stowage of the food. It was right up to the\nmaximum.\nThat is right.\nAnd in fact it was a little bit overboard for 14 days."
  },
  {
   "n": 182,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p182.jpg",
   "text": "172\nRather tightl y packed in.\nWe really had to work to get\nit out.\nBorman\nBut again, thi s is one of those things we were operating\nright up to the maximum capabi l i ty of the spacecraft, and\nI guess we had to expect that, e.ven though we did get it\nout.\nSo I would not say it was unacceptable.\n11.13 Miscellaneous\nBorman\nCelesti al and t erresti al observati ons, and significant\nobservati ons or a.nomoiies affecti ng other opera.tio.naJ\nor experimental da.ta..\nLovell\nWell , we got to see Mars just nea.r the sun by looking a.t\nit just at sunset .\nBorman\nMercury you mean.\nMercury.\nWe saw Mercury.\nAnd we made\nsome other observations here for the sci entists.\nLovell\nZodiacal light came in loud and clear after we found out\nhow to look f or it.\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nWe could not see the Gegenshein though, we knew exactly\nwhere t o l ook .\nBorman\nOkay.\nWe also made several night passes counting meteor s .\nOne at 215 hours plus 23 minutes, 25 seconds,\nI\n'llade\none night pass counting meteors for the entire 30 some\nminutes .\nAnd I saw.l meteor under Taurus and Pleia.des\nand it was below us , and it was short and white. The"
  },
  {
   "n": 183,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p183.jpg",
   "text": "173\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nnext night pass, ending at 217:17 I counted discrete\nflashes of lightening for the entire pass. I collnted\n206 discrete occurrances o:\" lightning. This was with\nthe spacecraft level in HORIZON SCAN mode, looking out\none window with no yaw control. Now, we also saw\nindividual meteors at different times in flight that are\nrecorded on the tape recorder.\nBut unfortunately we did\nnot see this great shower that was supposed to come out\nof Gemini.\nI saw two in a period of about 10 minutes out of Gemini.\nThey headed below us, of course.\nAlright, the meteors. Another significant observation\nthat we made was a brilliant display of the Aurora.\nThe\nSouthern Aurora over Australia.\nAnd we have some pictures\nhere.\nSketches.\nSketches of what it looked like, and we will cover this\nin the scientific debriefing.\nAnd we measured the time it took for stars to occult to\nthe air glow layer, and for Venus to go through.\nI think this would be best to discuss when we talk to the\nscientists.\nI think so.\nDo you have anything else that was significant? As far"
  },
  {
   "n": 184,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p184.jpg",
   "text": "174\nas operati onal experimental data?\nLovell\nNo.\nBorman\nWe al ready mentioned the fact about the air glow changing\nwith the Moon.\nOh, I tell you one thing that is significant\nand we looked for it time and time again.\nThis was the com­\nplete inability to observe stars in daylight.\nLovell\nOh, yes.\nBorman\nI hope we put that one to bed, because we tried and tried\nand tried.\nWe strained, we squinted, we l ooked at all\nangles.\nLovell\nLooked at all the angles.\nBorman\nLooked at al l the angles, and we were never once abl e to\nobserve a star in daytime.\nNow you can observe just at\nsunrise and just at sunset, but never in the daytime.\nLovell\nWhen that sun comes up those stars go.\nBorman\nThat is right. And you get a black horizon--I mean a black\nsky above a blue horizon.\nI do not know what the reason for\nthis is, but I will vouch for the fact that you can't see\nit.\nLovell\nRight."
  },
  {
   "n": 185,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p185.jpg",
   "text": "175\n12.1\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\n12 .2\nBorman\n12. 0 PREMISSI0N PL.ANNING\nMission Plan (Tra,jectory)\nWell , of course, it varies here, this is the last.\nIt changed.\nWe had o.ne all wired and writte.n up £'or a. 72\ndegree launch azi muth and this changed with the addition\nof the GT-6 mission.\nBut I thought the people were very\nf lexible, and adapt ed rapi dly to the change.\nWell, ~e are talking about the mis sion plan, and they\na:re talking about the trajectory alone. There is no\ndoubt about it that our mission , as originally set up\nfor our fuel , was adequate. But,when we introduced GT-6\nand the rendezvous mission, the a.mount of experimental\nwork which we had to do also was not reduced at all .\nThis compromised the results of our experimental work by\nhaving to use the fuel for the rendezvous .\nAlthough,\nI think the rendezvous was i mportant, or that it was\nhigher\npriority, I would like to have it put on the\nrecord, that the results we gathered from the rest of the\nflight were not as good as could be expected, because of\nthe fact that we just did not have the fuel.\n110 pounds of gas went down the drain, too.\nYes.\nFlight Plan\nI thought the people did a great job there."
  },
  {
   "n": 186,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p186.jpg",
   "text": "176\nLovell\nThere is no doubt about it. The only way you can plan\na mission of this length of time is real time flight\nplanning. Call up the data you want for the day, it is\na regular work day schedule. Call up what you want, and\nwe will put it down and we will work at it;\nwe will run\nit off that night.\n12.3 Spacecraft Changes\nBorman\nI do not know of one major change in the spacecraft that\nwe wanted that we did not get.\nGPO was very cooperative\nabout everything. Of course, the big thing that we\nwanted, that we got after a hassel, was the ability to\noperate suits off. We planned this from the beginning\nwith our first stowage review, and we finally made it by\ngoing the route of getting the suits that we could take\noff. And I think this contributed much to the satisfactory\ncompletion of the mission. Don't you?\nI have got\npersonal notes here that were made during the flight.\nEvery other page it says suits off was the only way to\ngo, \"I do not know how I stayed in the suit for six\ndays,\" and so on. The suit I am sure has done more to\nincrease the bugaboo of physical deterioration in space­\nflight than a:n:y other single item. Fa.r more than zero g."
  },
  {
   "n": 187,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p187.jpg",
   "text": "177\n12.4\nMission Rules\nBorman\nThey are routine now.\nWe have no r eal arguments.\nLovell\nThe only thing I can say about mission rules is the fact\nthat they can be changed by the Flight Director to suit\nthe situatio.n.\nThere is enough flexibility in them\nthat allows the mission rules to meet the problem at\nhand.\nBorman\nAlthough, we did not have any problems that required us\nto change them.\nLovell\nNo, we did .not.\n12.5\nExperiments\nBorman\nThe only experiment that I thought was not well presented\npre-mission was the laser. That was a sort of half\nbaked preparation for quite a while, and at the last they\nbrought the equipment down to Hou.ston and it came out\npretty good."
  },
  {
   "n": 188,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p188.jpg",
   "text": "178\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\nWhen we were first introduced to the equipment back at the\nstowage review up at St. Louis, we didn't lmow enough about\nthe experiment to really analyze the equipment, to find out\nwhether it would be adequate or not.\nThat is right. We should have. picked up the reticle light­\ning on that.\nBecause we did not pick up the reticle lighting and we did\nnot pick up the green filter.\nNo.\nThe green filter looked all right when we used it on\nthe ground. It is just the fact that we were not able to\nobserve .from .far enough a~ to pick it up.\nThat is right.\nThe lighting contrast ... • ..\nAlso, experiments to the M-1 experiment was sort of a last\nminute glitch.\nYes.\nWe had a lot of compromise. Not compromise but a lot of\nfailures.\nPutting the M-1 into the ECS system you mean.\nAlthoulJh, I will have to admit that the whole thing worked\nout fine. The mechanics of the M-1 experiment did last\n14 ~sand was absolutely no problem as far as operation of\nspacecraft or the ECS system."
  },
  {
   "n": 189,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p189.jpg",
   "text": "179\nBorman\nRight.\nLovell\nIt did complicate the pre-mission planning.\nBorman\nEvery other experiment I thought was well presented.\nThe\nexperiments division, with Dick Moke helping out did a good\njob.\nI WP~ very, very satisfied in other words, with the\nwhole business.\n13.0 MISSION CON1ROL\nBorman\nDescribe and discuss updating on the status of spacecraft and\nmission.\nBorman\nOnce a day operation, where we r ead out certain parameters in\nthe spacecraft , reported th~m to the ground, and they have a\nGO or NO GO for the r-ext area.\n13.2 P1A and CLA _llE.dates\nBorman\nThey were extrem~ly easy to handle.\nThey came up in blocks\nof about 6 or 9,\nNo problem, since we deci ded to use a\nrol ling reentry in the event of contingency landing.\nLovell\nWe had very little writing t o do.\nBorman\nVery little writing.\nAnd I might add, based on that reentry,\ni f I had to do it agai n, that is exactly what I ' d want : a\nrolling reentry, i f I did not have a l oad in that computer.\nBecause I think it is very difficult to look out the window\nand observe a horizon during a reentry.\nAt least it was\nduring ours; especially duri ng a night reentry."
  },
  {
   "n": 190,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p190.jpg",
   "text": "180\n13.3 Consumables\nBorman\nMy goodness, we had 30 per cent o2 l eft when we jettisoned\nthe adapter.\n30 some per cent~ o2 and about 40 per cent\n~ hydrogen.\nThe OAMS were a l ittle di fferent situation.\nWe cut that off at about 2 per cent.\nI was a l ittle dis­\nturbed on the real-time fl ight planning in the l&et couple\nof d.!cys when they were sending up for more experiments than\nthey knew we had f'uel to do.\n.And telling us to sift them\nout. This sor t of puts the onus of not doing it on the\npilot. I guess in the l ong run i t is the best W8:3' to do it,\nbut they would call up and sa_y-, \"well, here is a whole lot\nof updates that you can do i.f you have t he f'uel.\" Well,\nthey knew darn well, we didn't have the f'uel .\nLovell\nThat is right.\nBorman\nIn ma.ny cases it turned out to be weathered a:nywa.y.\nLovell\nAnd we had been briefed that there was a rather large error\nin the quantity- Nadout on the quantity gauge, and .fortun­\nately .for us it l ooked like it was in our favor.\nBorman\nWe also had the Vol kswagon tank which helped out. So we\nknew e:r:a.ctly where we were then.\nLovell\nBut we should, in future flights, make sure that the spa.oe­\ncra.ft has enough f'uel for adequate BEF alignment, and for\nat least a coupl e of revolutions with enough reserve to m.a.ke"
  },
  {
   "n": 191,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p191.jpg",
   "text": "181\nsure that in case something goes wrong with the thruster,\nthey could utilize more fuel to keep that alignment.\n:Borman\nRight. Well , as it worked out, we came out all right, any­\nway.\nBecause we just said we were not going to do anymore\nif we got to 5 per cent to 6 per cent. Tb.en they came back\nand said that one time, I said, \"Well, we're at 6 per cent,\"\nand they said, \"we thought you would go ahead and go to 5\nper cent.\" And this is an awful nebulous thinking.\nLovell\nBesides the gauge is hard to read to that accuracy .\nBorman\nTh.a.t is r ight.\nOkey-.\nWe have already discussed, I think,\nthe consumables on the fuel cells and the batteries.\nWe\nturned off the squib batteries, about the 10th~. The\nfuel cell consumables were never a problem.\nLovell\nMain battery voltage was never reall y hi gh, I thought. I\nhave been led to believe that 22.5 volts was sort of a\nminimum voltage for a battery. They were up about 23 or\n22.8 in the early part of the flight, and they were down to\nabout 22.6, I guess, towards the end of the flight.\n13.4 Flight pl an changes\nBorman\nIf there was a flight plan change, the only one that I know\nof, that we were not aware of, was the one of updating our\nperigee in the first burn.\nWe thought we were going to burn\nit to 102. It came out we burned it to 120 and I'd like to"
  },
  {
   "n": 192,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p192.jpg",
   "text": "182\nknow whether this was programmed, or whether we just burned\ntoo long. Other tb&n that the .flight plan went very well.\n13.5 Systems\nBorman\nOne of the items tha.t I objected to a littl e bit in the\nflight, and it was the natural tendency with people on the\ng:roundJ was the tendency, when we had a. littl e systems mal­\nf'unction, to explore it to the greatest depths without re­\ngard to the r est of the mission. For instance, when we had\nthe failed thrusters and we were ve-ry, very low on i'u.el,\nthey wanted me to put & 3 second direct burst th:rough the\ntb:rustersJ so they could get TM on what was happening.\nWell, this is fine, except when you do this, you are intro­\nducing the problem of the thrusters sticking, and losing all\nyour i'u.el there.\nOr at least you are !!quirting out 3 sec­\nonds of valuable .fuel, which is a heck of & big chu.nlc in\nDIRECT• .And if.you were to induce ignition or even with\nthree seconds of just venting fuel through the thruster you\npick up a great ra.te, and then you have to ston so you\nwould use a tremendous amount of fuel this~-\nI wills~\nwhen I refused to do it, though, they acceded, so it was\nall right. .Another thing I didn I t like, wa.s this idea of\nblowing the OAMS squib. Remember?\n\"This isn I t in the\nflight pla.n\"-\"if you feel like doing i t, I want you to blow"
  },
  {
   "n": 193,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p193.jpg",
   "text": "183\nthe OAMS squib just to see if you can hear it.\" At this\nstage of the game we were depending upon the OAMS fuel for\nrealignL\"lg the platform.\nI thought that by then we were in\na stage of the mission that we were operation&l rather than\ninterested in blowing something to see if we cou.1.d hear it.\nLovell\nEspecially for a night alignment.\nBorman\nRight.\nAnd I agree with you a thousand times it would not\nmake any difference, but on the thousand and first time, it\nmight have made a difference if we lost our OAMS, and I\ncould not see any reason to do itJ so we did not do it.\nAnother item, that I did not like, came up as far as flight\nplan changes go.\nThe request that was put in as part of the\nflight plan, and never was in the flight plan. That was to\nget a blood pressure over Guaymas after retrofire. As it\nturns out, we tried to do this , but we could not find the\nhorizon and so we did not do it.\nI woul d strongly, as a\nmatter of fact, I would not even consider it. After retro­\nfire, as far as I am concerned, the blood pressures, and\nall the other non-operational equipment can go by the way­\nside.\nLovell\nRight.\nBorman\nRight then the important thing is to get on the ground.\nLovell\nYeah, actually the retrofire time , the triple orbits before"
  },
  {
   "n": 194,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p194.jpg",
   "text": "184\nretrofire, when you are getting rea.dy for reentry, should\nbe exclusively devoted to that.\nWe should be doing nothing\nel ae.\nBorman\nRight.\n13.6 E:z;Perim&nts real-time updates\nBorman\nExperiments real-time upda.tes,\na.11 we can a~ is that it\nwas done fai rly well."
  },
  {
   "n": 195,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p195.jpg",
   "text": "185\n14.1\n14.0 TRAINING\nGemini Mission Simulator\nLovell\nSince there were three crews that had been through\nthese simul ators quite extensively, and only one that\nrequired any more knowledge or any more\noperation of\nit , we decided to use the simulator at Houston as a\nsystems trainer. Most of our basic t raining in the\nearly phases of Gemi ni 7 was done on systems.\nWe\nused the Houston trainer to gain knowledge of the systems ..\nTowards the end we also used it for launch and reeentry\ntraining.\nBorman\nWe made no effort to keep it up to stowage configuration.\nLovell\nWe made no effort to keep the Gemini Miss ion\n.Simulator at Houston in any kind of a GT-7 stowage\nconfiguration.\nWe just merely used the flying\nportions of it to get acquainted with systems\nand procedures. It was a procedures and systems\nt rainer."
  },
  {
   "n": 196,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p196.jpg",
   "text": "186\nBorman\nWe got a lot of good reentries.\nLovell\nWell, that ' s procedures.\nWe got a lot of good reentries,\nand we got a lot of good lift-offs with the trainer.\nOne thing that helped us out quite a bit on procedures\nwas the visual displays.\nBorman\nFor stowage we kept the wooden mock-up in Houston up\nto our configuration.\nIt came up better than I 've ever\nseen it before.\nWe did several exercises on the Gemini\nCrew Station Mock-up. We used that as distinct from the\nsimulator for stowage.\nLovell\nThe stowage mock-up was also used for ex:periments,\nto copy down updates, to put together equipment,\nto find out what electrical leads went where, and\nto practice using equipment inside the spacecraft.\nThat wey we didn't have to tie up the valuable Gemini\nMission Simulator, that had a lot of electronics\nattached to it , with training that required\nonly a simulation of space and envi r onment.\nWe acquired a pretty good knowledge of the systems\nwith the si mulator."
  },
  {
   "n": 197,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p197.jpg",
   "text": "187\nThere's one area of procedures and systems training which\ncan be improved, and that is t he use of more correct\nprocedures between ground and simulat or. A lot of times\nwe got into the simulator to do a reentry or launch,\nand we didn't get the parameters which you normally get\nfrom Mlssion Control.\nThere have been five manned l aunches,\nwith t apes on all of them, where the communications bet ween\nthe grouno. an:l th,~ spacecraft are well documented.\nWe\nought t o incorporate those in training.\nSo you could\ncopy down updates, you could get the 0 ,8, you could get\nsystems failures and how the ground handles them, and\nthings of this n~tu.re.\nI think we could simulate them\na lot better now, especially in Houston.\nBorman\nI think Lynn Taegart was doi ng t hat.\nLovell\nLynn was attempting to follow that procedure,\nWe\nrequested th1t they get some tapes from MGC from\nG1-5 1s l aunch , but by the time we left there, they\nhadn't yet arri ved.\nLaunch was very realis tic,\nBorman\nI don't think that we flew a simula tor\nwith our roll\np~ogram in it and it really\ndidn ' t make any\ndifference.\nI guess what we are saying about the"
  },
  {
   "n": 198,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p198.jpg",
   "text": "188\nHouston s imulator is that we don' t have to keep\nit right up to the final confi guration. · It's a\nbasic trainer.\nBorman\nIt helps a lot to get in there and get the work done,\nrather than not be able to get in it because it is\nbeing modified to bring it up to the latest configu­\nration.\nAs long as the math f low is proper, and the\nbasic parts are t here, you can almost leave it the\nsame for every launch.\nLovell\nIt should be updated as far as basic syst ems.\nWe\nhad the fuel cell panel put in ours;\nwe wouldn' t want\nbatteries, because of a lot of syst ems training on\nfuel cells.\nThat is important .\nWe don't have to\nhave every little item like on the Cape simulator for\ninitial simulator training.\nBorman\nI was very pleased with the Cape si mulat or. We've had\nvery good work out of it, and it was right up to\nthe l atest s towage configuration.\nI believe we were\nonly shot down on the simulator once. It wasn' t\nworking perfectly every time we got in it, but at\nleast we got valuable training out of i t ."
  },
  {
   "n": 199,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p199.jpg",
   "text": "189\nLovell\nRight.\nOne area that does need improving is the coordination\nbetween the simulators, the Cape and Houston.\nBorman\nYou're t alking about SIM Nl!i\"'TS when we ran with Houston,\nwhich was almost a total waste of time, on our part .\nBorman\nThat's right.\nLovell\nWe wasted an awful lot of time just waiting around, because\nthere wasn' t the coordination between the two.\nBorman\nIt was not the coordination, it was just the interface.\nLovell\nThat's what I mean, the interface. They weren't\nconnected properly.\nWe did get a lot of bum dopeJ\nit wasn' t the lack of training, it was the lack of\nproper training.\nLovell\nStation keeping with the booster occurred down here\nat the Cape only.\nI thought that was fairly realistic\nwhen it was working.\nI thought it helped aome.\nBorman\nI thought it helped a lot."
  },
  {
   "n": 200,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p200.jpg",
   "text": "190\nLovell\nRetrofires procedure-wise was very good.\nThe\nhorizon, visual display, really is a big item.\nIt made all the difference in the world between\nwhat we had before with no display and what we have\nnow.\nAs far as training goes, that is a very big item.\nThe Houston Simulator ought to have a visual display\nas soon as possible. Retrofire reentries were all as\nprogrammed.\nBorman\nWe had visual at RoustonJ we just did not have the\ntargets.\nWe had the stare at night.\nLovell\nWe had the stars, but we had the occluding disc,\nand we did not have the horizon.\nBorman\nReentry on the Mission Simulator was good, a very\nclose approximation to what we flew in the spacecraft.\nI think that was very valuable.\nOn GT-4, we had\nonly flown about two or three reentries.\nWe had\nto go up to St. Louis to fly these.\nLovell\nGT-3 and GT-4 were both that way.\nEssentially what\nwe are saying about the Gemini Mission Simulator at\nHouston is that it is the basic trainer for systems an:l\nprocedures.\nThe one at the Cape is a fine mock-up for the\nfinal flight plan simulator. We go right through"
  },
  {
   "n": 201,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p201.jpg",
   "text": "191\nthe numbers in the flight plan, and the SIM-NETS with\nthe entire network.\n14.2 DCPS ( Launch abort simulator)\nBorman\nWe used it and it was very effective. It never worked\nclosed loop as well as i t was supposed to.\nWe did not have any visual with it, but nevertheless\nthe runs that we got there I thought were invaluableJ\nwe certainly could not do without them. The noise\nand the sensations seemed as close as you could get\nto them without running on centrifuge.\nIt was a good\nprogram, the tapes were good.\nLovell\nI think it is a very necessa.ry simulator. It was not\nworking completely like we wanted it to work, but it\nwas just being put into operation when we were at\nHouston.\nWe did not have much of an opportunity to\nuse it.\n14.3 MAC Engineering Simulator\nBorman\nWe ran a whole week at MAC, two days on reentries and\nthree days on station keeping, and that was a very\nworthwhile week. It was concentrated effort, and the\nstation keeping simulation was as close to what we saw"
  },
  {
   "n": 202,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p202.jpg",
   "text": "192\nLovell\n:Borman\na.a you could possibly get. It was just fantastic .\nI t was\nreally well done, and the reentries were also. We got\na real good feel for the reentriea.\nWe had the people fro.m\nFOD and the people fro.m FCSD up there at the time.\nwe\nunderstood not only the procedures for flying the\nreentries, but the wlJSr 's, the how's, the l imitations\nof the systems.\nWell, that's where we dug out the procedures actually\nfor the reentry technique.\nThat's right. That's where we developed the procedure\nof following the roll needle up to 3 G's.\nThat was\nprobably as good a week in training as we bad the whole\ntime.\n14.4 Translation and Docking Trainer\nLovell\n:Borman\nIn the little work that I did, it\nis\nrepresentative of the actual case, if not more\nsensitive.\nIt's more sensitive.\nIt is a more simple t ask to\ndock in space that it i s in the Translation and Docking\nTrainer.\nLovell\nAs\nlong as it is .more co:mplioated there is no problem."
  },
  {
   "n": 203,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p203.jpg",
   "text": "193\nBorman\nI was really surprised at that.\n14.5 Planetarium\nLovell\nThe Planetarium is one which I have to admit I degraded\nfor the last trip. I said I didn't want to go and we\nweren't going to go. Then we decided we'd better go,\nand I think right now it was well worth it. The last\ntrip to the Planetarium was the best one.\nBorman\nWe got more dope on the actual orbit.\nWe\nhad settled\non our flight path, and they displayed it, and it was\namazingly accurate.\nLovell\nWe worked out our initial burn at the Planetarium,\nthe stars we were going to burn on for our perigee\nadjust burn.\nI took a cha.rt along that I ma.de up at\nthe Planetarium to use for the zero, seven, and four­\nteen days in t he celestial sphere. It\nworked\nout\nfine.\nWhen\nyou go\nthere, that's what\nyou have to do.\nYou\nhave to\ntake\nthe azimuth\nthat\nyou\nare\ngoing\nto\nlaunch on,\ntake all the charts that\nyou\nare\ngoing to have;\nand run through that type\nof .mission.\nTo go there and just learn all the stars\nI\nmight be okay for basic training like we did several"
  },
  {
   "n": 204,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p204.jpg",
   "text": "194\nyears ago. After you get assigned to a specific\nmission,\nyou better\nstart learning the stars\nyou need to use for certain burns and things of this\nnature. That's a good place to do it. I thought\npe~haps, since we had the visual display, tba.t we could\neliminate the Planetarium because the visual\ndisplay had more real feel for it, and it does.\nHowever, the visual displays in the simulators don't\ncarry the .magnitude of the stars that you can actually\nsee.\nBorman\nAnd they are not flexible enough.\nLovell\nTba.t 1s right. They are not flexible .\nBorman\nYou can't change them.\nLovell\nSo the Planetarium. was helpful .\nBorman\nSpacecraft orientation.\nAs Jim said, we studied the\nburns and .ma.de the first\ntwo\nburns\non the stars.\nThe Planetarium\nwas very helpful for this.\nRemember,\nyou were all set to find Corvus\nand then Spica and we had it all lined up before we\never launched.\n14.6 Systems Briefings\nBorman\nWe\nhad. one hundred and twenty - six hours\nand thirty .minutes of systems briefing'S and"
  },
  {
   "n": 205,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p205.jpg",
   "text": "195\nit's all well documented and scheduled.\nAnother\nthing that was very helpful to us was Mike\n:Brzezinski, the way he scheduled all the systems\nbriefings and all the trai ning.\nWe didn't fool\naround with any of i t. It was set up well, and went\nlike clockwork.\nI think this was one of the real\nfine points of our training. Mike came down to the\nCape a week early and the whole schedule was set up\na week before we got here, and with very little\nchange after that.\nHe did an outstanding job,\nand as far as I am concerned, that's the only way\nto run it.\nLovell\n'lhat's right. There's no sense running.around doing\nit yourself when we have a nice, well run .organiza­\nt ion that can do t\\his work for us.\n:Borman\nAs far as any figures or numbers on the time spent\nin the different phases of training, they are all\navailabl e.\nI f anybody wants them we have the\nfina.l report, and we have a weekly report.\n:Borman\nIt was very helpful to us to just have to deal with\none person, rather than dealing with the Planetarium\npeople, the people at MAC, the people at the Cape.\nThe only thing we did at all was contact Mike.\nWe"
  },
  {
   "n": 206,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p206.jpg",
   "text": "196\nnever contacted anyone else.\nWe didn't go direct\nto anybody.\nBorman\nWe might mention that the systems briefings were\nreally of two types.\nWe had preliminary systems\nbriefings by our FCSD people at Houston.\nAt Mc­\nDonnell, du.ring the SD1S flights and altitude chamber\ntests we filled in the dead time with systems\nbri efings from the people at McDonnell.\nThis\nwas a good way to go also.\nFor instance, while one\ncrew was flying the MAC Rendezvous Simulator\npracticing station-keeping, the other crew was\ngetting systems briefing. So, we didn't have any dead\ntime. It worked out well.\nBorman\nThe station-keeping , on the booster was more\ndifficult than it was on GT-6, primarily because\nthe booster was venting, and tumbling and trans­\nlating. Also because of the fact that we really\ndidn't have a lot of time.\nWe were having to use\nfuel in order to get set up before night, for the\nseparat~on burn.\nHowever, once we got it squared\naway, there was no difficulty at all staying\nwith the booster at a distance, I'd estimate from\nabout sixty to one hundred and fifty feet. During"
  },
  {
   "n": 207,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p207.jpg",
   "text": "197\nthe booster station keeping we did observe the\nablative skirt on the engine. At one time it\nappeared that there were two points right at the\nedge of the skirt that might have been rolled in. It\nlooked like maybe there were two approximately twelve\ninch sections that might have been rolled in. It\nmay have been shadows cast off the booster.\nBy\nand large, I would say that the engine looked\nvery well.\nLovell\nTo me the engine looked brand new.\nIt had a gold\ncast to it. It looked perfectly good to me.\nBorman\nI did not notice any venting out o~ the roll nozzle,\nwhich is unusual.\nWe thought the venting came out\nof the relief for the PSV valve on the side of\nthe booster.\nWe just discussed this with the\nMartin people.\nThey were a little surprised to hear\nthis. The venting we saw came out ninety degrees\nto the longitudinal axis of the booster.\nLovell\nIt looked like it came out r i ght at the edge of the\ntank.\nBorman\nAnd this is the Pressure Sequencing Valve drain.\nAnd the next one is, \"If so, what was its condition?\"\nIt looked great.\n\"Did you get pictures?\" Yes,"
  },
  {
   "n": 208,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p208.jpg",
   "text": "198\nwe got pictures with a 16 mm.\nWe\ndid not get\npictures with the Hassleblad because we could not\nunstow the Hassleblad at this time.\n14.7 Flight Experiments\nBorman\nSimulations:\nThe one we used most frequently\nwas the\nGl'1[S'\"\"'\nfor the D-4/D-7 tracking,\nLovell\nWe also used it for the sextant.\nBorman\nAlthough it wasn't a good utilization, we used it\nfor t~e D-5.\nLovell\nJust for procedures.\nMost of our experiment\nsimulation was done in the mock-up.\nThe wooden\nmock-up.\nBorman\nTranslation and Docking Trainer.\nWe used the\nTranslation and Docking Trainer for some tracking\ntraining with the laser. It was not all I had\nhoped it would be.\nNevertheless it did give\nus training and convinced us it would be no\nproblem in tracking with the laser. This was\nborne out by the flight that the mai n problem would\nbe acquiring it. We picked up the fact in the\ndocking trainer that the reticle is not visible"
  },
  {
   "n": 209,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p209.jpg",
   "text": "199\nat night .\nThe 'l1ranslation and Ilocking Tra±ne~ • was\nhelpful in station keeping.\nWe didn' t really do\nany training at McDonnell for the experiments.\nLovell\nWe did mostly the station keeping and the reentry at\nMcDonnell .\nBorman\nAnd you went to Ames.\nLovell\nJust for the sextant.\nThe sextant briefing at Ames I\nthought could have been done at Houston. I got more\ninformation out of Bob ~ilva on the roof of the\nCape here , than I did really out of Ames.\nThe two\nI\nsimulators I used out there really didn't help me out\nat all .\nI think the simulator and a star field in\nthe Gemini simulator plus work outside on the roof\nwould be more valuable than Ames, which I passed on\nto Wally and Tom.\nBorman\nWe had many briefings..• Total t i me spent on experi­\nments i s two hundred hours and thirty minutes.\nA\ngreat deal of that time was briefing. I felt , that\nby the time we took off, we knew not only the pro­\ncedures for every experiment, we knew the hows ,\nthe whys, and the wherefores.\nI thought we were"
  },
  {
   "n": 210,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p210.jpg",
   "text": "200\nI\nI\nI\nI\nI\nadequately t r ained on every experiment. If I could\ncomme.nt o.n the one experiment that I thought was\nhandled in a sort of , I won't say haphazard, but at\nl east a rather free style, was the l aser.\nWe didn ' t\nget real pr oper training on that, I didn't get t o\nlook at the laser until l ater in the game ,\nThe ground\nequipment a t Ascension never did come up, and I think\nthat if we ar e really going t o make thi s laser work,\nwe are going t o have t o put more emphasi s on the people\nwho are running i t, It seems t o me that here we need\nsome special procedure for training experiments. I t\nseems t o me that we went to some places where Mike\nwas stuck wi th the posi tion of trying t o scrounge people\nand equipment or the individual exper iment ers were stuck\nwi th it . It seems l i ke ma.ybe Lilly should have been\nabl e t o work wi th some section in our organization to\nget t he t raining tha t we wanted and get i t set up.\nThe\nway it i s now, for trai ning on experiments, you almost\nhave t o depend o.n indi vi dual exper imenters and a lot\nof the t ime they don't understand at all the pr oblems of\noperating a spacecraft. Did you have that feel ing ever,\nMike?\nFCSD Rep\nJust wi th the MSC-4, We did have a pr oblem getti ng"
  },
  {
   "n": 211,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p211.jpg",
   "text": "201\nBorman\nFCSD Rep\nBorman\nLovell\nJ3orma.n\nLovell\nthe equipment. All the other equipment seemed to come\nin well.\nYes, but we always depend upon the experimenters for\nthe training.\nYou lmow, like on the sextant. Maybe\nthis is the way you have to continue to go.\nThis is the way the program is set up, for the experi­\nmenters to actually do the briefing.\nYeah, and then the hardware training. That is the way\nit did work. That' s probably the best way.\nThe\nS-8/D-13, we went to the trainer.\nI guess what we\nare really saying is that we should emphasize to the\nexperimenter that they have a responsibility for\nproviding training and for providing training hardware.\nThat is the big thing. The experimenters, or the\nexperiments group, has to provide the training to get\nadequate results from their experiment.\nOtherwise\nthey are not going to get adequate results.\nThat is right.\nAnd t he training equipment and the training periods have\nto come early enough in the program so that we work out\nany problems that evolve. For instance, a classic\nexample was the laser when we ran into the reticle\nproblem.\nWe did not find out until too late in t he game"
  },
  {
   "n": 212,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p212.jpg",
   "text": "202\n7\nto change anythi ng,\nWe coul d not put a lighted r et i cle\non the l aser.\n:Borman\nIn all fai rness , we ought t o point out about the l aser\nt oo, that i t was severely handi capped when we changed t he\nl aunch azimuth. Because ini t i ally they had not planned\nt o work anywhere except at Whi t e Sands .\nThen with the\nchange in launch azimuth, Whi te Sands went down the tube\npretty well, then they had t o scrounge around and try\nt o get t o Hawai i and Ascension.\nThe exper i ment equi pment, by and l arge, I thought was\nr eadily avai l able on this f light.\nThanks mainly t o Lou\nAllen and the pr essure he put on the people.\nTraining\nequipment was pretty well availabl e, early in t he game .\n14, 8\nSpacecraft syst ems tests\nBorma.n\nWe covered a lot fewer of the spacecraft systeins test s\nthan previous spacecraft had, based on our experience\non Spacecraft 4.\nLet me see exactly wha t i t was .\nSpacecraft test s , 169 hours and thi r t y minutes for the\nPrime Crew, and 193 hours and 30 minut es for the Backup\nCrew.\nI do not thi.nk there i s any reason to cover thi ngs"
  },
  {
   "n": 213,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p213.jpg",
   "text": "•\nLovell\nBorman\nLovell\n203\nlike Systems Assurance and so on in St. Louie. It is a\nwaste of time.\nAt St. Louis you should plan on covering\nthe SIM flights , the Altitude Chamber and the Horizontal\nSEDR.\nAnd, down at the Cape, I thought even though we\ncut out six days of testing and we did not have a Wet Mock,\nI saw absolutely no impediment at all to our launch training.\nI do not think that any of it is necessary.\nI do not think\nwe cut out one necessary thing.\nI think that you could use your t ime more wi sely in simula­\ntor training, in recovery training, and in training you\nare really going to use than in study of some of the sys­\ntems assurance tests where you spend hours in the spacecraft\njust throwing switches.\nYou reach a point there where\nyou are not learning any more.\nI think you should follow, at St. Louis , the SIM flight ,\nthe Altitude Chamber, and the Horizontal SEDR.\nAnd down\nhere at the Cape, we want to do the SIM flight, the Joint\nCombined Systems test , the EIIV test , and finally of\ncourse, the SIM flight and Stowage Review.\nThat is somethi ng which we put in, and I think ought to be\nincluded in all._. the stowage is one thing that changes\nconstantly right after launch, and it ought to be put in\njust before launch. A week or so before launch to make\nsure everything is correct ."
  },
  {
   "n": 214,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p214.jpg",
   "text": "204\n14,9 Egress training\nBorman\nBriefing, Gulf Exercise, and Survival Gear.\nAll went\noff well, We had it done on Spacecraft 4, so we only\nwent off in Static Article 5.\nWe did not use the Boiler\nPl ate No, 201\nand it worked out fine.\nWe had the\nhelicopter pickup.\nLovell\nI think the helicopter pickup was well worth it though,\nbecause i t was exactly what you do on recovery.\nMight as well do it in practice.\nBorman\nAnd that is strange how that got thrown in there .\nThat one time on Spacecraft 4, we just thought, well,\nit would be nice to come back by helicopter, rather\nthan back by ship.\nAnd it worked out to be very\nvaluable as a matter of fact. I think that is good\ntraining. I think that you should have the Gulf\nexercise.\nNo question in my mind that you should\nhave that,\nLovell\nThat· is about the most realistic type training you\ncan possibly get.\nBorman\nWe were well trained in the use of survival gear.\nOf course, I think that it is a very good idea. We\nhad it laid out here in the crew quarters all the time\nwe were down here, and we stopped in and took a. look at it .."
  },
  {
   "n": 215,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p215.jpg",
   "text": "205\n•\nLovell\nBorman\nWe were thoroughly briefed on the ejection seat by NASA\npeople.\nI thought we were well prepared for that.\n14.10 Parachute Training\nI think that all the parachute training that is required\nis launch off the island for a water landing.\nI think\nthat is all the Parachute training you need,\nbecause\nthat is .most likely where you are going to la.nd.\nYou are\ngoing to land on la.nd during an abort, so there would be\nall kinds of people to help you or you are not going to\nmake it e:nyway.\nGuess you would be too close to the\nbooster. I think the water landing training is very\nimportant, especially when you are using new equipment\nlike our new sui ts. If we had the 4C suits again for this\nflight, I think that, since we had rotated so early from\nGemini 4, that we could have eliminated that and not have\nany real probletll!I.\nI think that all t he t raining should be conducted with\ntraining suits on. It does not :make much sense to go out\nthere in a swimming euit o\nAnd we .might mention that we had one suit out there for"
  },
  {
   "n": 216,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p216.jpg",
   "text": "206\nour training.\nWe switched in and out of a singl e sui t ,\nwet, or not wet , and got it all completed by one o ' clock.\n14.11 Launch simulations\n•\n14.12 Reentry simulations\n14.13 Simulated network simulat ions\n14.14 Network simulations\nBorman\nLaunch simula t ions, Reentry simulations , and Simulated\nNetwork Si mulations, and Network Simulations, at the Cape\ndown here, f or us, were a total waste of time .\nWe have\nal ready mentioned this earlier, but because of the fact\nthat the simulator was not playing with the Mcc, r would\n.not say the l aunch simulations were a t otal waste of\ntime.\nWe did get some launches, but I am afr ai d that the\ntime spent was not profitable ."
  },
  {
   "n": 217,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p217.jpg",
   "text": "207\nLovell\nBorman\n•\nLovell\nBorman\n•\nWe wasted an awful lot of time on that. It is not that\nthey would not be profitable. I think that is really where\nyou get the good tra.ining because you get•••\nI am not going to recolDlllend eliminating it. I would\nrecommend fixing it so that it pl&ys properly.\nThat is right. Because you get the actual operating with\nthe people that a.re going to be conducting the flight, get\nthe communication procedures down, get the whole bit. Un­\nfortunately the whole bit was not working.\nTha.t is right. I think this is recognized by a.11 sides. I\nunderstand that Gemini 6 was much better a.fter we left.\n14.15 Flight plan tra.i.ning\nI really do not think you would c.all that tra.ining. It is\nsort of procedures that you go through, and I hope that the\npeople that come behind rea.lize how big a hand they can have\nin ma.king the flight plan and how early they should get into\nthe business, because there a.re so many people with their\nown little inputs. If the orew does not get in early and\nkeep things under control, you will end up with a.n impossible\nsituation•"
  },
  {
   "n": 218,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p218.jpg",
   "text": "208\nFortunately, I think, that the people that you have to\nwork with now, Bill Tindall, and Barney Evans, are pretty\ngood.\nOne of the first things I would recommend to anyone\nto do, is to start talking to the Mission Planning people\nas soon as they get assigned to a flight.\nFrom then on,\n•\nkeep their fingers on the flight plan.\nI think that is\nreflected in the amount of time we spent on ours. 133\nhours was spent i n that training just on preparing and\nreviewing the flight plan.\nI think it paid off because\nwe ended up with one that was reasonable and one that we\ncoul d work wi th.\nI would not call it training though, as\nit was sort of doing flight planning.\n15.0 CONCLUDI NG COMMENTS\nBorman\nWhat else do you have to say James?\nLovell\nWe are back home, that proves the mission was a success.\nBorman\nThere is one thing that I have to say I think the system\nwe have set up here in FCSD now to handle these flights ,\nthis task force organizati on, is outstanding.\nI was very\nwell pl eased with the support we got from everybody.\nLovell\nI do not think we could have done it ourselves and having\ngone through i t before when we did not have the"
  },
  {
   "n": 219,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p219.jpg",
   "text": "209\nBorman\n•\nLovell\nBorman\norganization set up this way , it sure made a difference .\nAnd every part of the Center came through. It was very\neffective at the stowage mockups and the Des ign Review to\nhave Kenny Kleinknecht or Chuck Matthews right there and\nto make a desicion and then it stuck.\nThat was very,\nvery helpful from the very beginning there .\nThe first\nday we went to that stowage review up there , we had\nthe basic concept solved and we had the ECP's in to\nget the stowage the way we wanted it. It was very\nhelpful.\nI do not think there was one thing that we\nreally wanted in the spacecraft that GPO did not provide.\nEverybody was very cooperative , I thought .\nBut that was another item that I strongly recommend the\ncrews to do. , ..is attend Management Meetings...particularly\nwhile the spacecraft is in St. Louis.\nYou will find\na lot of decisions are made and you can get in there and\nget your voice in.\nThe people listen to you as long\nas you are not unreasonable, and you will end up making\nan awful lot of money in a very short time if you will\nget to the decision making."
  },
  {
   "n": 220,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p220.jpg",
   "text": "210\ni s keep a close tab on what goes on at the CCB.\nJ i m\nBilodeau is the best point of co.nt a.ct ther e.\nHe kept us\ni nformed .\nFor instance, l et us say we wanted another\n•\nstowage bag in the right footwell .\nRather than j ust\ngoing t hrough the back door and trying to get Car l Stone\nt o make up a bag, we i mmediately submi tted a requi r ement\nt o the CCB.\nWe f ound that t ime t o r eact on this thing\nwas amazingly short.\nYou coul d get one i n on a Thursday\na.nd it would be acted on by Monday.\nThen, after you had\nthi s cl earance t hr ough the CCB, things went smoothly.\nI guess what I a.m sayi ng is the system works a nd just\npl ow in and use it. That is i t.\n.."
  },
  {
   "n": 221,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p221.jpg",
   "text": ""
  },
  {
   "n": 222,
   "image": "https://wearenotalone.space/transcripts/nasa-uap-d021/p222.jpg",
   "text": ".\nl.,\n.\n1\nb\n.,, ♦, , ==\n.,,,,\n'"
  }
 ]
}