NASA UAP D020 Gemini 5 Technical Debriefing Part2 1965

22 Authority: NW 91526 j GEMINI V Technical Debriefing Part ~I_I__________________ CLASSIFICAT:ON CHANGE c L~A o_ ----.......,,_~ By authority of • o Chanied by C '~ ~ s s:..;;...:1:...::...,::.1 -=-= F E I G !>- .2. o_~ - / - ? "'t.. , Date NOV 2 0 973 NOTICE: This document may be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Infor­ mation Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Requests for its re­ lease to persons outside the U. S. Government should be handled under the provisions of NASA Policy Directive 1382.2. THIS MA TE ,-IAL CO NTA I NS INF09'MATION AFl"£ CT IN G THE NA TION" L DE FENSE OF TH t: U NITED STATES W ITHI N THE MEANING OF TH£ ESPIONAGE LAWS . . TITLE 18. U .S.C. SECTION 793 AN D n• . THE T9'AN S­ MISS IO N OR REVELATION OF WH ICH IN "N Y M"NNIEl'I TO AN U N ....UTHORIZ£D P'E ASON IS PIIOHIB IT E D BY LAW. GROUP 4 DOWNGRADE D A T J YEAR I N TF RVALS CECL ASS IFIEO AFT£9' 12 YE ...,,-5 l COt~FIDEt~TIAL PRELIMINARY GT- 5 FLIGHT CREW DEBRIEFING TRANSCRIPT PART II Prepared By Spacecraft Operations Branch Flight Crew Support CL ASS IFIEO AFT£9' 12 YE ...,,-5 l COt~FIDEt~TIAL PRELIMINARY GT- 5 FLIGHT CREW DEBRIEFING TRANSCRIPT PART II Prepared By Spacecraft Operations Branch Flight Crew Support Division September 2, 1965 This material contains information affecting the national defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Laws, Title 18. U.S . C. Section 793 and 794, the transmission or revela­ tion of which in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law. Group 4: Downgrade at 3 year intervals Declassified after 12 years co~~FIDEt'4TIAL (' PREFACE This preliminary transcript was made from voice tape recordings of the GT- 5 flight crew debriefing conducted August 30, 1965 thru September 2, 1965 at the Crew Quarters, Cape Kennedy, Florida . Although all the material contained in this transcript has been edited , the urgent need for the preliminary transcript by mission analysis personnel precluded a thorough editorial review prior to its publication. Errors in this transcript will be corrected as soon as possible and an official transcript will be published at a later date . This document contai ns a transcript of the second part of the total debriefing. A prel iminary transcript of the first part was publi shed on September 1, 1965 , and it contains the crew later date . This document contai ns a transcript of the second part of the total debriefing. A prel iminary transcript of the first part was publi shed on September 1, 1965 , and it contains the crew' s description of the mission from an operati onal standpoint. ; CAts4flOEt!!IIAb Par agraph 8 . 0 SYSTEMS OPERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page number 8 . 1 Pla t f o:rm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • 1 O.AMS •• ..... . ....... . . . ......... . . . .....• .. •. •• ••••• 16 8 . 2 RCS •....... . .. • ....•..... . . •. .••. .. .... . • .•••••• • • • 47 8 . 3 Environmen t a l Control System ·•· •·• ··•·••· · ··•••••• • 54 8 . 4 8 , 5 Comm.1.lllications .... . . .. ............... . .. . ...••••••• 66 8 . 6 Electrica l Sys tem ... . ... . ......................... . 80 8 . 7 Computer ..... . .. . ... ... ......... . ........ . .. . . . ... . 82 8 . 8 Cr ew Sta tion .................. .... ................. 90 9 , 0 OPERATIONAL CHECKS 9.1 Apollo Landmark Identifica tion • ••• • ·••·••·•••• • •• · 132 9 . 2 Cabin Lighting Survey . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .... ................. 90 9 , 0 OPERATIONAL CHECKS 9.1 Apollo Landmark Identifica tion • ••• • ·••·••·•••• • •• · 132 9 . 2 Cabin Lighting Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . • . • • 146 SPADATS Tra cking Check . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. • .. • • . . .. 147 9 . 3 9 . 4 UHF Antenna Pa ttern Test ..... .. . .. .. . .....••.•.••. 147 9 . 5 Thrus ter Illuminat ion Checks ........... . . •....•••• 148 9 . 6 Dual Command Transmitter Tes t ....... . .. .... ...••• • 148 9. 7 Radar Test s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . 148 9. 8 ID1 Eva llla. tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . 150 10. 0 VISUAL SIGHTINGS 10 . 1 Powered Fl ight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 10 . 2 Orbital Flight ...... . ... . ....... . .... .. ....•• . .• . . 153 10 . 3 Reentcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 11.0 EXPERIM . ....... . .... .. ....•• . .• . . 153 10 . 3 Reentcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 11.0 EXPERIMENTS 11 . 1 Visual Definition of Celesti al Objects (D- 1) , Nearby Object Photography (D- 2) , and Terres t rial Features (D- 6) ••···· • ·•·• •· ··• · • •• · • · ··• •••• •• •• • · 210 11. 2 Cel es tia l , Space and Terrestria l Ra diometry ..•.••• 222 11. 3 Synoptic Ter r a in (S- 5) and Wea ther (S- 6) . J?rl.otography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • • • • • • • • 228 11 . 4 Vis ual Acuity and As tronaut Visibi lity (S-8/D- 13) and Vision Test (M- 9) .......... .. ..... . ......... . . 233 11. 5 Electros tati c Charge (MSC-1 ) .......... •• . . •.•• • •• • 242 11 . 6 Zodiacal Li ght Photography (S- 1) .... .. .......• •• .• 243 11. 7 In- flight Exer ciser (M- 3) ........... . .... . ........ 243 11. 8 In- f l i ght Phonocardio gram (M- 4) ••••··••• 1) .... .. .......• •• .• 243 11. 7 In- flight Exer ciser (M- 3) ........... . .... . ........ 243 11. 8 In- f l i ght Phonocardio gram (M- 4) ••••··•••••••· • ··•• 244 11. 9 Cardiovascular Refl ex Conditioning (M- 1) . •••••••• • 244 11. 10 Cloud Top Spectrometer (S- 7) •·•••••··•••·•• • ••· ••• 246 11. 11 Miscel laneous ............. . . . ... . .•...... . ...••••• 248 CQ t-4 F-1 DEt-4TIAL 12 . 0 PR.EMISSION PLANNING 12.1 Mission Plan (Trajectory) .. . .. .. .. ..... .. . ......... 255 12. 2 Flig}lt Plan .. ... .. ... ... . ..... . . ..... .. . . . .... . .... 255 12.3 Spac ecraft Changes . . .. .. ..... . ... .. .... ... . . .. .... . 255 12.4 Mission Rules . . .... . . . ..... ........... .. ...... ..... 256 12. 5 Experiments .. .... . .. . . ...... . .. ..........•......... 256 12.6 Training Activities . . .. . .. .. .. .... .. . ....... ...•.. . 257 MISSION CONTROL 13. l GO/NO GO ••. . ... •. ....... ... ... . . . . ...... •• •. •• • ... . 261 13. 2 FLA and CLA Updates .. .. .... ... ... ....... . .. ... .. . .. 261 13. 3 Consumables .•.. . .. . . . .. ... ....... ..... .. . . ......... 261 13.4 Flight . . ...... •• •. •• • ... . 261 13. 2 FLA and CLA Updates .. .. .... ... ... ....... . .. ... .. . .. 261 13. 3 Consumables .•.. . .. . . . .. ... ....... ..... .. . . ......... 261 13.4 Flight Plan Changes •. .. ... . . . . ... . .. ....•.. ... .. . •. 264 13 . 5 Systems .• •. .. ... . ............ .. . .... ..•.•..•• . . . . .. 267 13. 6 Experiments Real - Time Updates .. .. ........... . . . . .. . 268 TRAINING 14. 1 Gemini Mission Simulator . . ................. .... ... . 270 14.2 LT\T , DCPS • , . ... .... . . . . .• .. . .........•• . .••. . • •. .• • 284 14. 3 MAC Engineering Simulator •• • ••·•·••· • · •·• ••••••· • •• 285 14.4 Centrifuge ... ...... . ... . .. . ........................ 286 14.5 Translation and Docking Trainer ••• · •····•·• · ··•••·· 286 14. 6 PlSlletaritllD. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .... . .. ....... . . ... . ....... 288 14 . 7 Systems Briefings . .. .. ...... . . .. .. . .. . . .. .... .. . . . . 292 14 . 8 Flight Experiments .. . .. . . ... . . .... . . .........•. .. .. 293 14.9 Spacecraft Systems Tests . .. .... . ... .. . ..... ........ 294 14 . 10 Egress Training ..... . ..... . . . . . . . ...... .... . .. ..... 296 14.11 Parachute Training ......... ... ... . . .... .. .......... 297 .....•. .. .. 293 14.9 Spacecraft Systems Tests . .. .... . ... .. . ..... ........ 294 14 . 10 Egress Training ..... . ..... . . . . . . . ...... .... . .. ..... 296 14.11 Parachute Training ......... ... ... . . .... .. .......... 297 14. 12 Ia.unch simulation ............. . . . . . .. .. . . .... .. ... . 298 14. 13 Network Simulation .. ....... . ... .. ... . . . ...... . .. ... 298 14. 14 Reentry Simulation . ... . ... .. ...... .. ... .......... . . 298 14. 15 Simulated Network Simulations . . ... . . ....... . ...... . 298 14.16 Zero "G" Fligh.ts ............ . .. . . .... . . ........ .. . . 299 14. 17 Flight Plan Tra ining ... .... .. . . . . . . .. ......... .. ... 300 15. 0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 15.1 Crew Qu.arters .... ; ....... . .. . .. . .. . . .. •.... . .... .. . 30 2 15 . 2 Physical Training and Aircraft Flying . ... ..... ..... 303 15.3 Sea I.a.b . . .. ........ ... ....... . . ... .. . . .. . .... .. . ... 304 15. 4 Wa tches and Clocks . .. . .. ....... . ....... ...... .. . ... 304 15.5 Miscellaneous Discrepencies •• · ··•·• · ·· • • ••••••••••• 306 15. 6 Medica l Aspects .. . .. .. .. . . . . . ........ . .. .. .... . .... 310 1 8.O SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 8.1 Platform Cooper By day we used standard procedure of finding a zero yaw, which is a little easier to Aspects .. . .. .. .. . . . . . ........ . .. .. .... . .... 310 1 8.O SYSTEMS OPERATIONS 8.1 Platform Cooper By day we used standard procedure of finding a zero yaw, which is a little easier to do down at about retro position. The nose is a little bit in the way for determining zero yaw unless you pitch down just a little past nose low in zero­ zero- zero position. When pitched down just a tiny bit, zero yaw was very readily apparent to within a fairly reasonable degree of accuracy, and then ease it right on up . We had lines for the zero­ zero position to give us our pitch and roll on the horizon. This was the regular day alinement. Night was pretty much the same except we 1 d get zero yaw by a star, get roll and pitch by the zero lines on the window (or knowing where they were approximately) line this with the top of the air­ glow or the horizon. At that point you'd go into Cage, hold it there at that position until it caged) then uncage the platform to BEF or SEF whichever the case might be, and then to to Plat­ form and Attitude on the FDM and FDI's. Then aline the platform fine aline SEF or BEF by keeping , 2 the needles zeroed. It would slowly gyro torque itself and correct to to Plat­ form and Attitude on the FDM and FDI's. Then aline the platform fine aline SEF or BEF by keeping , 2 the needles zeroed. It would slowly gyro torque itself and correct out the small errors for fine alinement. Anything to add, Pete? Conrad Well, I didn ' t hear all of that, but I think the alinement is straightforward. One thlng I had not read in either the GT- 3 or GT- 4 debriefings on this subject on out the window alinement was that we have a window gage that you can us1i t hat will put you right on in roll and pitch ancl, of course, for yaw you still have to use the same out the window reference. Cooper One thing that I think that should very definitely training wise be readily available anc. we looked and looked and looked and couldn't fir..d any was an actual scale picture of the left hand wi ndow and the right hand window with what the hcri zon should look like at zero-zero-zero and at retro attitude and at minus 90 degrees left and 90 degrees r ight and at 60 degrees left and 60 degrees r ight and this type thing . I've never seen an a~tual drawing showing the horizon line on a window a·'ld what i t should look l ike . 3 Conrad Yes degrees left and 60 degrees r ight and this type thing . I've never seen an a~tual drawing showing the horizon line on a window a·'ld what i t should look l ike . 3 Conrad Yes Cooper I think this would be a tremendous benefit and shouldn't be difficult to come up with. Conrad If you place your eye so that it goes through the lower left corner of the right window or the lower right corner of the left window and run that eye position right through the front RCS yaw thruster, the lower yaw thruster in the front ring, I guess that's ring A, anyway, you take a line between your eye, the corner of the window and the front RCS yaw thruster, right through the middle of it, and put that line on the top of the airglow or the horizon. Then the spacecraft, and this looks like an excessively nose up attitude, but it's not, you're zero degrees in pitch then the window frame is just about vertical to the horizon and it forms a perpendicular angle. Cooper The inside edge of the frame . Conrad The inside up and down edge of the window corner makes a perpendicular angle to the horizon and you can use that as a roll gage. If you set it up 4 that way that platform isn ' t off 4 or 5 degrees i n roll or of the window corner makes a perpendicular angle to the horizon and you can use that as a roll gage. If you set it up 4 that way that platform isn ' t off 4 or 5 degrees i n roll or pitch. Cooper So, i t r eally looks like, when you fir3t start lining it up, it appear s to you that f ::-om the left seat that you ' re actually rolled l eft , Conrad Yes, that's right . Cooper And f r om your seat it would look l i ke j t was actuall y r olled right . Cooper It doesn ' t look horizontal at al l, but that ' s due to the fact t ha t you 're sitting off by thi s offset . Conrad One other thing that you might say about platform alinement is that if you ' re not on in roll and pi tch, mainl y roll, t his really will ea t you up in alinement time . Cooper Roll and yaw are t he bad errors creator:, . Pitch you can be off a l ot i n and it' 11 corr ec:t r ight out. Conrad Not if the other two (roll and yaw) are off . Cooper But if you 're off in roll and/or yaw th€n it really takes a long time and its real rcugh . 5 Conrad You don't want to be deceived by the fact that the needles are holding in the center pretty well. Co in roll and/or yaw th€n it really takes a long time and its real rcugh . 5 Conrad You don't want to be deceived by the fact that the needles are holding in the center pretty well. Cooper That's right, one thing that we found when we were going through this real, real long platform alinement prior to getting all l i ned up for retro­ fire was that we had the needles all alined, t hey were sitting all glued out . But you have to s i t there with them for a little b i t glued out . They sit there all zeroed out, it looks like everything was all alined and al l of a sudden yaw begin to ease off quite a bit showing that we weren ' t alined. Conrad At one time we went to Orbit Rate when we had not pulled the yaw all the way in and, boy, it showed up in r oll as we started moving around. Cooper Orbit Rate and Horizon Scan. Conrad I mean it shwed up in the roll axis . Cooper Oh, yes. Right . Conrad You have to take t he time and be careful with the platform alinement, no doubt about i t. ° CSf*fDEt◄ TIAl 6 , Cooper And i t takes t ime to do it and do a r ~ally good job on it . Modes . The only thing I can say about Cage is i t. ° CSf*fDEt◄ TIAl 6 , Cooper And i t takes t ime to do it and do a r ~ally good job on it . Modes . The only thing I can say about Cage is that it takes an excessively long tim1; to Cage . Conrad I ' ll comment on this even though we d:i. dn't get a chance to do the rendezvous , but even in simula­ tion, it was apparent and the l i ttl e bit t hat we did in flight caging the ~latform, getting ready for alinements and t hings l ike -;hat, it was very time consuming . I think tha ·; you could find use for a f ast slave cycle . Cooper Very much so. Conrad Fast Cage cycle is what I should say. I 'll say it's a luxury item but it sure could be helpful . Cooper SEF and BEF worked j ust like advertisEid . SEF for fine aline and small- end- forward, BEF for reYersing your phase angles so that you ' re still steering to and fine alining blunt encl forward . Conrad J i m and Ed made the comment that t hey never alined BEF, that t hey a lways alined SEF. We alined SEF normally through the flight and when ,:e were ready 60 ►◄~ ~ 7 to retro, we wanted to save as much fuel alined BEF, that t hey a lways alined SEF. We alined SEF normally through the flight and when ,:e were ready 60 ►◄~ ~ 7 to retro, we wanted to save as much fuel as possible, so we alined BEF and I think alining BEF is easier than in SEF. Cooper Yes , Conrad I think you can tell yaw better going backwards than you can going forward. Cooper Yes. Conrad Cooper I don't know why, maybe it was just psychological . I agree with you, I really think you're right. I think you can tell it better. It streams away from you a little more . Conrad Yes. It was easier to pull in in yaw . I thought it was a little more comfortable feeling . I enjoyed the riding around alining the platform BEF much more than when we alined it SEF, and I felt we were closer to being on most of the time when we pulled it in in yaw. Cooper Of course, we had a little better control system there, it does help. Conrad Yes . Mt ◄ FIDE►~TIAL • 8 ~NftDE~~TIAt·,_ Cooper I think either way (SEF, BEF) is good, both worked very a dequately and it just depends on which way you want to aline for what you ' re going to do . BEF is certainl y a t least as either way (SEF, BEF) is good, both worked very a dequately and it just depends on which way you want to aline for what you ' re going to do . BEF is certainl y a t least as acceptable as SEF. ORBIT RATE was not bad off a t all . We di dn't have any l arge errors in it due to t he f a ct that we had more nearly circulari zed our oroit from t he burns that we did . Conrad We were about at 171- 60 at that time p<=:riod . I don't know what t hey ha d picked as an orbit rate number at the end fina lly for the REP . Cooper We were about 107, 166 . Conrad Yes . I was really surprised with how ,..,ell the platform stayed on after just t a king a quick look at zero- zero- zero, not even trying to ali ne these. We j u st passed freely through this in dr ifting flight and uncaged the platform right into Or bit Rate, and it didn't get off five or ten degrees in any of the three axis . Cooper For about 20 hours . 'i0 ►~FIDE►~TIAL G©t◄ FIDl!~~TIAL 9 Conrad Yes, for about 20 hours that we drifted around . It was finally off the most in roll. It got about 15 degrees off in roll . Cooper Orbit Rate IAL G©t◄ FIDl!~~TIAL 9 Conrad Yes, for about 20 hours that we drifted around . It was finally off the most in roll. It got about 15 degrees off in roll . Cooper Orbit Rate worked very well . Conrad Other than inertial work, I just didn't see any big advantage in free. You'd still think in terms of the local horizon up there most of the time. Cooper Yes . Conrad We just never had much occasion during the f light to use FREE. Cooper Platform displays . Conrad Bal l oper ation through the poles was just fantastic! It was so smooth. The only way you could tell that you were going through a pole is you could see the roll index, vehicle is on the ,, roll gimbal, flip . Cooper Yes. This is something we had trouble finding out, whether this was the case or not and we deliberately ran several specific checks of this. <!rJ~~FIDEt~TIAL 10 Regardless of which way you approachec. it from, whether you approached i t fast or slm.- or whether you 're going through the 90 or 270 pojnt on the ball, you can go right smack through the middle of it, you can sit right in the middle of it, you can move up or down, r ight or left and the ball doesn 't jump, doesn't j itter, can go right smack through the middle of it, you can sit right in the middle of it, you can move up or down, r ight or left and the ball doesn 't jump, doesn't j itter, doesn't do anything . It's just beautiful . Conrad Yes . Cooper We did a burn right through each one of the poles . I think the controls are pretty simila-r to what they are in the s imulator . There are t wo exceptions, one of which I think i s valid and which I think may be influenced by the fact that we had a lot of s low degredation in ou:~ OAMS system. I thought that the PlJISE system in the spacecraft had a lot less torque, a reasonable amount less torque and it got a lot leBs, as we went along it got less and less and leHs . Conrad Yes . Cooper But even i nitially, it felt like thP- PlLSE system 11 had less authority in the spacecraft than it does in t he simulator. On the other hand, I felt the RATE COMMAND system had a heck of a lot more authority in the spacecraft than it does in the simulator . Cooper That RATE COMMAND just flat snaps you in. In the simulator, when you come around in RATE COMMAND and you let off it will go through 5 to 10 degrees. You have in the simulator . Cooper That RATE COMMAND just flat snaps you in. In the simulator, when you come around in RATE COMMAND and you let off it will go through 5 to 10 degrees. You have to let off on it 5 to 10 degrees early. By golly, in the spacecraft you didn't have to let off even a degree early. When you let go, it stopped right there jus t like you put on the brakes. Conrad Yeah. It was good and it was tight . Cooper It was so tight that you almost had to - - Conrad That was OAMS Rate Command. Cooper You almost had the feeling that the OAMS Rate Command was almost bending the Adapter Section . I t had such high torquing rate . Conrad On day 2 and 3, our OAMS system was working completely correct. I was extremely impressed 12 • with how nice a control system i t was. We made several maneuvers using this control Eystem and didn 't have any gripes on that sys tem at all . As Gordo said we were really impressed wjth the Rate Command system. FCSD REP When you turned around 90 degr ees in crder to get rid of the REP, did you use the 8-ball ? Cooper Yes . Conrad FDI 's are on this Gimbal flip bus i ness too, you see . They do that in degr ees in crder to get rid of the REP, did you use the 8-ball ? Cooper Yes . Conrad FDI 's are on this Gimbal flip bus i ness too, you see . They do that in the trainer, but they were steady as a rock in the spacecraft . Cooper Yes, we used the FDI's for t he fi ne al ine . Al­ though to get there we used the 8- ball . Conrad We had trained to use the IVI ' s . FCSD REP That 's right. Cooper We used the IVI ' s , not t he FDI' s . We used t he I VI ' s as the real fine measure of being l i ned up . We used the FDI 's too . Conrad You can use anything in the spacecraft. .. • 13 Cooper You can't use the FDI 's or the 8- ball as a reference in the mission simulation because you have this gimbal flip which just gives you fits . We didn't use Ra te Command very much, mainly just for the burns . In fact, t he burns are the onl y times we used Rate Command. I used the Dir ect system several times and I thought the Direct was really good. It was good and crisp and you had good authority with it. Conrad I had the impression that the spacecraft was a lot more stable vehicle in Di rect than it was in the and I thought the Direct was really good. It was good and crisp and you had good authority with it. Conrad I had the impression that the spacecraft was a lot more stable vehicle in Di rect than it was in the simulator . Cooper Tm t' s right . Conrad In t he simulator you tend to sit there and go too much and go too much . When Gordo'd stick a shot of Direct in to go someplace, it never showed up in another axis . An equal shot i n the other direction would stop it r i ght now . Cooper Yes. Conrad The effects momentum of the spacecraft didn ' t seem to be as great in flight as they were i n the ~f:HDEt◄TIA ~ 14 "t OMFtDE~ ◄ TIAL simulator. You didn ' t have to lead a :, much. Cooper That's right . The Direct system was a much more precise system in the spacecraft than it i s in the s ' mulator . Conrad I thought it was quite easy to fly, but there's no doubt about it, boy, that Rate Corrunand eats up the fuel . • 15 Cooper Direct uses quite a bit of fuel also. Conrad We did use a little fuel t hat one day. We were doing so many experiments in a row that we had to very rapidly get the spacecraft back to a zero­ zero- zero or a pitch down Conrad We did use a little fuel t hat one day. We were doing so many experiments in a row that we had to very rapidly get the spacecraft back to a zero­ zero- zero or a pitch down 30 posi tion. When you track one of these targets and come through the nadir and keep on going, boy, you're really smoking towards a rearward direction. Cooper You're sitti ng i nverted BEF. Conrad That's r i ght, you ' ve got rates built up going away from you and you ' d have to use Direct to stop those rates, get yourself moved all the way back up here and s top them again. Maybe it'd be so tight that you'd use Di rect to get down and start on it, and then switch to Pulse and track in Pul se and then r i ght back up and start doing something else. Well, we di d eat up a lot of fuel that day, but we got everything done that day. We hit darned near all targets. Cooper Di rect i s a real responsive , real fine way to maneuver. 60t~Fl0Et.t:tAt 16 •i Q:Mf~Cf1stI IAla .. Cooper Platform controls were very straight fc,rward. I thought they all functioned as expected. Conrad The Platform took the full 25 minutes to go through the fast heat, and the first time on I IAla .. Cooper Platform controls were very straight fc,rward. I thought they all functioned as expected. Conrad The Platform took the full 25 minutes to go through the fast heat, and the first time on it was really cold and took another 3 minutes worth before start of the Cage Cycle. After that, it seemed to stick right around 25 minutes to get the platform up and on the line and start into Cage . Cooper Right now, I've got extreme confidence in that Platform. I really think it does well. Conrad '.Ihe platform did an outstanding job during the entire flight. Cooper I t sure did. 8. 2 OAMS Cooper We fired the OAMS on the pad and it was mushy. You couldn't hear them fire just gas mainly, About the third round of firings however, you could really feel them fire off, they were all good. Cooper During flight the OAMS started out very good and in about the third day began to degrade. ~:he f i fth day ~ l iU iiAL 17 i s when we found the two thrusters that were not operating correctly. Conr a