Talk:Gus Grissom/Archive 1

Murdered to ensure his silence?

I just watched the 2nd video clip for a video re. the Apollo One fatalies... view it here: http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

Why would Grissom hold a press conference without permission? And why would he hang a lemon in full view -- what message was he trying to tell? And then his intercom doesn't work? And the rest of the crew describe a smell consistent with cyanide poisoning?

And then 2 years later all the "technical problems" are resolved and the moon landing is a success?

In a world where the 9/11 official story (full of improbabilities, coincidences, and impossible physics) I guess all of that is possible... :rolleyes:.

---

Be advised the murder accusations come from either Betty Grissom, her son Scott, ~~or a pair of psychotics~~ living in the Houston, Tx area who "support" Betty & Scott's accusations. In all cases, these accusations are baseless, and the evidence they present to back up their claims fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. While there is no disagreement that neglect and human error were major factors in the Apollo 1 fire, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the fire was the result of a deliberate, malicious, criminal act on the part of any individual, organization or combination of the two.

Reply

A not so brief answer to the "10 proofs we didn't land on the moon" on the above Web site: 10. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: • First man-made satellite in earth orbit… • First man in space… • First man to orbit the earth… • First woman in space… • The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… • The first space walk… • The first to have two spacecrafts orbiting simultaneously… This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

RETORT: True, all. But after 1964, when Kruschev was overthrown, Soviet space and missle spending dropped precipitously. They tried to get back into the game in 1967 but a fatal Soyuz accident set them back too far to recover). And that doesn’t count all the Soviet failures that never got off the ground and were never reported. 9. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? RETORT: (he shows two photos, one seeming to show a large C on a rock, indicating that it’s a prop. It’s strictly a lighting trick.) As for why they’d update the photos - well, a good cinematographer should know that photographic techniques have improved by leaps and bounds since 1969.

8. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander’s 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere.

RETORT: What was discovered by the moon landing is that the moon has a fairly thin surface of loose soil covering a very hard surface. The astronauts had serious problems pounding objects and drilling into it. That’s why there was no major crater.

7. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon’s surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

RETORT: The photo shows an astronaut, shadow straight, with what seems to be a shadow at another angle. Dismissing intentionally retouched photograph, explanations could include equipment hidden behind the camera or reflected light from the Lunar Module. Light behaves differently on the moon with no atmosphere to refract it. 6. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, “You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention.” Armstong replied, “No, I just don’t deserve it.” Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.

RETORT: Armstrong is noted for being near-reclusive in his inevitable fame; his view is that the landing, which included the work of Buzz Aldrin, was the hard, untested part. Aldrin was probably sensible in refusing this guy permission to twist his words, and Collins has gone over the story enough times (read “Carrying the Fire, it’s excellent). 5. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth’s magnetic field traps the solar wind.

RETORT: The shuttle is not designed to fly to the moon. This is like saying that no one has gone to Paris because taxicabs can’t cross the ocean. At least two Gemini flights also flew into the Van Allen belts, one up to 830 milss above the earth. In addition, the spacecraft walls do a good job of shielding the astronauts. 4. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

RETORT: And if you test it, a bumblebee can’t fly. The man forgets this is a craft designed to fly solely in space. This "proof" is just pure disbelief and has nothing to do with logical explanations. 3. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

RETORT: The LM was covered in reflective materials to deflect the heat. And 250 degrees is bearable; I’ve been in a sauna at 190. Add the multiple cooling systems and it’s certainly possible.It’s interesting he can deny this but admit spacecraft returned through the atmosphere at 17,500 mph with outside temperatures of thousands of degrees. 2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?

RETORT: It’s a thing this bozo has never heard of called hard work. The government decided it was actually going to do something and it did. That sort of dedication is lacking today.

I might add this bozo - and I mean the filmmaker, as well as the above anonymous poster - also tries to prove that Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 was intentionally killed by NASA or the government as part of a coverup. This is beyond humbuggery and into slander. (And if they really wanted to kill him, all they had to do was sabotage his sports car. Why kill two other men?) 1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in (name of film) and explained in (name of another film) proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.

RETORT There is also footage of a rehearsal for Doug McArthur wading ashore in the Phillippines in World War II, The astronauts were expected to participate in television broadcasts during the trip and did some rehearsal for them. No big whoop. This is like saying Tiger Woods never won the Masters as he had sone all his swinging before on the practice range.

Sorry about the long post, but I just felt I had to say something.DrBear 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't...

Why isn't there any mention of the official NASA investigation with Astronaut Frank Borman as a member? There is no mention of it which leads to a appearance of bias. --AdmShiloh - Hawk 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason is because that should appear in the article about Apollo 1. This article is more of a biography of Grissom; as with the bios of White and Chaffee, it's a side issue that is better handled in the article about the planned flight itself rather than the individuals. DrBear 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Grissom and Gil Grissom

In a January 20 2002, interview with CSI star William Petersen in USA Weekend Jeffery Zaslow lists this under "Clues about CSI": "Why Gil Grissom? Petersen's character was to be named Gil Scheinbaum. He changed the name because of his affinity for astronaut Gus Grissom and the alliteration. 'His job is grisly, gruesome.'" I hope this reliable reference to an interview with Petersen, not merely a random article with uncertain sourcing, will put this matter to bed once and for all. - Dravecky 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GT-3 Mission Emblem

Note that the emblem that is currently on the page for Grissom and Young's GT-3 mission wasn't the official mission patch, as such things didn't exist at the time. The first official mission patch was for Cooper and Conrad's GT-5. Mission patches for GT-3 and GT-4 (and the Mercury missions) were made later for the collector market. There is at least one other mission patch for GT-3, but neither are official. Perhaps a photo of the mission might be more appropriate?--Voodude 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have it at hand, but I read that Grissom had medallions with this design made up as souvenirs, and when NASA went backwards to "create" insignia for the flights before Gemini V it used Grissom's medallion. If I can find where I found that information, I'll do a graf saying the flight had no insignia, but...DrBear 17:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've called these mission patch designs based on what I've read in the NASA lit but I'm not sure what the official designation would have been (I guess none at all?). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Thorough cleanup, more detail, factoring, link and cite checking. This is now at least a readable article and a steadfast skeleton for growth and no, I don't think Gus blew the hatch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great! Thanks for all your hard work. - Dravecky (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section "Family"

Not being American, I'm not confident about deleting the new section as those people may be notable although I've not heard of them. If nobody objects, I think the section should be deleted. --Whoosher (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. - Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would have done the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I AM RELATED :[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.195.205 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability seems to be the relevant WP guideline. --Jtir (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navi, formerly known as Epsilon Cassiopeiae

I just wanted to mention that the star continues to be known as Eta Cassiopeiae. The Greek-letter system for star names, which works through the Greek alphabet in descending order of brightness within a constellation, remains in effect whether or not another name as been assigned to the star, whether in modern or ancient times. Hence, Rigil Kentaurus is still Alpha Centauri, Betelgeuse is still Alpha Orionis, and Navi is still Epsilon Cassiopeiae. The Greek-letter name convention is kept because it provides a standard nomenclature accepted by scientists worldwide. Pithecanthropus (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Eta to Epsilon. Pithecanthropus (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Lt twice?

This article states that Grissom was commissioned a 2nd Lt in March 1951, but in the next paragraph states "On March 11, 1952, Grissom was promoted to second lieutenant and was cited for his 'superlative airmanship'." Hmm...perhaps another sign that he was killed by the Illuminati because he knew that NASA was planning to fake the Moon landings...My personal theory is that JFK, Grissom, and Elvis were all abducted by aliens and their "deaths" were just faked to hide this from the American people. Unfortunately, the flying saucer returning them to Earth malfunctioned and crashed into either the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11 (your choice) which, of course, led to another cover-up involving hundreds of sleeper MIB personnel posing as airline passengers, four specially modified stealth bombers painted to look like UA and AA airliners, and the biggest wienie roast in Manhatten history. The repercussions of this are with us today because the aliens got pissed with Cheney and G. W. Bush (both card carrying members of both the alien conspiracy and the Illuminati) for their botching of the 9/11 coverup leading to the selection of a hybrid Illuminati/space alien as the next president of the United States. Time for my medication...seriously he probably was promoted to 1st Lt. in '52 although I don't have the 10 required references to prove this. Jmdeur (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma vs. Epsilon

While it's true that some published news articles incorrectly attribute the "Navi" nickname to Epsilon Cassiopeiae (and the related Wikipedia article had been repeating this incorrect info) the actual NASA documents show that Gamma Cassiopeiae in the center of the "W" is the star so designated. The second link below includes a detailed image of the actual star chart flown on Apollo 10 where "Navi" is clearly labelled in the upper right-hand corner. - Dravecky (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Post-landing Activities". Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. commentary at 105:11:33
"Apollo 10 Flown CSM Star Chart Directly from the Personal Collection of Mission Command Module Pilot John Young". Heritage Auction Galleries. Retrieved March 11, 2010.

July 2006

<Note: A section denying moon landing was deleted for massive POV with no references> A not so brief answer to the "10 proofs we didn't land on the moon" on the above Web site:

10. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: • First man-made satellite in earth orbit… • First man in space… • First man to orbit the earth… • First woman in space… • The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… • The first space walk… • The first to have two spacecrafts orbiting simultaneously… This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

RETORT: True, all. But after 1964, when Kruschev was overthrown, Soviet space and missle spending dropped precipitously. They tried to get back into the game in 1967 but a fatal Soyuz accident set them back too far to recover). And that doesn’t count all the Soviet failures that never got off the ground and were never reported.

9. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

RETORT: (he shows two photos, one seeming to show a large C on a rock, indicating that it’s a prop. It’s strictly a lighting trick.) As for why they’d update the photos - well, a good cinematographer should know that photographic techniques have improved by leaps and bounds since 1969.

8. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander’s 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere.

RETORT: What was discovered by the moon landing is that the moon has a fairly thin surface of loose soil covering a very hard surface. The astronauts had serious problems pounding objects and drilling into it. That’s why there was no major crater.

7. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon’s surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

RETORT: The photo shows an astronaut, shadow straight, with what seems to be a shadow at another angle. Dismissing intentionally retouched photograph, explanations could include equipment hidden behind the camera or reflected light from the Lunar Module. Light behaves differently on the moon with no atmosphere to refract it.

6. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, “You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention.” Armstong replied, “No, I just don’t deserve it.” Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.

RETORT: Armstrong is noted for being near-reclusive in his inevitable fame; his view is that the landing, which included the work of Buzz Aldrin, was the hard, untested part. Aldrin was probably sensible in refusing this guy permission to twist his words, and Collins has gone over the story enough times (read “Carrying the Fire, it’s excellent).

5. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth’s magnetic field traps the solar wind.

RETORT: The shuttle is not designed to fly to the moon. This is like saying that no one has gone to Paris because taxicabs can’t cross the ocean. At least two Gemini flights also flew into the Van Allen belts, one up to 830 milss above the earth. In addition, the spacecraft walls do a good job of shielding the astronauts.

4. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.

RETORT: And if you test it, a bumblebee can’t fly. The man forgets this is a craft designed to fly solely in space. This "proof" is just pure disbelief and has nothing to do with logical explanations.

3. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.

RETORT: The LM was covered in reflective materials to deflect the heat. And 250 degrees is bearable; I’ve been in a sauna at 190. Add the multiple cooling systems and it’s certainly possible.It’s interesting he can deny this but admit spacecraft returned through the atmosphere at 17,500 mph with outside temperatures of thousands of degrees.

2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?

RETORT: It’s a thing this bozo has never heard of called hard work. The government decided it was actually going to do something and it did. That sort of dedication is lacking today.

I might add this bozo - and I mean the filmmaker, as well as the above anonymous poster - also tries to prove that Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 was intentionally killed by NASA or the government as part of a coverup. This is beyond humbuggery and into slander. (And if they really wanted to kill him, all they had to do was sabotage his sports car. Why kill two other men?)

1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in (name of film) and explained in (name of another film) proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.

RETORT There is also footage of a rehearsal for Doug McArthur wading ashore in the Phillippines in World War II, The astronauts were expected to participate in television broadcasts during the trip and did some rehearsal for them. No big whoop. This is like saying Tiger Woods never won the Masters as he had sone all his swinging before on the practice range.

Sorry about the long post, but I just felt I had to say something.DrBear 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravissimo. Except, I wish you hadn't. These vacuum-brained dolts shouldn't be refuted, they should be ridiculed, just like the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy lunatics. Trekphiler 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all original research and I think, highly muddled too, but given it's been here for over four years, let it stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books

I have added the following to the books section:

A book titled : "Seven Minus One:the Story of Astronaut Gus Grissom" was self published in 1968 by Carl L. Chappell, Ph.D. through New Frontier Publishing Co. of Madison ,Indiana and is probably the earliest biography of Col. Grissom.

Cecrowder (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shut the pod bay door, Gus."

I've heard (but can't source...) the Apollo spacecraft door was modified to open inward after Mercury IV, & had Mercury IV not blown, the 012 door would have opened outward & none of them would have died... Can anybody confirm & include? ALEX 7000 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link article you referenced has your answer, I think. "... However, the two-piece hatch was of a design which required that the crew undo several bolts in order to remove the inner section, and was impossible to open quickly. Furthermore, the inner portion of the hatch opened inwards, an intentional design feature intended to exploit the cabin's air pressure in order to further tighten the hatch seal during spaceflight. The hot gases produced by the fire held the hatch shut, and within a few seconds the air pressure had risen enough to prevent the crew from escaping (and, in fact, the air pressure rose so high as to rupture the capsule)." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, but I was thinking of a specific ref to Gus' flight. Know of 1? Trekphiler

This is from "Chariots for Apollo" from the NASA PAO web site:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch9-2.html#explanation4

"After the loss of Grissom's spacecraft in Mercury, when a faulty mechanism blew the hatch prematurely, Space Task Group designers had gone from an explosive to a mechanically operated hatch. This practice continued in Gemini and Apollo."

Cecrowder (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Grissom's Wife, Son and Thousands of Americans claim Gus was Murdered.

I am saddened that Wikipedia has chosen to censor and completely omit what is perhaps the greatest true story related to Gus Grissom's career. Gus Grissom was starting to go public with how the spacecraft wasn't ready for travel when the press and government controlled "accident" occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.178.10 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got references from reliable third-party sources? - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also discussed in the Talk:Apollo_1 area. I believe there was one person who tried to prove it, with reasons that made little or no sense (if NASA wanted Grissom dead, all they had to do was tamper with the jets he flew on a near-daily basis). In short, there is even less cause to believe this than the "moon landing was faked" theory. DrBear (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe the "NASA killed Gus" theory even less than I believe Bill Nye's comedic "a tiger got him" theory of the JFK assassination. - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should write about this account right after we edit the Apollo Program site to discuss "the scholarly evidence" on how the moon landing was staged. Crackpot... Ckruschke (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

"Gusmobile" and the thruster joystick

I'm adding a note that I read in a Smithsonian magazine profile of Grissom, he was the chief innovator (with NASA engineers, presumably) of the 3-axis (4-axis?) joystick which allowed one-handed control of the Gemini thrusters. Another reason the Gemini was nicknamed the Gusmobile. If anyone can find an online link, much appreciated. I have only my memory. - David Spalding 14:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is the article you are looking for: Flying the Gusmobile.

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/mobile.html

It is from the Air and Space Magazine from 1998. Cecrowder (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Gus did not invent the "joystick" rotation controller, which already existed in the Mercury capsule. (Rotating the nose of the spacecraft was a natural analogy to an airplane, which had already occurred to the McDonnell engineers.) He invented the T-shaped handle used to push the spacecraft in a straight line (up, down, left, right, forward or backward.) The function is called translation, and was a capability added to Gemini and Apollo necessary for rendezvous and docking. This is verified in the above link to Air & Space mag. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he called 'Gus' ?

How and why is he known as 'Gus' instead of Virgil ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.106 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Probably requires reading a biographical source to answer. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus was most likely a contraction of his family name Grissom. See this biographical sketch written about him by his siblings for a chapter of the Purdue alumni club. There are many hints that, in his adult life at least, he wasn't keen on being called by his given name Virgil. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st to go twice?

Joseph A. Walker's flights of the X-15's flights 90 and 91 was in 1963-07-19 (106 km) and 1963-08-22 (108 km). Gus' Mercury 4 and Gemini 3 was on 1961-07-21 and 1965-03-23. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t12:27z

And "beyond the boundary of space" is the same nonsense; "astronaut" was only conferred on those who'd gone above 63mi. I'm removing it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your "boundary of space" comment. I think I deleted it as you were typing in this comment. Great minds think alike...Ckruschke (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I guess. ;p I'd have been inclined just for it being so awkward, actually. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Walker made two flights above 100 km (62.1 miles) and was awarded astronaut wings. Therefore Grissom was not the first astronaut to fly in space twice. This is the reason I use the phrase "NASA Astronaut", to distinguish Grissom from Walker – the first person, American, astronaut and Air Force pilot to achieve this goal. For this reason I recommend reverting to my earlier edit and include the subsequent edit by Ke4roh. -- Rob (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on; what makes this confusing, is that Walker was hired by NASA as a pilot, rather than as an astronaut (Grissom et al). Walker only became a "de facto astronaut" because of his flight; therefore both Grissom and Walker were "NASA astronauts"; therefore calling Grissom the "first NASA astronaut" really doesn't make the distinction. How exactly would one make an accurate distinction?

And maybe we're over-complicating this by insisting on strict adherence to the International definition. We're fighting against the ambiguity of the word "astronaut" now, because it means both people NASA recruited explicitly to fly spacecraft, and X-15 pilots. When the public uses the term "astronaut", they universally use the former definition. And because of the ambiguity, "American astronaut" is just as accurate as "NASA astronaut".

Notice reference 1 is a footnote rather than a citation (used to avoid interrupting the flow of the intro.) I think explaining the distinction here is the best we can do. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've opened a can of worms here, Rob. Some readers might well ask, if Walker was a "NASA astronaut", why doesn't his name appear in this list, which is how I'm sure many people define it? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely, but politely, disagree with JustinTime55. Walker is not an astronaut. He is a pilot who happened to go beyond the "accepted barrier of what is constituted outer space". He was awarded astronaut wings for this reason alone. Calling him an astronaut does a disservice to test pilots and astronauts alike. There are still people within the test pilot community, albeit from an older generation, who look upon "astronauts" as spam in a can and would see a reference to Joe Walker as an astronaut to be an insult. I would think people who passed the astronaut tests would feel the same. Therefore, I think that that sentence should be dramatically simplified to the point of saying He was the first American astronaut to fly in space twice. and completely deleting the Walker reference.Ckruschke (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I think this shows how confusing this is; basically I'm on your side, Ckruschke, that the distinction of calling 100 km "space flight" is really a technicality that most people ITRW don't recognize where the term "astronaut" is concerned (i.e, they think of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, etc. rather than the X-15). I'm the one who first put "first American astronaut" in this article, last week.

And Walker's Wikipedia article was even worse in this respect, because it referred to him as a "NASA astronaut" before I just started trying to fix it.

However, the Wikipedia community is strongly married to the FAI definition, and though I'm not defending it, we have to abide by consensus. Also, we can't go by astronauts' or test pilots' feelings about this, because that is too subjective; the two camps disagree over whether "astronaut" is an honor or an insult. And since Walker was an alumnus of the Man In Space Soonest program just before NASA / Mercury, he might have made the leap from test pilot to "real astronaut"; in fact, his fellow allumnus Neil Armstrong actually did, and became the first man on the Moon! JustinTime55 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about "everyone has an opinion". Which is why I basically think it should just be the simple sentence I suggested so we don't get mired in someone else's controversy. Conversely, you could add a second sentence stating, again simply, X-15 Test pilot Joe Walker was the first American to reach space twice when he completed his second flight above 100 km on August 22, 1963. or something like that so that you continue to refer to the issue. Ckruschke (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

IMO there's another aspect to consider, related to the common understanding (or lack of) the term "astronaut", namely, there is disagreement. WP can serve to educate, not only inform. So the existence of the controversy (or confusion) should be highlighted & explained, not deleted. (Not to say anybody's been advocating deletion.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with my wording? [1] -- ke4roh (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact I find "rocket to outer space" a bit too Buck Rogers, nothing. (I don't have anything better ATM. :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A can that needed opening, nonetheless.

My use of "NASA Astronaut" was intended to mean something similar to "a member of NASA Astronaut Corps" (which Joe Walker was not) and not "an astronaut working for NASA" (which, arguably, he was). I didn't consider the distinction between what would be considered a test pilot vs astronaut at the time. Regardless, we should use the contemporary definition of "astronaut" just as any other term. By that definition, Walker would certainly be an astronaut; a man trained to operate a spacecraft.

Perhaps a better (and more notable) way to define Grissom's achievement would be to frame him as the first person to make an orbital spaceflight twice. Would everyone agree that the distinction between suborbital and orbital flight is more important than the clubs each man belonged to? -- Rob (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree, the can needed opening.

"Grissom was the first person to make an orbital spaceflight twice" would be inaccurate, because he never made two orbital flights; his first flight was suborbital (and of course, he never lived to make his second orbital flight.)

The word astronaut remains ambiguous; it refers both to persons engaged in the business of making space flights, and to anyone who happens to cross the 100 km boundary, as defined by the IAF for the purpose of tracking records. I don't think there is a "contemporary (did you mean modern?) definition of astronaut."

I suppose Walker might be considered to qualify for the first definition because of the Air Force Man In Space Soonest program, but that obviously had died on the vine by the time he made his X-15 flights, so I think, not really.

I don't think it's a matter of which club they belong to, and it's not necessary to use the word "astronaut" in the reference here to Walker; we just say he was the first person to reach space twice.

The bottom line is, are there any objections (or more positively, suggested improvements) to the way the wording stands now in the Gus Grissom article? Notice the phrase "NASA astronaut" is wikilinked to the NASA corps. Also, check out Joseph A. Walker; should we move the discussion there? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the place for it, but while we're discussing "astronaut", there's something else we might want to deal with here (as well as more broadly, elsewhere): when someone became an astronaut. That is, before a flight, or after. IIRC, the Sov/Russian practise was to award cosmonaut only after a flight, while astronaut was awarded upon completing training. IMO this deserves mention somewhere. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming in very late to this debate. To say that Grissom was "the first NASA astronaut to fly in space twice", is very misleading (for reasons stated above, that Walker flew for NASA and achieved the altitude required for astronaut status). I just did an edit that I hope everyone sees to satisfy the valid points on both sides. The statement in question now reads:

He was the second American to fly in space, and the first member of the NASA Astronaut Corps to fly in space twice.

The clarifying info about Walker is packed into this Note:

1. ^ In 1963, NASA test pilot Joe Walker became the first person to fly twice in space, defined as >100km, while flying the X-15).

It reduces the ambiguity to clear statements of fact. Instead of a reader needing to hover over "NASA astronaut" to see that it links to the Astronaut Corps and then having to figure out the distinction, the presentation is now straightforward and incontestable. Joe Walker's achievement is stated plainly in a parenthetical, with respect to the fact that he was flying within the community of test pilots, and there's no need to call Walker an astronaut, but Walker's accomplishment is recognized as well as the definition (>100km), as well as the vehicle (X-15) as distinct from the IRBM/ICBM boosters.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Aftermath

I remember reading (don't remember where, quite possibly when the Liberty Bell 7 was touring) that Grissom felt rejected when he didn't get the same kind of attention that Alan Shepard received earlier - trip to the White House and ticker-tape parade. Being followed by John Glenn, who also received a hero's welcome, supposedly acerbated his feelings.Jtyroler (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This was portrayed in the book The Right Stuff. Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

"Marina Grissom" on the Moon?

A landmark on the Moon is called Marina Grissom.

This is uncited, and a Google search doesn't give anything likely (one web page for "International Space Hall of Fame", but no sources.) Can someone provide a reference to put this back? Who was "Marina Grissom?" What sort of a "landmark" would it be? Is "marina" the diminutive form of the Latin mare ("sea")? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grissom (crater). It is a landmark on the Moon.--Debouch (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for providing something verifiable. However, it apparently is a crater (could be called a feature), not a "landmark" which is being used here as a peacock or weasel word. (I also find it very interesting that the exact same phrase "a landmark on the Moon" is used in the few Google hits I was able to find for "Marina Grissom.") The pertinent definitions of landmark are: "1: an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land; 2a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality; 4: a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest". And there is still no indication of what the word "Marina" refers to. I'll put it back, with a wikilink to the crater article. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War II service?

I notice that Grissom's headstone at Arlington National Cemetery identifies him as having served in World War II.[2] This seems entirely feasible to me, as Grissom would have been 19 by war's end. Yet it is not mentioned in any of his official bios. The fact that he was already 24 by the time he earned his BS at Purdue would also seems to support this, since returning World War II vets often entered college after the war on the G.I. Bill.

Anyone know? I'd imagine mistakes on headstones at Arlington are a rarity—especially on such a high-profile burial. If he served, it deserves mentioning. —xanderer (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides, even though he was only 19 at war's end, the draft was still on, and a lot of guys had to do their usual terms of service on into peacetime. Pithecanthropus (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a little bit about his service—stateside—in the Army Air Corps during the war and added it to the article. It could still use some clarification, however. —xanderer (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to the Talk page to specifically ask why it's called "Army Air Forces" in the article when I know for sure it was still called Army Air Corps at that time. This appears to be an appropriate place to pose that query. Darr247 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually AAC before the war, change (IIRC) in 1941. You're right to ask it here, tho. (I still rebel at "Forces", myself... ;) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Master Mason"

The only citation for this was an image of Gus Grissom with the words saying he was a Masonic Astronaut. Please tell me this isn't enough of a citation... seriously. I'm quite sure my image of "Clapton is God" would be summarily removed if I were to use it to claim that Eric Clapton was an Omnipotent deity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.123.15 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Clapton is widely accepted to be a Guitar God, so... ;p Then, as here, an actual source is required (let alone for a claim of deification ;p). I could just as well prepare a picture of myself captioned King of the Wild Frontier; it wouldn't make me Davy Crockett. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gus Grissom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing AWARDS AND HONORS items addition request

On https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gus_Grissom#Awards_and_honors

Please someone with the time and wiki-tables code know-how add to his military awards:

1.) The Air Force Longevity Service Award

   between his Korean Service Medal and United Nations Korea Medal, and

2.) The Good Conduct Medal (United States) (ARMY version --earned in his days in the United States Army Air Forces)

   between the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and American Campaign Medal

These ribbons are plainly visible on the period photo widely seen on WP: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Gus_Grissom_photo_portrait_head_and_shoulders.jpg

I don't know the ranking --wheather NASA awards properly go atop military ones (like the current unadjusted ribbon rack shows) or not. I'd appreciate in this thread input from someone who knows. But the big thing is, for historical accuracy, adding those missing military ribbons to the rack please.

Thanks! Cramyourspam (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for military awards

@Hawkeye7 and JustinTime55: For Gus' Air Force Master Astronaut badge, I cannot find a citation. Is there a good place to look up official military records of awards? Or anything else in general to help me out here? Bonus points for teaching me how to fish. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're having trouble because it is wrong. Whereas the other services have only one type of astronaut wings, in the USAF the Astronaut badge is issued at the three levels associated with the wearer's Aeronautical rating, i.e., Pilot, Senior Pilot or Command Pilot. Gus was a command pilot, so his astronaut wings, the first to be awarded,[3] had the star and wreath above of a Command Pilot. Which is what the article shows, but not what it says. From that, we can easily find a source for his Air Force Command Astronaut Wings. Change the article to say this instead of "Master".(use this source) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have had only the senior version when he first got them in 1961.[4] Which matches the picture of Captain Grissom we have in the article. I get it; he earned his wings in 1951, so he would not have racked up 15 years until 1966, alkthough he already had his 3,000 hours in 1959. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gus Grissom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid single sentence paras as in the 2nd para of Project Gemini

Done Kees08 (Talk)

~~2nd para of Naming of the Molly Brown is uncited~~

Done, can't believe how easily I found it this time. I looked before and could not. Kees08 (Talk)

~~Avoid single sentence paras in Death section. Also some cites needed.~~

Done, except for the burial one, I think it looks fine on its own, but I can be persuaded. Kees08 (Talk)

Done with the citations as well, deleted the portions I could not find citations for, then blended the paragraphs so the flowed a little better. Kees08 (Talk)

~~Also would it be worth putting in what his kids grew up to do? Is there a source for this? (like a legacy?)~~

I think per WP:BLP, since they are not notable themselves, we should not. I also removed their specific birth dates for the same reason. Kees08 (Talk)

Fair enough - I just thought if any of them had gone into an industry and/or reflected publicly on their father or said it influenced what they'd done it'd be nice. Agree with removing birthdates. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the prose in the first 3 sections or so comes across as a little stilted as there are a lot of shortish sentences. I can't really single out any one sentence as problematic but joining a few together might be good. But most of the article is a nice read. Nice job! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

- looking back now I can't see anything actionable, so will leave that. Might be worth another set of prose eyes if heading to FAC.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- nice read. Possible FAC in future...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I do plan on taking this to FAC as a part of my goal to get the Mercury 7 astronauts as a featured topic. I had the GOCE take a go at the article a few months ago, but I will go through it myself as well. I have a little work to do on the references to get them all in the same format as well. I have a couple of books on Grissom, I will see if there is anything notable his family said that should be included. It would be nice to have some quotations or something. I had classes in both Grissom and Chaffee Halls on my journey to becoming an aerospace engineer, so it was really neat to work on their articles and read books on them. Still more to read and work on until I get them to FAC. Thanks again for the review! If you have any sweeping comments on what the article needs to get to FAC, I would love to hear them. I have a couple of articles at A-class review, but have not taken any to FAC yet so I might be missing some big things. Thanks again! Kees08 (Talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: ok, I guess some details that could be expanded are personal - inspiration etc. I also don't get a sense of what inspired him to try out for NASA. Stuff like that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]