The launch of Gemini 6 - 15th December 1965. Onboard are astronauts Wally Schirra (Command Pilot) and Tom Stafford (Pilot). This is the CBS coverage of the event.
@@rwboa22 I don't know where you'd need to put the speakers to make them survive the launch, and I also don't know if there are speakers powerful enough to match the loudness of a rocket launch. :P
My dad used to wake me up early in the morning in the West Coast (San Fernando Valley) to watch every launch. I was just a kid, but I saw every launch of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, through Apollo 13. Then I was in the Navy and missed a few.
Yes Pandora's Angel, Love that whoop. I wish launches were done as straight-forward now as they were then, no "the dream continues" bs. The engineers just launch, go, have a martini lunch and do it again a month later.
I remember watching this very liftoff as a young child. We have lost quite a bit of the video over the years. I remember the sky as a pure, vivid blue. The rocket itself was a more pure silver/gray with clean white paint. I remember Walter Cronkite’s voice very vividly. On the other hand, I didn’t hear the turbo pumps back then. Such are memories.
Just to let the younger people know, the actual TV images at the time were much better than this video. I am glad they preserved this but it doesn't accurately reflect what people were able to watch at the time.
I was in high school English class, surreptitiously listening to it on my very small transistor radio. Heady times! There had just recently been an on the pad abort after the engines had started, no one knew if the astronauts would have to bail out. And with the sudden change in flight plans, the launch of Gemini 7 was only days away, for the first planned in orbit rendezvous flights. Those were the days when NASA could, and DID, do amazing things. Amazing what you can do with a slide rule, and can't do with a supercomputer.
The one inch VTR tapes they used to record broadcasts instantly lost about 500 lines of resolution. The National Archives has a section called Record Group 255 in Maryland. It is a huge building of NASA archives and broadcast footage. There’s thousands of these tapes that have never even been digitized yet. I hope they digitize and clean them up someday before they’re too degraded.
I love the on-screen display. It was just a billboard with a label and an analog flop clock, merged into the TV feed. Computer-generated OSDs were decades away.
And this was one of CBS' first attempts in telecasting a NASA space launch in full color [in September 1965, the network had finally "converted" to color in most of their news programming and coverage of live events, but about half of their prime-time and daytime schedules were still in black and white].
I've had the pleasure of meeting Stafford a few times in the last 25 years. An amazing generation of flyers and astronauts, the like of which we'll never see again.
The portion of the Titan II booster stage that was recovered was from Gemini 5.The fragment was on display at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Superb coverage - thanks for this ! Very classy production for 1965. This is better in some ways to the later Apollo era, and way better than the coverage in the 80's, which has dated badly.
Star 1958- I agree with your comment. And, yes I can admire them. However, I believe they were almost too brave, in a way. Reason: They paved the way for the shuttle. And, paved for the way for others to take similar risks. And, this is unsustainable over any period of time. During the Roger's commission it was determined the shuttle ran a risk of ~1% of a catastrophe on every launch. Certainly, one would have to be brave to take a 1% risk of death on a single event; but overall there should not be such a risk on manned vehicles nowadays, even if the crew were willing to take such a risk. And, there is no way known to go to orbit with significantly less risk (1 in 1000 might be acceptable but it should be even less; like 1 in 10000. Still there is no way to even reduce the risk to 1 in 500). What I am trying to say- manned launches should be halted and space work should be done solely by robotic vehicles. I will receive a lot of internet flax on this; I am sure. But, I still stand by my opinion that humans should not go into space, at present anyway.
@@Scottrchrdsn The problem with shuttle was designing a vehicle with no realistic means of escape in the event of damage or malfunction. Mercury and Apollo had their escape rocket towers, and Gemini got by with ejection seats, but even if they were a little "sketchy" by comparison, at least they were there, and designed to work. Shuttle had ejection seats the first four flights, but they removed them after that, once the shuttle system was "certified" for flight (which was a foolish notion in itself, as if nothing could EVER go wrong once it was past the "testing" phase... In short, NASA got overconfident in their abilities to never have a failure in flight). Shuttle's abort methods were basically a joke... They weren't realistic. During the SRB burn *NO* escape plan or abort was possible... Hence Challenger was unsurvivable from the moment of liftoff. There was even talk of using the first shuttle flight to demonstrate an RTLS abort (return to launch site abort) and Commander John Young shot that idea down real quick... He said it was "risking likely death to avoid certain death" (IOW not likely to work, probably die in the attempt, but a little better than nothing if it's your last option). RTLS depends entirely on the SSME shuttle engines all working perfectly and a good SRB separation, (so if all that's true, WHY would you need to abort?). Once the SRBs were gone, the shuttle, still burning the three main engines, would do a backflip (like the boost-back burn the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stages do now to return to the launch site to land), then shut down the engines once headed back to Florida, jettison the external tank, and glide back to the runway to land. If the shuttle was damaged and couldn't glide, it was unsurvivable. Bailouts with parachutes options came after Challenger as a stop gap method to address the problem, but STILL was only possible from a stable glide, which is a huge assumption to make for a vehicle having to abort. No escape was possible during reentry, but then that's been true throughout the space program, both US and Russian... Hence Columbia was unsurvivable. The Soviets lost three cosmonauts on reentry due to a pressurization failure (Soyuz 11) and of course Kamarov on Soyuz 1 due to tangled parachutes (the last of many severe problems) and nearly lost another Soyuz due to the service module not separating properly and it reentering with the capsule nose first, instead of heatshield first... The front hatch was hot and the seals were smoking before the service module finally broke free and the capsule inverted heat shield first, cooling off the hatch...) The lesson is, "never design a launch vehicle and spacecraft without realistic survivable abort capabilities". Later! OL J R
@@lukestrawwalker 3 SSME's are NOT required for successful RTLS. At first NASA was too bold in regards to safety, but was forced to worry about making the Orbiter Vehicles(OV) so much bigger than they wanted due to teh demands of the military. At first STS was a shirts sleeves environment. If the crew of Challenger during STS-51L was wearing proper Launch and Entry Suits at least some of them would have gotten out in time. The incident occurred at 48,000 feet the Crew Cabin continued to climb to 72,000 feet before it began falling back to Earth. If they were wearing pressure suits, the crew on the Flight Deck could have blown the upper panel just behind the Commander in the roof and escaped, the crew on the flight deck could have blown the side hatch and escaped and parachuted back to Earth. In fact on all missions after STS-51L the very last cue card on the flight manual lists getting out of teh Orbiter during Challenger type incidents depending on when they occur. 1) Before Go at Throttle Up 2) After Go at throttle to SRB sep. and 3) After SRB separation. The key for STS-51L was to be wearing a pressure suit AND proper helmet/facemask to allow for proper pressure for effective respiration. As it was, all crew would have been unconscious within seconds of cabin depressurization. Even the 3 that had their Personal Egress Air Packs would have still blacked out as the PEAPs, as the Egress portion of PEAPs alludes to, is that it supplies emergency oxygen to allow crew to get out of the Orbiter even in thick smoke while still on the ground, or back on the ground after landing. They would NOT provide air at the correct pressures necessary at high altitudes. All of the available aborts Return To Launch Site RTLS, Transoceanic Abort Landing(TAL), the tiny window for Abort Once Around and Abort To Orbit(ATO) were all considered Intact Aborts, it was the contingency aborts that were dicey. The Powered Pitch Over during RTLS could be completed with just 2 SSME's, after the PPA the RTLS could be completed on a single engine. If all SSME's went out, that was a Black Zone and a loss of Crew/Vehicle was predicted. A dual engine failure would result in a TAL abort with the remaining engine thrusting at 109% or an East Coast Abort LAnding(ECAL). All aborts did require waiting for a good SRB sep. NASA did all it could with what it was given. If you want to eliminate all risks of human spaceflight, you simply don't attempt human spaceflight. You can die crossing the street, astronauts know the risks. We are getting WAY TOO hung up on safety. It's all about managing risk. Even Space Ex's new heavy lifters wont have an escape system.
Love watching these old launches. I have vague memories of Gemini and better with Apollo, particularly XI and 13. It felt different back then when we were in the Space Race.
Titan is probably my favourite lift vehicle. First one to have real staging, and not that halfassed Atlas style 'stage-and-a-half' where the sustainer had to carry the weight of fuel tankage of those shed boosters. And that awesome turbine whine on startup!
Is there a *cooler* rocket than the Titan II? I guess the Saturn V is a pretty close contender due to its magnitude and unmistakable silhouette but man…between the ignition sound, the minimalist shape and the chaotic looking, compartmentalized color scheme of the different components…the Titan II is easily my favorite space race rocket. Honorable mention going to the Atlas for its fiery intimidation factor.
"Gemini-6" was the Mission Name for the ORIGINAL mission. Once the Agena docking target vehicle didn't make it to orbit, and the new mission was devised, a new mission modification name was applied- Gemini-6A"
I think it was this Gemini flight where they actually recovered the first stage of the Titan, the ONLY time this ever happened (The Titan is a "fire in the hole" staging, where the 2nd stage fires up while still attached to the 1st stage, this usually destroys the 1st stage).
Aww the Golden Era of Manned Space Exploration. Just think, the computer that operates your car is more powerful than the computer on board the Gemini spacecraft, possibly more powerful than what they used at mission control.
What I like best about these liftoffs is that there is no flowery statements like "Liftoff! On a mission to explore the far reaches...etc." It's all business.
Sure doesn't take the old Titan II very long to generate enough power for liftoff. I served on a Titan II launch crew for 4 years back in the early 70's.
My guess (and it is only a guess) is that it is a sonic boom from the booster going through Max Q. It would take a few seconds for that sound to travel back to those at the Cape.
Gemini-Titan II launch vehicles used storable hypergolic propellants (Aerozine-50 fuel and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer) that ignited on contact with each other. At the moment of ignition you'll hear a high-pitched howl as the engines spool up to full power.
Originally a (1st) Docking in orbit mission. the Agena Target vehicle didnt reach orbit. so Gemini 6(A) and Gemini 7 were The first to vehicles to rendezvous in Orbit
Thank you so very much lunarmodule5. I have been so in love with the gemini/apollo space program.The space shuttles to me were a waste of time and money.We served a purpose in going to the moon.and back Right now as far as im concerned we serve NO purpose.I hope we go back there again someday,if not, then it was so worth it thank you again...
This was Gemini 6A. Gemini 6 was cancelled and given a new mission when the unmanned Agena docking vehicle exploded shortly after launch seven weeks earlier. Gemini 6A nearly ended in disaster when computers detected a problem and aborted the launch less than a second before liftoff, leaving Schirra and Stafford sitting atop a potential bomb, contemplating a possible ejection which would likely have killed them both.
Schirra made the on-the-spot decision not to eject, knowing full well he and Stafford might not get high enough for their parachutes to work, knowing even if they did the likelihood of injury in the landing that would make flight impossible for more than a year for either of them was high, knowing that it would waste a Gemini capsule. That man was as cool as an iceberg.
I think it is the sound of the pumps starting, it uses a hypergolic starter cartridge to get them going. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Rd180schematic.png
+Tristan Wassman No no no, you're right. The rocket does use RP1 and LOX as main propellants. The sound you hear, is the turbine spinning up to operational speed. And the way they do this involves a hypergolic (technically pyrophoric) fuel, namely Triethylaluminum (TEA). The fuel lines fill up with RP1 right before the TEA is released. Once exposed to air it combusts and ignites the RP1/LOX mixture which spools up the turbine with the audible noise. Once the turbine and fuel pumps are running combustion is sustained and liftoff can occur. The TEA is also responsible for the green flame shortly before ignition. You can read all that and even more at: spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/atlas-v-551/
It pisses me off that they don't just build a human rated rocket like this today. They could go to a much higher orbit than the Space Shuttle in 1965, and today it's just Space X lauching a car into space.
A former NASA administrator said that for the whole cost of the space shuttle program we could of had 6 Apollo flights a year including two moon trips.
I noticed that as well. It looks like that was also the case with Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas. I have never heard an explanation of why this was the case. Perhaps it was that the Saturn was more complex, so they timed the countdown for liftoff rather than ignition. It took about 8 seconds in the Saturn for the thrust to build up to the point where it had enough thrust to leave the ground, which was when those objects securing the rocket all had to release at the same time.
Interesting for the Gemini program, that the countdown was for the ignition, not the launch. They could have easily programmed the Titan to ignite at -0:03 seconds, then have launch at 0:00. This is what they did for Apollo-Saturn V.
TheJMascis666 If it never feels like that each time you watch a launch, any launch, even if you have seen it 100 times; it's time to find a new interest ;-)
Really didn't appreciate how First Man depicted spaceflight as a miserable horror show. Yes, it could be scary, yes, it was certainly dangerous, but that movie just made it look completely unpleasant and horrific in every way.
This video is an example of all the blabbing, hacking and other audio interference that Walter Cronkite was noted for. If he had kept his big liberal mouth shut during these broadcasts the audience would have appreciated him more.
Yeah. That must be why he was voted "The Most Trusted Man in America" several times. His carefully measured words following the Gemini 6 launch abort are often cited as one of the best TV anchor performances ever. What a doofus you are to inject your politics into this.
You are out of line with the doofus comment. I heard that he was voted "The Most Trusted Man in America" but what is the source of that statement. Was he voted that by the CBS board of directors?! He was certainly very hated by our troops in Vietnam; that is a fact Jack (or Russell)!! He certainly made an ass of himself for his support of Humphrey in the 1968 Presidential election. I guess people trusted "the most trusted man in America" so much that they elected Nixon instead!! As for his launch coverage; he constantly blathered much more than the other news anchors at those events, and was the reason why most people turned down the volume while the launch vehicle was going into orbit. Jules Bergman was much better than Cronkite, you prick.
Scottrchrdsn I appreciate all the comments on my videos - but do not think it that constructive to use foul language or any other form of abuse. While I appreciate both you POVs on this subject I do not appreciate abuse - please tone it down a bit and have the debate with manners to each others POV.
Russell S I appreciate all the comments on my videos - but do not think it that constructive to use foul language or any other form of abuse. While I appreciate both you POVs on this subject I do not appreciate abuse - please tone it down a bit and have the debate with manners to each others POV.
Scottrchrdsn Walter Cronkite was the go-to guy for information on the space program & making technical information accessible to the laymen. He had access to the astronauts that the other correspondents didn't have. He understood the training that the astronauts went through, having attempted some of the training himself & was an unabashed cheerleader for the space program. As for Vietnam, he had initially supported the war. He had a lot of respect for the troops, having covered the European Theater in WWII for UP (later UPI) & landing with the troops in a glider during the Invasion of Holland. But by 1968, the Tet Offensive made it clear that the commanding generals were overly optimistic about the war & the evidence showed that it would be a war of attrition & the South Vietnamese army could never hold the North Vietnamese troops back from overrunning the country. Cronkite had the guts to report that the best that could be hoped for was a stalemate & negotiated truce like in Korea. Johnson knew that it was true & that is why he initiated the Paris Peace Talks later that year. There is a recorded conversation in which Nixon & Kissinger acknowledge that the South Vietnamese government would fold & they were discussing ways to prop up the South until after Nixon's 1972 re-election. They wanted a "decent interval" before the inevitable collapse, so the American people would blame Thieu & not him. Too bad our troops didn't know this... millercenter.org/presidentialclassroom/exhibits/nixon-kissinger-and-the-decent-interval
