Documents / Official release

Astronaut Scientific Debriefings, 1962-1963

National Aeronautics and Space Administration · 1962 · 216 pages · text from the file's own layer

This NASA file of astronaut scientific debriefing papers from 1962 collects internal Office of Space Sciences material on the science observations made on early Mercury flights. A February 1962 memo from Maurice Dubin asks for more detail on John Glenn's report of luminous particles and the atmospheric horizon layer. A draft memo concludes that the particles were tied to the spacecraft and were not extraterrestrial. The file also holds a Los Alamos letter that attributes the high haze layer to nitrogen peroxide, and notes on Carpenter's airglow observations.

From the source:Release of 2026-06-12 This file contains memoranda, correspondence, reports, and other materials relating to contemporary scientific interest in investigating the nature of luminous phenomena reported by astronauts John Glenn and Walter Schirra during spaceflight. This collection includes transcripts from NASA interviews and debriefings with both astronauts regarding those observations. It also contains details relating to scientific observations of atmospheric phenomena, including brief descriptions of luminous particles, experiences while aboard spacecraft, and circa 1955 theoretical analysis of meteoric particles entering the atmosphere. Pages 34-35, 55-56, 57-63, 64-113, and 122-127 feature content relevant to the PURSUE initiative.

  • p. 68 …up just at t1:ie .last part c,f the ~n1Jtrt. ·It-was never ·close to…
  • p. 77 …I never saw it then• . Armstrong: It should ·have been closer on the dey side than…
  • p. 84 …I passed right over the vicinity of Los Angeles and San Diego and never saw them…
  • p. 96 …You never tire of looking at the sunsets. As the sun begins to get downI towards…
  • p. 99 …I never could see pattern structure above that. It is really not black. This is any…
  • p. 108 …I never realized that before just now. But it seemed to be almost full when it…
  • p. 109 …You never took two pictures of the same a~ea? That is, two overlapping '·. Yes, I…
  • p. 111 …I never had trouble handling pencil. I never had any trouble putting it where I wanted…
  • p. 123 …third stage and since then we have never had any troubleo Schirra - Sure p that's…
  • p. 146 …I told them to correc t it an d they never did . But anyway this is…
  • p. 163 …This was my prediction that I would turn i t of f and never turn it…
  • p. 167 …Tennyson - Is it correct then that this window of ours (Vicor window) has .never really been…
  • p. 168 …It wasn't Aldebaran, that ' s for sure. • Dubin - You say that you never saw your…
  • p. 175 …I know, you probably never went over snow or ice. Schirra - I looked up at the…
  • p. 176 …I have never had that opportunity, and I don't know that anybody ever will. Tennyson…
  • p. 180 …I never did have the
  • p. 181 …I have never seen this possibility discussed. Of course it also goes with the fact that…
  • p. 184 …Shoemaker - And how about Australia? Were you over there during daytime at all? Schirra - No, never…
  • p. 186 …Gill - You never would see it then. Shoemaker - In photographs I've seen from previous flights…
  • p. 188 …ill - You never saw any large view of water then? In other wor ds, you didn…
  • p. 192 …Dubin - And so you never saw any? Schirra - So I suspect that you have to see…
  • p. 199 …That 0 s how I satisfied myself I never would even though they had a beautiful…
  • p. 201 …and it "sailed pendent of the spacecraft. never could get _Scientists here b~lieve the again…
55
Nordberg - I am curious if you ha<l a chance to observe variations
of brightness around the horizon; around as far as possible
(during) both in day and nighto
Schirra - Again, the field of view isn't that big o I know just
what you are asking faro I didn ' t take the liberty of making
these, what would amount toi large yaw changes. I did no t have
the opportunity to observe that transition. The field of view I
had did not show these various changes .
O'Keefe - You see, this is like 30 degrees, that's half a radius. I don't
t hink he could see much more than you could see overhe ad at ni ght.
Schirra - Yes.
ovKeefe - It means that if he doesn't see patterns in the airglow
from a single place at night, unless he has the freedom to yaw al l
around, he doesn't have the opportunity of tracing out the rather
large patterns which must be in the airglow. They are of the orde r of
a thousand miles in diameter .
Nordberg - I was also curious about daytime, because of the
forward scattering and backscattering and 90° to the sun and
actually, in daytime if your turnaround maneuvers arep s ay , t hey
don 9 t go around in a plane tangential to the surface of the earth ?
They go around in a radial plane, don 9 t they?
Schirra - Well, this is the awful thing about our vehicle. All
the thrusters are not aligned through the body axis, thereforep
you get two and three axes when you ask for one. If you were
trying to track the horizon, using the yaw input, say the horizon
being like an arc here, you go like this. Then you ' ve got to roll p

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 216 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.