Documents / Official release

Preliminary Gemini 4 Crew Debriefing, Part II, 1965

National Aeronautics and Space Administration · 1965-06-09 · 290 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is a preliminary transcript of Part II of the Gemini 4 (GT-4) flight crew debriefing, prepared by NASA's Spacecraft Operations Branch, Flight Crew Support Division, and dated June 18, 1965. The debriefing began aboard the recovery ship USS Wasp and ended at the Manned Spacecraft Center. In it, astronauts McDivitt and White discuss how the spacecraft systems performed, including the platform, OAMS, RCS and control modes. They also cover operational checks, visual sightings, experiments, mission planning and training, and give recommendations for future crews.

From the source:Release of 2026-06-12 Incident: 6/9/65, North Atlantic Ocean. This document is a preliminary transcript (Part II) derived from voice recordings of the Gemini 4 flight crew debriefing taken aboard the recovery ship, USS Wasp, on June 9, 1965. Part II of this document contains the “Visual Sightings” section of the debriefing (pages 196-224), where astronauts James McDivitt and Edward White describe their observations while aboard the spacecraft.

  • p. 167 …The local l andmarks were the Mediterranean on one side , the Red Sea on the other…
  • p. 168 …Canal between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, and followed the river in. I started this…
182 60~~FIDE~~TIAL
concerned, we got a little bit during the night
and just about nothing during the day . We ran
also a sunrise and sunset check and we made the
long counts as indicated, and listened for any
return on all our HF tests from Thule and Elmendorf .
We could hear Elmendorf qalling us , but they were at
one time barely readable , and most of the time you
could hear somebody trying to call, but they
were very broken and difficult to read . More
detailed data is in the Flight Data Book.
9. 7 Orbit Navigation Check
McDivitt Following the format in the debrief ing guide, I
think that the maps and overlays that we had
were excellent . I f elt that the concept was a
very good concept. It gave us a good check on
where we were throughout the flight as far as
accurate times went. We used a t times the other
track charts tha t were printed before the flight .
We found that these were off some fair amount ,
although they furnished good information also .
Once we had the time error that we could apply to
times listed on t he map , we found that we were
able to use t hese quite well also. I think t hat
the map and t he overlays tha t we used in our

Cases discussed

About this file

Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 290 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.