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. 239 …y in the manner that was de.mon@trated but by holding on to one end…
242
McDivitt
White
McDivitt
30 degrees south, and that sure isn't what we needed .
I think that there wan't any imagination used here .
I just feel that the people who were responsible for
perfonning thi s duty fell down on the job completely,
and did nothing whatsoever but t alk about it . When
we really got around to flying t his thing they didn ' t
have a thing for us . It turned out tha t t he peopl e
who finally ginned up the maps for us were the
people f rom the Department of Defense Off ice here
who were monitoring the thing from the technical
standpoint. I sort of felt that this target '
acquisition stuff was a function of FCSD , and as
a matter of fact the people who were concerned with
it led me to believe this. When we got around
to flying the flight, we found that there wasn't
any way to acquire these targets . They hadn ' t done
any work with it at all, so I think t hat this is
a real low point in the FCSD.
They didn't even have what I would consider a
satisfactory method of calling the i nfonnation up
to us.
No, to put it bluntlY, it was screwed up and un
worked upon. I think the planning for all the
other experiments was adequate.

Cases discussed

About this file

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