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. 17 …it, I 'd start pulsing a little harder. You'd hear a series of about five…
  • p. 267 …on your back is about five times harder than it is when you're sitting up…
243
White
McDi vitt
White
McDivitt
White
McDi vitt
We had one area where we were a bit too ambitious,
and this was in the stars for the Air Force D-9.
We reviewed this, also, so there was no lack of
pl anning. It just turned out that using these
stars in the sequence that we had for them ,with
the type of fuel constraints that we had imposed
upon us, we just couldn't effectively run the ex
periment without using a great deal of fuel.
Yes . And I think that this came about just because
of a lack of lmowledge on everyone's part , on just
what we could handle in the spacecraft and the
rates that the stars move through the skies .
That was something t hat we learned on this flight.
I think so . I think that's part of the qualitative
data that we brought back for D-9, but I do feel
that the pre-flight planning for D-6 was completely
inadequate . Anything else on a:n.y of the other ex
periments?
No , I think the other experiments were well briefed
to us . We understood them quite ~ell and I think
the procedures were well taken care of.
That's right . Let me clarify one thing. I t hink
t hat the technical aspect of D-6 was one of the
best briefed of all the experiments. The DOD people

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.