[Moderators, Please lock]Who is best Mercury Astronuat???

[ZooNamedGames]

I agree with this. We would have accomplished a lot more for a lot less money if we had used unmanned rockets. The more time and effort we spent on getting men into space, the more we lost.

Gus Grissom was my favorite.

Well then in that case forget Neil, Luna 9 was the moment in time never to forget. That's your belief in a nutshell.

[Red Iron Crown]

There is definitely a place for manned space exploration. If nothing else, it increases public support of space programs. Apollo 11 vs Luna 9 is a good example of that.

[ZooNamedGames]

Well at least we came to an agreement... Right 'gents?

[Nikolai]

We would have accomplished a lot more for a lot less money if we had used unmanned rockets. The more time and effort we spent on getting men into space, the more we lost.

It's hard to make legitimate and useful comparisons that show statements like these to be true, but let me suggest something anyway: Compare the scientific return per dollar on the unmanned lunar programs (Surveyor and Ranger) versus the manned lunar program (Apollo) of the same time period, as measured by the number of, say, scientific papers relying on and citing information derived from the programs. Which comes out ahead?

I think you'll find Apollo the clear winner here. Not to mention that it gave us useful information for creating a permanent presence in space if the human race should ever want to do that, which unmanned programs can never completely do up to the point of final analysis.

Yes, Apollo was wasteful; we were in a race, so it wasn't the smartest way to explore space or use a manned space program. But depending on what you think space exploration is for, I think it's relatively easy to show that even though it was vastly more expensive, Apollo was also vastly more cost-effective.

EDIT: Oh, and Gordo. For much the same reason that everyone else who's voted for Cooper has done so. Since the question is about the best Mercury astronaut, and the job description is pretty narrow (fly a Mercury capsule in space), it's an easy call; anything they may or may not have done in other capacities under other job titles is, in my mind, a separate question.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Nikolai
Added answer to original question

[ZooNamedGames]

It's hard to make legitimate and useful comparisons that show statements like these to be true, but let me suggest something anyway: Compare the scientific return per dollar on the unmanned lunar programs (Surveyor and Ranger) versus the manned lunar program (Apollo) of the same time period, as measured by the number of, say, scientific papers relying on and citing information derived from the programs. Which comes out ahead?

I think you'll find Apollo the clear winner here. Not to mention that it gave us useful information for creating a permanent presence in space if the human race should ever want to do that, which unmanned programs can never completely do up to the point of final analysis.

Yes, Apollo was wasteful; we were in a race, so it wasn't the smartest way to explore space or use a manned space program. But depending on what you think space exploration is for, I think it's relatively easy to show that even though it was vastly more expensive, Apollo was also vastly more cost-effective.

EDIT: Oh, and Gordo. For much the same reason that everyone else who's voted for Cooper has done so. Since the question is about the best Mercury astronaut, and the job description is pretty narrow (fly a Mercury capsule in space), it's an easy call; anything they may or may not have done in other capacities under other job titles is, in my mind, a separate question.

Ok. I see. However I just want to point out, the biggest explosions in space technology came during wars. The V2 was designed by the Nazis during WW2. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo took place during the COLD WAR. Wars inspire the most for new technology and ways to do things. Mass plague (such as the black death) can also cause this, but the most common thing to inspire it is war. Look at history.... It's true.

[Red Iron Crown]

Ok. I see. However I just want to point out, the biggest explosions in space technology came during wars. The V2 was designed by the Nazis during WW2. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo took place during the COLD WAR. Wars inspire the most for new technology and ways to do things. Mass plague (such as the black death) can also cause this, but the most common thing to inspire it is war. Look at history.... It's true.

Sad but true.

[ZooNamedGames]

Sad but true.

Yeah. Technical innovation typically comes at a price, but that because the human condition has it where if a person doesn't like it, their brain works to fix it. Then they do... That's why war inspires it. To be better than the other... So they believe. Plague.. It inspires to recreate the happy way of life PRIOR to the mass death... People do this... It's a sad fact.

[Nikolai]

However I just want to point out, the biggest explosions in space technology came during wars.

I don't contest this. Rocket technology has thus far ridden largely on the coattails of war. This is not a new observation.

It is, however, cause to seek to redeem it. (This is, I think, why things like Project Plowshare and Project Orion were proposed. Scientists, engineers, and technicians who understood nuclear power must have felt that technology borne of such destructive impulse must surely be usable for the benefit of mankind, somehow.) It has been the case thus far, but whether it continues to be the case is a matter of choice, and not necessarily inevitable.

[ZooNamedGames]

I don't contest this. Rocket technology has thus far ridden largely on the coattails of war. This is not a new observation.

It is, however, cause to seek to redeem it. (This is, I think, why things like Project Plowshare and Project Orion were proposed. Scientists, engineers, and technicians who understood nuclear power must have felt that technology borne of such destructive impulse must surely be usable for the benefit of mankind, somehow.) It has been the case thus far, but whether it continues to be the case is a matter of choice, and not necessarily inevitable.

Oh Definately. If you look at NASA, most of the rockets used (and if I remember correctly for the Russian space program) were used as prior nuclear ICBMs. Like the Redstone, Atlas and Titan. I believe the only rocket DESIGNED for space exploration (at that time) was the Saturn rocket family. So the statement, "The first astronaut was sitting onto of a nuclear weapon" however partially false, however the internal meaning of the statement, is STARTLING true.

[KASASpace]

Oh Definately. If you look at NASA, most of the rockets used (and if I remember correctly for the Russian space program) were used as prior nuclear ICBMs. Like the Redstone, Atlas and Titan. I believe the only rocket DESIGNED for space exploration (at that time) was the Saturn rocket family. So the statement, "The first astronaut was sitting onto of a nuclear weapon" however partially false, however the internal meaning of the statement, is STARTLING true.

Redstone wasn't an ICBM, unless right next to the continent.

The orbital missions were on an Atlas LV-3b, which wasn't exactly reliable. It took guts.

[KASASpace]

I agree with this. We would have accomplished a lot more for a lot less money if we had used unmanned rockets. The more time and effort we spent on getting men into space, the more we lost.

Gus Grissom was my favorite.

Manned rockets were needed in that era. Satellites could only do so much. :|

Say, an experiment where you needed to do some really complicated stuff.

A satellite might have needed a huge computer, and thus a huge rocket.

But, the human brain is a huge computer in a tightly packed spot......

And, also, the USA was in a space race with Russia.

And what about orbit-dropped nukes?

Personally, I wouldn't have wanted a probe to control that....

[ZooNamedGames]

Redstone wasn't an ICBM, unless right next to the continent.

The orbital missions were on an Atlas LV-3b, which wasn't exactly reliable. It took guts.

Well, I hope you get the idea. The rockets they used were (mostly) prior missile designs. Do you get the point?

True Atlas was dangerous, but wasn't it the Titan in where every 1 in 5 Titan rockets failed? I think so...

[KASASpace]

Well, I hope you get the idea. The rockets they used were (mostly) prior missile designs. Do you get the point?

True Atlas was dangerous, but wasn't it the Titan in where every 1 in 5 Titan rockets failed? I think so...

I get the point out of all this.

I'm just saying Redstone wasn't an ICBM.

It was a missile however.

There's actually a launch compilation where a bunch of Atlas rockets fail. I think they played that in The Right Stuff

(I have that movie).

The Titan did fail a lot, and it was a true miracle it didn't take lives during Gemini.

[ZooNamedGames]

I get the point out of all this.

I'm just saying Redstone wasn't an ICBM.

It was a missile however.

There's actually a launch compilation where a bunch of Atlas rockets fail. I think they played that in The Right Stuff

(I have that movie).

The Titan did fail a lot, and it was a true miracle it didn't take lives during Gemini.

Yeah, I remember the scenes with all the rockets failing.

The reason the Titans DIDN'T fail during Gemini was because they added so many redundant after redundant systems, so that if 3 systems failed, there was another to replace it. Thats why.

[Brotoro]

Lots of categories! Examples:

Short Range Ballistic Missile - Redstone

Medium Range Ballistic Missile - Jupiter

Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile - Thor

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile - Atlas

All used later as parts of space launch vehicles.

[Tex]

I'd cast my vote for Gus. He'd definitely be the most experienced by the time of Apollo. If Apollo 1 hadn't happened, then perhaps he'd have been on the moon ahead of the other guys!

R.I.P. Gus, Roger, and Ed.

(BTW, they were making fun of the already-known safety problems of the Block 1 CM here. If only...)

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd cast my vote for Gus. He'd definitely be the most experienced by the time of Apollo. If Apollo 1 hadn't happened, then perhaps he'd have been on the moon ahead of the other guys!

R.I.P. Gus, Roger, and Ed.

http://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/b4bae4c252.jpg

(BTW, they were making fun of the already-known safety problems of the Block 1 CM here. If only...)

That picture is definitely haunting given how things worked out. A real loss for the program.

[ZooNamedGames]

That picture is definitely haunting given how things worked out. A real loss for the program.

Yeah, but the crew KNEW the problems prior to the test (hence the picture). North America knew too, but they did very little. Things like the wrench proved how little concern that had.

[xcorps]

And, also, the USA was in a space race with Russia.

A race that nobody won. We got to the moon first, and it proved nothing except that we had more will to get there first. We solved some engineering problems. They solved some engineering problems. For what? What problems with humanity could we have solved if the money and brainpower spent elsewhere?

Of every three dollars spent on research and development in the United States in 1963, one went for defense, one for space, and the remaining one for all other research purposes, including private industry and medical research. Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo RnD to medical research? Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo research to energy RnD?

[ZooNamedGames]

A race that nobody won. We got to the moon first, and it proved nothing except that we had more will to get there first. We solved some engineering problems. They solved some engineering problems. For what? What problems with humanity could we have solved if the money and brainpower spent elsewhere?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/SpaceRace.jpg

Of every three dollars spent on research and development in the United States in 1963, one went for defense, one for space, and the remaining one for all other research purposes, including private industry and medical research. Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo RnD to medical research? Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo research to energy RnD?

*chokes* Ummm.... Really? Really? Do you not realize that NASA is a government program? Besides! NASA brings in more money than the rest of the whole government. NASA (in its history) has spent LESS than 1 trillion dollars. We are in a 10t debt. That debt was made PRIOR to NASA's effect.

Besides all the money that NASA spends RETURNS to the US. There's a pic that reminds of what you said, but sadly, the person who made your comment, looked like a dumbass in the end. Realize that NASA GAINS money to the government, because it has tourist dollars, unlike say the Great Congress building experience (doesn't exist.... Thankfully)

[xcorps]

*chokes* Ummm.... Really? Really? Do you not realize that NASA is a government program? Besides! NASA brings in more money than the rest of the whole government. NASA (in its history) has spent LESS than 1 trillion dollars. We are in a 10t debt. That debt was made PRIOR to NASA's effect.

Besides all the money that NASA spends RETURNS to the US. There's a pic that reminds of what you said, but sadly, the person who made your comment, looked like a dumbass in the end. Realize that NASA GAINS money to the government, because it has tourist dollars, unlike say the Great Congress building experience (doesn't exist.... Thankfully)

If you are going to insult, you should have the facts straight. A billion in revenue vs 19 billion in gross operating costs isn't MAKING money. You probably think NASA invented Velcro, Tang and Teflon too.

Don't go into business for yourself.

Edited April 5, 2014 by xcorps

[KASASpace]

A race that nobody won. We got to the moon first, and it proved nothing except that we had more will to get there first. We solved some engineering problems. They solved some engineering problems. For what? What problems with humanity could we have solved if the money and brainpower spent elsewhere?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/SpaceRace.jpg

Of every three dollars spent on research and development in the United States in 1963, one went for defense, one for space, and the remaining one for all other research purposes, including private industry and medical research. Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo RnD to medical research? Where would we be if we had allocated a third of that Apollo research to energy RnD?

Actually, nobody did win, and I never said someone did.

Although, I think Apollo was a waste of hardware and money.

Some proposed using Gemini to go to the moon, and it would have been many billions of dollars cheaper.

[KASASpace]

The reason the Titans DIDN'T fail during Gemini was because they added so many redundant after redundant systems, so that if 3 systems failed, there was another to replace it. Thats why.

Well, yeah.

However, Gemini 6 did fail for the first launch.

It didn't takeoff. However no one got injured, it was just some faulty thing going on.

[ZooNamedGames]

I feel so sad for one of the Mercury astronauts.... I've had this forums for almost a week and have gotten nearly 50 voters.... And there STILL isn't a vote for poor Malcom Carpenter!! I feel sad for him, no one favors him

[KASASpace]

I feel so sad for one of the Mercury astronauts.... I've had this forums for almost a week and have gotten nearly 50 voters.... And there STILL isn't a vote for poor Malcom Carpenter!! I feel sad for him, no one favors him

Good point.

Didn't he use a lot of fuel on orbit and was stranded at sea for hours?