Launch of Alan Shepard On Mercury-Redstone 3 Freedom 7
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2024
- May 5, 1961 9:34am EST The formal countdown for the preparation for launching MR-3 started on the day previous to launch day. The countdown was actually split into two parts because previous experience had shown that it was preferable to run the countdown in two shorter segments and allow the launch crew of both the spacecraft and the launch vehicle to obtain some rest before starting the final preparation. The countdown started at 8:30am EST on May 4, 1961. All operations proceeded normally and were completed ahead of schedule. A build-in hold of approximately 15 hours was called at T-6 hours 30 minutes. During this time the various pyrotechnics were installed in the spacecraft and the hydrogen peroxide system was serviced.
The countdown was resumed at T-6 hours 30 minutes at 11:30pm EST on May 4, 1961. A built-in hold of 1 hour had been previously agreed upon at T-2 hours 20 minutes. This hold was to assure that spacecraft preparations had been completed before the astronaut was transported to the pad. The countdown proceeded with only minor delays until T-2 hours 20 minutes. At this time, final preparation of the spacecraft was conducted and the astronaut was apprised of the continuance of the countdown and transported to the Pad. The countdown was continued after the hold at T-2 hours 20 minutes and, except for some minor holds, the countdown continued until T-15 minutes. At this time it was determined that photographic coverage of the launch and flight could not be obtained because of low clouds near the launch area. Weather forecasters predicted that visibility would improve rapidly within 20 to 45 min. During this time, one of the 400hz power inverters to the launch vehicle had regulation problems. The count was recycled to the T-35 minute and holding mark and the count picked up 86 minutes later after the replacement of the inverter.
Again at T-15 minutes it was necessary to hold the count again to make a final check of the real-time trajectory computer. The countdown then picked up and proceeded until liftoff at 9:34am EST on 5/5/1961.
Those Mercury 7 guys had balls of steel. Amazing how they used to launch these guys in ballistic missiles
Reading 'The Right Stuff'. Reckon I'll be checking out a few more of these...
When Shep says "a lot smoother now", he had passed through high Q. Beyond the speed of sound. Good book. Light this candle.
i like how people try to prove this is a fake video, but they posting on the internet, with a phone that actively uses technologies learned from these studies.
yeah im sure they dont even know how many things we learned from space
Amazing how, with both video and audio, the quality is like it was launched yesterday.
I remember the day they launched that little rocket.
I think I do too. I had just turned three, two months earlier, and have this naggingly vague memory of my mother saying to me, "There's a man in this one!". Imagine, you could watch an entire NASA mission in hardly more time than it took you to eat your cheerios.
...little?
ya its so small
@@colinmontgomery1956 Redstone was like 83 feet tall and a Falcon 9 for example is about 208 feet
@@air_ , oh, O.K., thanks.
I was only 5 years old when Alan Shepard rocketed into the fringes of space but I still remember that day in May.
Compulsive liar
@@huntstostatic3580 What?
@@huntstostatic3580 explain please
You're on your way Jose.
The redstone rocket looks like a match stick compared to the Saturn 5. Rockets made a huge leap in the short amount of time.
A tiny rocket but with some big balls on top.
baby steps first but it lead to the Saturn5 and the moon landing just a little more than 8 years later
Forty seconds of waiting and video instantly goes to hell the moment the launch happens.
And the US Manned Space Program officially begins!!
'lets light this candle.'
I know it was weak, but I still love the Mercury Redstone rocket
It can send a human into orbit and that is enough for me, to be honest
Also, I like NASA used to think that the rocket was powerful and now both NASA and other companies are making crazy large rockets (like NASA's SLS rockets and SpaceX's Starship)
Why tf is all the text inside of each other
@@sharkcraft8568 No, it can't; in terms of military usage the Redstone was only an intermediate range ballistic missile, nowhere near piwerful enough to achieve orbit. But that's its charm; the MR missions were so minimal while still attaining the goal of a very brief spaceflight. I remember the day I learned that the Shepard and Grissom missions wete only suborbital and for some reason that's fascinated me ever since.
In a way it's like the Beatles at the Cavern or Star Club, when they weren't fully "there" yet.
It burned alcohol and LOX.
@@Pithecanthropus2483 exactly they wanted a couple maned test flights before sending an astronaut around the earth-after all all the original astronauts were test pilots first.
Imagine, literally, riding on the tip of a rocket. It's not scary looking backwards in time, but it's very daunting even now. Would you do it? This would be awfully intimidating...
Years and years of training and preparation and I would do it.
like going now is scary enough but being strapped to a jerryrigged MISSILE. yeah that takes some balls
It proves s
Shepard had the right stuff!
I, personaly won't do it. But the rocket other all is quite safe since if something is wrong, the abort tower will rescue the astronaut who is inside by pulling the capsule away from the rocket before it goes boom boom
Sure. I've got nothing to lose.
Despite the fact that the Redstone rocket can't accelerate a Mercury capsule to orbital velocity, it still does its roll to begin to fly horizontally which is necessary to achieve orbit. Why did they do this, instead of just having it go straight up, and then come back rather close to where it launched from? Height wise, it could achieve orbit, but not velocity wise (5000 mph from this rocket, they needed at least 17500 mph), and it did get up to 115 miles above Earth. We used to have an obviously unflown example of a Mercury-Redstone rocket at Michigan Space Center on the Campus of Jackson Community College in Jackson, MI. I was there back in the summer of 1984 when I was ten years old and saw this and many other examples of early spacecrafts. It was labeled MR7 which was a leftover because after Mercury-Redstone 4 they were flown on Atlas rockets to achieve orbital flight.
I believe they wanted to check out the Mercury system with a short suborbital flight before sending an astronaut into orbit-as for why it went out and splashed down in the Atlantic was probably because they weren't sure a Mercury capsule would survive landing on solid ground
What was that flash above 'freedom 7" at 1:38, and again to the left of it at 1:53?
Old cameras will have little glitches like that
@@vintageitems9847 , it wasn't an old camera, then.
Uhh it's called film. Specs of dirt and contamination during development and processing. Not too mention this likely isn't first generation negatives.
@@colinmontgomery1956 Film
That was on my 4th birthday
The little Redstone rocket looks more like an E ticket at Disneyland. Freedom 7. Liberty Bell 7. Friendship 7. Aurora 7. The capsule names of thd 4 Mercury flights. I was 10 years old.
John Boots, keep your ridiculous conspiracy theories to yourself.
John Boots is just desperate for attention. How could they possibly fake this film in 1961?
Looked at John Boots' channel, he's into Russell Brands views, how pathetic is that.
Not implying anything. But it is very clear that this video is composite. The rocket prop is shown against a still picture backdrop: There are no shadows from the light poles and strangely long shadows cast by the rocket and the structures in the foreground. The composition of the launch site is also strange, but this doesn't mean anything. Since it would be immediately apparent that the picture is composite once the rocket starts moving, they immediately did a close up cut to avoid a cartoonish launch effect.
The engineer doesn't know how a camera works
The Engineer You guys are obsessed with shadows aren't you.
No huge smoke trail? We’re rockets cleaner then? Now there’s a smoke trail all the way up.
No it just depends on what’s being burnt. The Redstone burnt a very different fuel that doesn’t release visible smoke, this is contrary to our other rockets which happens to use a different fuel. Especially when you add in the solid rocket boosters used on many rockets that release a lot of smoke.
@@dinostudios6579 Thanks for the info, I watched The Right Stuff series and I though they got the launch wrong, but after watching the real film I realized they did pretty good.
@@goobytron2888 No problem, glad I could be of use. I haven’t seen The Right Stuff yet, should I watch it?
@@dinostudios6579 Well... Yeager is not in it, so I think that sort of killed it in the beginning, that and a terrible CGI scene with f-104s in the beginning, After that it becomes a character drama that pretty much shows the astronauts as party boys.
Blah blah. Short answer is, No you shouldn’t watch it. If you stick it out, and give up on comparing it to the book or even the first film, it has some interesting story lines. But over all pretty disappointing. Not much “Right” and a lot of “Stuff” the series so far, ends with Shepherd’s launch and recovery.
The acting is good, but everything that made the astronauts interesting is sort of gone. I couldn’t tell the difference between Cooper and Shepard half the time.
I’d be interested to hear someone’s opinion of it though. To me it was about a 5/10.
👩🏻🚀
@@goobytron2888 Hmm ok thanks. I guess I’ll just stick to something else.
Very good for a stick with an engine.
- … five point five … “cabin” ? -
5-5-‘61 ..
Take that, Soviets
Gagarin orbited the Earth; Shepherd only went 300 miles.
"Take that, Soviets"....really?
Is this a video of the actual event, or was any part of it reconstructed or reenacted? It almost seems too clear
Pithecanthropus2483 This wasnt 1850. The US (especially NASA) had decent cameras
Believe it or not, but there were things called cameras before you were born.
@@jameswilkinson259 Very true considering motion picture cameras were invented in the 1890s and I was born in 1958. I have seen a lot of historic footage of early NASA missions and I have never seen one of this mission as clear as this. I'm not saying it isn't genuine; I'm just surprised by the quality.
@@Pithecanthropus2483 I apologize for being rude. For some reason your first comment gave me the impression that you were some kind of debunker and incredulous about the event. Kindest regards
@@jameswilkinson259 Why would being a skeptic automatically provoke a " rude" response from you?? Do you automatically believe everything you see and hear from NASA or any other govt agency?
I would like to know how the camera stayed parallel with the rocket starting at 40 sec and moved vertically as allegedly the rocket was flying into orbit? How was this video taken?
That looks like a Nazi A4 rocket with attitude.
the Redstone rocket was a product of Werner Von Braun's team that came from Germany after WWll so it most likely had much in common with the V2 and other German rockets
@@dsny7333 Yup. And American Nazi rocket scientists were better than the Russian Nazi rocket scientists.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ Sergei Koralev was the main Soviet Rocket scientist, he like Von Braun suffered at the hands of his own people he was imprisoned by Stalin until the Russians figured out he was their top rocket guy and gave them their best chance to succeed, his team was responsible for the first artificial satellite (1957)as well as the first man in space (1961), but after his untimely death in 1966 (age 59) the soviet space program was overtaken by NASA and Von Braun's team and was left in the (moon) dust by the U.S.
@@dsny7333 Yes indeed. The only reason Russia beat the Americans to orbit was because they had the political will to do it. And yes they did have German rocket scientists, from Peenemunde, but most tried to get to the American lines. Once the Americans committed to space, they far outstripped the Russians, mainly because they could spend more due to a more effective economy. The Soviet moon programme was underfunded, and as you say, they lost Koralev to cancer, sadly.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ the Russians also had two differing ideas on how to get their cosmonauts to the moon one was to develop a super rocket on the scale of the Saturn 5 , the other was to use multiple launches then assemble the command module (Soyuz) and lander (Zond)in Earth orbit before heading to the moon, Koralev preferred this method but after his death the Soviet leadership opted for the big booster which was known as the N-1-they never were able to get its engines right and after 3 launch failures the Soviets decided to table their moon landing program and focusing on building a space station(Salyut)
Sorry, Soviet Union 😂
Ask yourself, honestly, if this seems real to you.
Yes, you hate Science?
No fake
Uh, yeah, looks real to me. What a ridiculous question.
@WeeSleeket birds are not real