Why did rendezvous on Gemini 4 fail so badly?












14














I can't for the life of me understand why commander Jim McDivitt thought he could eyeball a rendezvous - point the nose and thrust . The futility of that technique is one of the first things even amateurs like me learn about orbital dynamics . They had plenty of trajectory experts - Bill Tindall and his team plus Buzz Aldrin was an expert on rendezvous.










share|improve this question







New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 6




    Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 6




    Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 8




    You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
    – chrylis
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
    – DrTris
    2 days ago






  • 4




    I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday
















14














I can't for the life of me understand why commander Jim McDivitt thought he could eyeball a rendezvous - point the nose and thrust . The futility of that technique is one of the first things even amateurs like me learn about orbital dynamics . They had plenty of trajectory experts - Bill Tindall and his team plus Buzz Aldrin was an expert on rendezvous.










share|improve this question







New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 6




    Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 6




    Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 8




    You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
    – chrylis
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
    – DrTris
    2 days ago






  • 4




    I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday














14












14








14







I can't for the life of me understand why commander Jim McDivitt thought he could eyeball a rendezvous - point the nose and thrust . The futility of that technique is one of the first things even amateurs like me learn about orbital dynamics . They had plenty of trajectory experts - Bill Tindall and his team plus Buzz Aldrin was an expert on rendezvous.










share|improve this question







New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I can't for the life of me understand why commander Jim McDivitt thought he could eyeball a rendezvous - point the nose and thrust . The futility of that technique is one of the first things even amateurs like me learn about orbital dynamics . They had plenty of trajectory experts - Bill Tindall and his team plus Buzz Aldrin was an expert on rendezvous.







orbital-mechanics rendezvous orbital project-gemini






share|improve this question







New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









DrTrisDrTris

737




737




New contributor




DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






DrTris is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 6




    Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 6




    Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 8




    You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
    – chrylis
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
    – DrTris
    2 days ago






  • 4




    I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday














  • 6




    Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 6




    Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
    – Digger
    2 days ago






  • 8




    You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
    – chrylis
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
    – DrTris
    2 days ago






  • 4




    I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday








6




6




Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
– Digger
2 days ago




Last year, I asked Buzz Aldrin this very question. His answer was vague, something along the lines that he was too new, when the Gemini IV crew began training, to have an impact. However, he did tell me that he was more involved in the planning of Gemini 6A, the first mission to accomplish a successful space rendezvous. Maybe I'll drill Buzz about this again the next time I see him...
– Digger
2 days ago




6




6




Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
– Digger
2 days ago




Another thing to keep in mind was that the Gemini program had four main objectives, three of which [to demonstrate long duration (by their standards) spaceflight, spacewalking, and space rendezvous] were to be investigated, for the very first time, by the crew of Gemini IV. One wonders how much time was spent training for the rendezvous task during what must have been a very compressed training timetable...
– Digger
2 days ago




8




8




You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
– chrylis
2 days ago




You're an amateur who learned about it by studying information that had to be gathered somehow.
– chrylis
2 days ago




1




1




@chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
– DrTris
2 days ago




@chrylis4 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you help?
– DrTris
2 days ago




4




4




I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
– David Richerby
yesterday




I think @chrylis is saying that it only seems obvious even to amateurs today because of hindsight, and that this hindsight is based, among other things, on the experience gained by Gemini 4.
– David Richerby
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














First, the Gemini IV maneuver was station-keeping, not rendezvous. Since the target was the just-separated upper stage, the two spacecraft were already rendezvoused, and point-and-burn would have worked if they'd done it properly.



According to the Gemini IV mission report, the main causes of station-keeping failure were a mix of procedural mistakes and inadequately-aggressive maneuvering:




Review of these figures shows that the velocity increments applied through 00:09:21 g.e.t. succeeded in reducing the separation rate, but left a residual rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the launch vehicle. As a result, the range from spacecraft to launch vehicle increased to 0.84 nautical mile and the range rate increased to 6.5 ft/sec by 00:30:25 g.e.t. when corrective action was initiated...




 




At this point (00:52:00 g.e.t.) a relative velocity of 8 ft/sec normal to the line of sight existed. This velocity propagated into a separation distance of 1.6 nautical miles and a separation rate of 17 ft/sec by the time corrective action was initiated at 01:05:30 g.e.t. The corrective thrust applied was insufficient...




 




It appears that if a procedure had been followed that required the crew (1) to initially establish a clearly perceptible closing rate with the target at all times and (2) to again establish a perceptible closing rate any time the range became larger than several stage II lengths, then the closeup station-keeping goal could perhaps have been achieved.




 




During the station-keeping exercise, the critical nature of rate determination was demonstrated. After separation, following the four thrusts back toward the launch vehicle, a rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the stage II existed, whereas, a rate toward it should have been established. The range was approximately 1800 feet at this time. Later, at the point of closest approach, an 8-ft/sec rate existed, normal to the line of sight, which should have been removed.




 




The ability of a flight crew member to determine rates of the target even in daylight is considerably impaired without a stable background or familiar objects in the foreground. At night, the ability to determine rates depends on the relative distance between two reference lights if they are both visible. If only one light is visible, the flight crew member's judgement depends on his ability to measure the intensity of the light, and, if this one light is flashing, the task becomes very difficult.




In short, by the time the crew established a trajectory towards the target, a considerable lateral velocity had built up, and they had no reference point to judge that velocity against. If they'd established a closing trajectory immediately after separation, they would have been able to use the upper stage as a reference; if they'd approached from a different direction, they would have been able to use the Earth or the background star field as a reference.



(And for you KSP players, the Gemini FDI doesn't come with target and anti-target markers.)






share|improve this answer





























    16














    Gemini 4 was the first unsuccessful try of a rendezvous. They sought at that times it should be possible to rendezvous from a short distance by simply thrusting towards the docking object. They had to learn it the hard way that this strategy works only on very, very short distances and in a short time.



    The circumference of a low Earth circular orbit with a height of 200 km is 41,286 km. A distance of 100 m is only 2.4 parts per million of the full orbit. Hard to believe at that times that about 100 m is still too far away for "point the nose and thrust". How close is neccessary for a successful "point the nose and thrust" rendezvous would be another good question.



    If we look at the orbit period of about 90 minutes, 1 minute seems to be too long for such a "point the nose and thrust" maneuver. But how short is short enough, some seconds?



    An exact digital simulation of such a rendezvous maneuver may be done using a simple single personal computer these days but could not be done in real time using the largest available computers in 1965 lacking a sophisticated and fast graphic display.



    But they were successful with Gemini 6A only a half year later.



    For more information see this very similar question.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 2




      "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
      – Joshua
      2 days ago






    • 2




      @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
      – Mark
      2 days ago










    • @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
      – Joshua
      2 days ago






    • 1




      @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
      – Jarred Allen
      yesterday










    • @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
      – Mark
      yesterday



















    14














    The long comment chain below this answer highlights the mis-conception that NASA astronauts as a whole did not understand the orbital mechanics of docking.



    As this comment points out, the mechanics was well understood at the time, and at least one astronaut had written a thesis on the topic a few years earlier:




    ... Aldrins thesis about orbital rendezvous - which turned out to be an important cornerstone for NASA - is from 1963, just two years prior. So I think its at least probably that not everyone was familiar with it. I think they were knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, but the quote is about rendezvous - which can be very counter-intuitive. Aldrins thesis is about exactly that factor ;) I think its more that they didn't have the proper procedures, not that they couldn't figure it out in theory. They would probably have absolutely loved a simulator like KSP just to learn procedures ;)




    My emphasis added above.





    See Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous





    • Author: Aldrin, Buzz

    • Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

    • Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    • Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    • Date Issued: 1963

    • Description:

    • Thesis (Sc. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.; Vita.; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 305-309).

    • URI: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

    • http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

    • Keywords: Aeronautics and Astronautics







    share|improve this answer























    • I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
      – Uwe
      2 days ago






    • 4




      @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
      – uhoh
      2 days ago








    • 4




      @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
      – uhoh
      2 days ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "508"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    DrTris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33345%2fwhy-did-rendezvous-on-gemini-4-fail-so-badly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6














    First, the Gemini IV maneuver was station-keeping, not rendezvous. Since the target was the just-separated upper stage, the two spacecraft were already rendezvoused, and point-and-burn would have worked if they'd done it properly.



    According to the Gemini IV mission report, the main causes of station-keeping failure were a mix of procedural mistakes and inadequately-aggressive maneuvering:




    Review of these figures shows that the velocity increments applied through 00:09:21 g.e.t. succeeded in reducing the separation rate, but left a residual rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the launch vehicle. As a result, the range from spacecraft to launch vehicle increased to 0.84 nautical mile and the range rate increased to 6.5 ft/sec by 00:30:25 g.e.t. when corrective action was initiated...




     




    At this point (00:52:00 g.e.t.) a relative velocity of 8 ft/sec normal to the line of sight existed. This velocity propagated into a separation distance of 1.6 nautical miles and a separation rate of 17 ft/sec by the time corrective action was initiated at 01:05:30 g.e.t. The corrective thrust applied was insufficient...




     




    It appears that if a procedure had been followed that required the crew (1) to initially establish a clearly perceptible closing rate with the target at all times and (2) to again establish a perceptible closing rate any time the range became larger than several stage II lengths, then the closeup station-keeping goal could perhaps have been achieved.




     




    During the station-keeping exercise, the critical nature of rate determination was demonstrated. After separation, following the four thrusts back toward the launch vehicle, a rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the stage II existed, whereas, a rate toward it should have been established. The range was approximately 1800 feet at this time. Later, at the point of closest approach, an 8-ft/sec rate existed, normal to the line of sight, which should have been removed.




     




    The ability of a flight crew member to determine rates of the target even in daylight is considerably impaired without a stable background or familiar objects in the foreground. At night, the ability to determine rates depends on the relative distance between two reference lights if they are both visible. If only one light is visible, the flight crew member's judgement depends on his ability to measure the intensity of the light, and, if this one light is flashing, the task becomes very difficult.




    In short, by the time the crew established a trajectory towards the target, a considerable lateral velocity had built up, and they had no reference point to judge that velocity against. If they'd established a closing trajectory immediately after separation, they would have been able to use the upper stage as a reference; if they'd approached from a different direction, they would have been able to use the Earth or the background star field as a reference.



    (And for you KSP players, the Gemini FDI doesn't come with target and anti-target markers.)






    share|improve this answer


























      6














      First, the Gemini IV maneuver was station-keeping, not rendezvous. Since the target was the just-separated upper stage, the two spacecraft were already rendezvoused, and point-and-burn would have worked if they'd done it properly.



      According to the Gemini IV mission report, the main causes of station-keeping failure were a mix of procedural mistakes and inadequately-aggressive maneuvering:




      Review of these figures shows that the velocity increments applied through 00:09:21 g.e.t. succeeded in reducing the separation rate, but left a residual rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the launch vehicle. As a result, the range from spacecraft to launch vehicle increased to 0.84 nautical mile and the range rate increased to 6.5 ft/sec by 00:30:25 g.e.t. when corrective action was initiated...




       




      At this point (00:52:00 g.e.t.) a relative velocity of 8 ft/sec normal to the line of sight existed. This velocity propagated into a separation distance of 1.6 nautical miles and a separation rate of 17 ft/sec by the time corrective action was initiated at 01:05:30 g.e.t. The corrective thrust applied was insufficient...




       




      It appears that if a procedure had been followed that required the crew (1) to initially establish a clearly perceptible closing rate with the target at all times and (2) to again establish a perceptible closing rate any time the range became larger than several stage II lengths, then the closeup station-keeping goal could perhaps have been achieved.




       




      During the station-keeping exercise, the critical nature of rate determination was demonstrated. After separation, following the four thrusts back toward the launch vehicle, a rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the stage II existed, whereas, a rate toward it should have been established. The range was approximately 1800 feet at this time. Later, at the point of closest approach, an 8-ft/sec rate existed, normal to the line of sight, which should have been removed.




       




      The ability of a flight crew member to determine rates of the target even in daylight is considerably impaired without a stable background or familiar objects in the foreground. At night, the ability to determine rates depends on the relative distance between two reference lights if they are both visible. If only one light is visible, the flight crew member's judgement depends on his ability to measure the intensity of the light, and, if this one light is flashing, the task becomes very difficult.




      In short, by the time the crew established a trajectory towards the target, a considerable lateral velocity had built up, and they had no reference point to judge that velocity against. If they'd established a closing trajectory immediately after separation, they would have been able to use the upper stage as a reference; if they'd approached from a different direction, they would have been able to use the Earth or the background star field as a reference.



      (And for you KSP players, the Gemini FDI doesn't come with target and anti-target markers.)






      share|improve this answer
























        6












        6








        6






        First, the Gemini IV maneuver was station-keeping, not rendezvous. Since the target was the just-separated upper stage, the two spacecraft were already rendezvoused, and point-and-burn would have worked if they'd done it properly.



        According to the Gemini IV mission report, the main causes of station-keeping failure were a mix of procedural mistakes and inadequately-aggressive maneuvering:




        Review of these figures shows that the velocity increments applied through 00:09:21 g.e.t. succeeded in reducing the separation rate, but left a residual rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the launch vehicle. As a result, the range from spacecraft to launch vehicle increased to 0.84 nautical mile and the range rate increased to 6.5 ft/sec by 00:30:25 g.e.t. when corrective action was initiated...




         




        At this point (00:52:00 g.e.t.) a relative velocity of 8 ft/sec normal to the line of sight existed. This velocity propagated into a separation distance of 1.6 nautical miles and a separation rate of 17 ft/sec by the time corrective action was initiated at 01:05:30 g.e.t. The corrective thrust applied was insufficient...




         




        It appears that if a procedure had been followed that required the crew (1) to initially establish a clearly perceptible closing rate with the target at all times and (2) to again establish a perceptible closing rate any time the range became larger than several stage II lengths, then the closeup station-keeping goal could perhaps have been achieved.




         




        During the station-keeping exercise, the critical nature of rate determination was demonstrated. After separation, following the four thrusts back toward the launch vehicle, a rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the stage II existed, whereas, a rate toward it should have been established. The range was approximately 1800 feet at this time. Later, at the point of closest approach, an 8-ft/sec rate existed, normal to the line of sight, which should have been removed.




         




        The ability of a flight crew member to determine rates of the target even in daylight is considerably impaired without a stable background or familiar objects in the foreground. At night, the ability to determine rates depends on the relative distance between two reference lights if they are both visible. If only one light is visible, the flight crew member's judgement depends on his ability to measure the intensity of the light, and, if this one light is flashing, the task becomes very difficult.




        In short, by the time the crew established a trajectory towards the target, a considerable lateral velocity had built up, and they had no reference point to judge that velocity against. If they'd established a closing trajectory immediately after separation, they would have been able to use the upper stage as a reference; if they'd approached from a different direction, they would have been able to use the Earth or the background star field as a reference.



        (And for you KSP players, the Gemini FDI doesn't come with target and anti-target markers.)






        share|improve this answer












        First, the Gemini IV maneuver was station-keeping, not rendezvous. Since the target was the just-separated upper stage, the two spacecraft were already rendezvoused, and point-and-burn would have worked if they'd done it properly.



        According to the Gemini IV mission report, the main causes of station-keeping failure were a mix of procedural mistakes and inadequately-aggressive maneuvering:




        Review of these figures shows that the velocity increments applied through 00:09:21 g.e.t. succeeded in reducing the separation rate, but left a residual rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the launch vehicle. As a result, the range from spacecraft to launch vehicle increased to 0.84 nautical mile and the range rate increased to 6.5 ft/sec by 00:30:25 g.e.t. when corrective action was initiated...




         




        At this point (00:52:00 g.e.t.) a relative velocity of 8 ft/sec normal to the line of sight existed. This velocity propagated into a separation distance of 1.6 nautical miles and a separation rate of 17 ft/sec by the time corrective action was initiated at 01:05:30 g.e.t. The corrective thrust applied was insufficient...




         




        It appears that if a procedure had been followed that required the crew (1) to initially establish a clearly perceptible closing rate with the target at all times and (2) to again establish a perceptible closing rate any time the range became larger than several stage II lengths, then the closeup station-keeping goal could perhaps have been achieved.




         




        During the station-keeping exercise, the critical nature of rate determination was demonstrated. After separation, following the four thrusts back toward the launch vehicle, a rate of 1.5 ft/sec away from the stage II existed, whereas, a rate toward it should have been established. The range was approximately 1800 feet at this time. Later, at the point of closest approach, an 8-ft/sec rate existed, normal to the line of sight, which should have been removed.




         




        The ability of a flight crew member to determine rates of the target even in daylight is considerably impaired without a stable background or familiar objects in the foreground. At night, the ability to determine rates depends on the relative distance between two reference lights if they are both visible. If only one light is visible, the flight crew member's judgement depends on his ability to measure the intensity of the light, and, if this one light is flashing, the task becomes very difficult.




        In short, by the time the crew established a trajectory towards the target, a considerable lateral velocity had built up, and they had no reference point to judge that velocity against. If they'd established a closing trajectory immediately after separation, they would have been able to use the upper stage as a reference; if they'd approached from a different direction, they would have been able to use the Earth or the background star field as a reference.



        (And for you KSP players, the Gemini FDI doesn't come with target and anti-target markers.)







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        MarkMark

        3,8571726




        3,8571726























            16














            Gemini 4 was the first unsuccessful try of a rendezvous. They sought at that times it should be possible to rendezvous from a short distance by simply thrusting towards the docking object. They had to learn it the hard way that this strategy works only on very, very short distances and in a short time.



            The circumference of a low Earth circular orbit with a height of 200 km is 41,286 km. A distance of 100 m is only 2.4 parts per million of the full orbit. Hard to believe at that times that about 100 m is still too far away for "point the nose and thrust". How close is neccessary for a successful "point the nose and thrust" rendezvous would be another good question.



            If we look at the orbit period of about 90 minutes, 1 minute seems to be too long for such a "point the nose and thrust" maneuver. But how short is short enough, some seconds?



            An exact digital simulation of such a rendezvous maneuver may be done using a simple single personal computer these days but could not be done in real time using the largest available computers in 1965 lacking a sophisticated and fast graphic display.



            But they were successful with Gemini 6A only a half year later.



            For more information see this very similar question.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 2




              "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 2




              @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
              – Mark
              2 days ago










            • @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
              – Jarred Allen
              yesterday










            • @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
              – Mark
              yesterday
















            16














            Gemini 4 was the first unsuccessful try of a rendezvous. They sought at that times it should be possible to rendezvous from a short distance by simply thrusting towards the docking object. They had to learn it the hard way that this strategy works only on very, very short distances and in a short time.



            The circumference of a low Earth circular orbit with a height of 200 km is 41,286 km. A distance of 100 m is only 2.4 parts per million of the full orbit. Hard to believe at that times that about 100 m is still too far away for "point the nose and thrust". How close is neccessary for a successful "point the nose and thrust" rendezvous would be another good question.



            If we look at the orbit period of about 90 minutes, 1 minute seems to be too long for such a "point the nose and thrust" maneuver. But how short is short enough, some seconds?



            An exact digital simulation of such a rendezvous maneuver may be done using a simple single personal computer these days but could not be done in real time using the largest available computers in 1965 lacking a sophisticated and fast graphic display.



            But they were successful with Gemini 6A only a half year later.



            For more information see this very similar question.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 2




              "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 2




              @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
              – Mark
              2 days ago










            • @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
              – Jarred Allen
              yesterday










            • @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
              – Mark
              yesterday














            16












            16








            16






            Gemini 4 was the first unsuccessful try of a rendezvous. They sought at that times it should be possible to rendezvous from a short distance by simply thrusting towards the docking object. They had to learn it the hard way that this strategy works only on very, very short distances and in a short time.



            The circumference of a low Earth circular orbit with a height of 200 km is 41,286 km. A distance of 100 m is only 2.4 parts per million of the full orbit. Hard to believe at that times that about 100 m is still too far away for "point the nose and thrust". How close is neccessary for a successful "point the nose and thrust" rendezvous would be another good question.



            If we look at the orbit period of about 90 minutes, 1 minute seems to be too long for such a "point the nose and thrust" maneuver. But how short is short enough, some seconds?



            An exact digital simulation of such a rendezvous maneuver may be done using a simple single personal computer these days but could not be done in real time using the largest available computers in 1965 lacking a sophisticated and fast graphic display.



            But they were successful with Gemini 6A only a half year later.



            For more information see this very similar question.






            share|improve this answer












            Gemini 4 was the first unsuccessful try of a rendezvous. They sought at that times it should be possible to rendezvous from a short distance by simply thrusting towards the docking object. They had to learn it the hard way that this strategy works only on very, very short distances and in a short time.



            The circumference of a low Earth circular orbit with a height of 200 km is 41,286 km. A distance of 100 m is only 2.4 parts per million of the full orbit. Hard to believe at that times that about 100 m is still too far away for "point the nose and thrust". How close is neccessary for a successful "point the nose and thrust" rendezvous would be another good question.



            If we look at the orbit period of about 90 minutes, 1 minute seems to be too long for such a "point the nose and thrust" maneuver. But how short is short enough, some seconds?



            An exact digital simulation of such a rendezvous maneuver may be done using a simple single personal computer these days but could not be done in real time using the largest available computers in 1965 lacking a sophisticated and fast graphic display.



            But they were successful with Gemini 6A only a half year later.



            For more information see this very similar question.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 days ago









            UweUwe

            9,21822751




            9,21822751








            • 2




              "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 2




              @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
              – Mark
              2 days ago










            • @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
              – Jarred Allen
              yesterday










            • @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
              – Mark
              yesterday














            • 2




              "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 2




              @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
              – Mark
              2 days ago










            • @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
              – Joshua
              2 days ago






            • 1




              @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
              – Jarred Allen
              yesterday










            • @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
              – Mark
              yesterday








            2




            2




            "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
            – Joshua
            2 days ago




            "500 feet"; as a longtime KSP player I say that's a pretty bad failure of point and burn; anything less than 2km suffices and KSP's planet is smaller yielding much faster diversion. On the other hand, no docking radar is annoying.
            – Joshua
            2 days ago




            2




            2




            @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
            – Mark
            2 days ago




            @Joshua, KSP also has much higher delta-V budgets than NASA.
            – Mark
            2 days ago












            @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
            – Joshua
            2 days ago




            @Mark: Will 15 m/s do? That's about what I'd use.
            – Joshua
            2 days ago




            1




            1




            @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
            – Jarred Allen
            yesterday




            @Joshua Also, docking in KSP is often done at much higher speeds. When the space shuttle docked with the ISS, it would approach at 0.03 m/s (nasa.gov/pdf/593865main_AP_ST_Phys_ShuttleODS.pdf), while, in my KSP playing, I usually approach the rendez-vous at around 20+m/s, depending on the situation, and even make the final approach for docking 50x faster than the shuttle.
            – Jarred Allen
            yesterday












            @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
            – Mark
            yesterday




            @Joshua, the total delta-V expenditure during rendezvous for Gemini 6A was about 80 m/s, including the plane change, phase change, and establishing an intersecting orbit. The portion corresponding to your "15 m/s" is probably the "braking maneuver", at 19.8 m/s, although it might be the "terminal phase" maneuvers, at 38 m/s. (Terminal-phase maneuvers were initiated at a distance of 320 km.)
            – Mark
            yesterday











            14














            The long comment chain below this answer highlights the mis-conception that NASA astronauts as a whole did not understand the orbital mechanics of docking.



            As this comment points out, the mechanics was well understood at the time, and at least one astronaut had written a thesis on the topic a few years earlier:




            ... Aldrins thesis about orbital rendezvous - which turned out to be an important cornerstone for NASA - is from 1963, just two years prior. So I think its at least probably that not everyone was familiar with it. I think they were knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, but the quote is about rendezvous - which can be very counter-intuitive. Aldrins thesis is about exactly that factor ;) I think its more that they didn't have the proper procedures, not that they couldn't figure it out in theory. They would probably have absolutely loved a simulator like KSP just to learn procedures ;)




            My emphasis added above.





            See Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous





            • Author: Aldrin, Buzz

            • Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

            • Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

            • Date Issued: 1963

            • Description:

            • Thesis (Sc. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.; Vita.; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 305-309).

            • URI: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

            • http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Keywords: Aeronautics and Astronautics







            share|improve this answer























            • I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
              – Uwe
              2 days ago






            • 4




              @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
              – uhoh
              2 days ago








            • 4




              @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
              – uhoh
              2 days ago
















            14














            The long comment chain below this answer highlights the mis-conception that NASA astronauts as a whole did not understand the orbital mechanics of docking.



            As this comment points out, the mechanics was well understood at the time, and at least one astronaut had written a thesis on the topic a few years earlier:




            ... Aldrins thesis about orbital rendezvous - which turned out to be an important cornerstone for NASA - is from 1963, just two years prior. So I think its at least probably that not everyone was familiar with it. I think they were knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, but the quote is about rendezvous - which can be very counter-intuitive. Aldrins thesis is about exactly that factor ;) I think its more that they didn't have the proper procedures, not that they couldn't figure it out in theory. They would probably have absolutely loved a simulator like KSP just to learn procedures ;)




            My emphasis added above.





            See Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous





            • Author: Aldrin, Buzz

            • Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

            • Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

            • Date Issued: 1963

            • Description:

            • Thesis (Sc. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.; Vita.; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 305-309).

            • URI: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

            • http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Keywords: Aeronautics and Astronautics







            share|improve this answer























            • I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
              – Uwe
              2 days ago






            • 4




              @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
              – uhoh
              2 days ago








            • 4




              @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
              – uhoh
              2 days ago














            14












            14








            14






            The long comment chain below this answer highlights the mis-conception that NASA astronauts as a whole did not understand the orbital mechanics of docking.



            As this comment points out, the mechanics was well understood at the time, and at least one astronaut had written a thesis on the topic a few years earlier:




            ... Aldrins thesis about orbital rendezvous - which turned out to be an important cornerstone for NASA - is from 1963, just two years prior. So I think its at least probably that not everyone was familiar with it. I think they were knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, but the quote is about rendezvous - which can be very counter-intuitive. Aldrins thesis is about exactly that factor ;) I think its more that they didn't have the proper procedures, not that they couldn't figure it out in theory. They would probably have absolutely loved a simulator like KSP just to learn procedures ;)




            My emphasis added above.





            See Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous





            • Author: Aldrin, Buzz

            • Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

            • Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

            • Date Issued: 1963

            • Description:

            • Thesis (Sc. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.; Vita.; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 305-309).

            • URI: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

            • http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Keywords: Aeronautics and Astronautics







            share|improve this answer














            The long comment chain below this answer highlights the mis-conception that NASA astronauts as a whole did not understand the orbital mechanics of docking.



            As this comment points out, the mechanics was well understood at the time, and at least one astronaut had written a thesis on the topic a few years earlier:




            ... Aldrins thesis about orbital rendezvous - which turned out to be an important cornerstone for NASA - is from 1963, just two years prior. So I think its at least probably that not everyone was familiar with it. I think they were knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, but the quote is about rendezvous - which can be very counter-intuitive. Aldrins thesis is about exactly that factor ;) I think its more that they didn't have the proper procedures, not that they couldn't figure it out in theory. They would probably have absolutely loved a simulator like KSP just to learn procedures ;)




            My emphasis added above.





            See Line-of-sight guidance techniques for manned orbital rendezvous





            • Author: Aldrin, Buzz

            • Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

            • Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

            • Date Issued: 1963

            • Description:

            • Thesis (Sc. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1963.; Vita.; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 305-309).

            • URI: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

            • http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12652

            • Keywords: Aeronautics and Astronautics








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 days ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            uhohuhoh

            35k18122439




            35k18122439












            • I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
              – Uwe
              2 days ago






            • 4




              @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
              – uhoh
              2 days ago








            • 4




              @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
              – uhoh
              2 days ago


















            • I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
              – Uwe
              2 days ago






            • 4




              @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
              – uhoh
              2 days ago








            • 4




              @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
              – uhoh
              2 days ago
















            I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
            – Uwe
            2 days ago




            I searched the pdf of Aldrins thesis for the time interval used for computer simulations of orbital maneuvers and found only a 15 seconds interval. 15 seconds is adequate to simulate a maneuver of 15 or 30 minutes length. But to simulate the very last phase of a rendezvous with a duration of some few minutes, a much shorter computing interval should be used, about a second or even less. May be the numerical errors were too big when using so short intervals. In 1963 there were no computers doing megaflops with double precision available. I found no occurences of the words "floating point".
            – Uwe
            2 days ago




            4




            4




            @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
            – uhoh
            2 days ago






            @Uwe people were much better then than they are now at getting very good results with small computing power. I will not have the discussion in comments here, but to do this simulation in order to understand these effects, you can just use one-body orbits in a spherical potential using very simple math. You do not need the kind of numerical power you are suggesting. These are practically circulular orbits and 10 second timesteps with 4th order Runge-Kutta is all you need, if that. You can even throw in J2 without much extra crunching.
            – uhoh
            2 days ago






            4




            4




            @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
            – uhoh
            2 days ago




            @Uwe but if you are concerned, why not ask a new question about the calculations in Aldrin's thesis? That would make more space for this very interesting topic!
            – uhoh
            2 days ago










            DrTris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            DrTris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            DrTris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            DrTris is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33345%2fwhy-did-rendezvous-on-gemini-4-fail-so-badly%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Сан-Квентин

            8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

            Алькесар