Appendix 1: In his own words Pilot’s fl ight report by Alan B. Shepard, Jr. Taken from the NASA paper (in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences): Proceedings of a Conference on Results of the First U.S. Manned Suborbital Flight , 6 June 1961, Washington, D.C. (Most references by Shepard to images screened during his presentation deleted) INTRODUCTION My intention is to present my fl ight report in narrative form and to include three phases. These phases shall be: (1) the period prior to launch, (2) the fl ight itself, and (3) the post- fl ight debriefi ng period. I intend to describe my feelings and reactions and to make com- ments pertinent to these three areas. I also have an onboard fi lm of the fl ight to show at the end of my presentation. PRE-FLIGHT PERIOD Astronaut D.K. Slayton in a previous paper described the program followed by the Project Mercury astronauts during a two-year training period with descriptions of the various devices used. All of these devices provided one thing in common: namely, the feeling of confi dence that the astronauts achieved from their use. Some devices, of course, produced more confi dence than others but all were very well received by the group. There are three machines or training devices which provided the most assistance. The fi rst of these is the human centrifuge. We used the facilities of the U.S. Naval Air Development Center in Johnsville, Pennsylvania, which provided the centrifuge itself and a computer to control its inputs. This computer, through an instrument display, provided a control task similar to that of the Mercury spacecraft, with inputs of the proper aerodynamic and moment-of- inertia equations. Thus, we were able to experience the acceleration environment while C. Burgess, Freedom 7: The Historic Flight of Alan B. Shepard, Jr., Springer Praxis Books, 245 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-01156-1, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 246 Appendix 1: In his own words simultaneously controlling the spacecraft on a simulated manual system. This experience gave us the feeling of muscle control for circulation and breathing, transmitting, and general control of the spacecraft. I found that the fl ight environment was very close to the environment provided by the centrifuge. The fl ight accelerations were smooth, of the same magnitude used during training, and certainly in no way disturbing. The second training device that proved of great value was the procedures trainer. This device will be recognized as an advanced type of the Link trainer, which was used for instrument training during the last war. We were able to use it to correlate pre-fl ight plan- ning, to practice simulated control maneuvers, and to practice operational techniques. The Space Task Group has two such trainers, one at Langley Field, Virginia, the other at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and both are capable of the simultaneous training of pilots and ground crews. As a result of the cross-training between pilots and the ground crews at the Project Mercury Control Center, we experienced no major diffi culties during the fl ight. We had learned each other’s problems and terminology, and I feel that we have a valuable training system in use for present and for future fl ights. The third area of pre-fl ight training, which is considered as one of importance, concerns working with the spacecraft itself. The Mercury spacecraft is tested at Cape Canaveral before being attached to the Redstone launch vehicle. These tests provide an excellent opportunity for pilots to learn the idiosyncrasies of the various systems. After the space- craft has been placed on the launch vehicle, more tests are made just prior to launch day. The pilots have a chance to participate in these tests and to work out operational proce- dures with the blockhouse crew. These three areas then, the centrifuge, the procedures trainer, and spacecraft testing at the launching area, provided the most valuable aids during the training period. We spent two years in training, doing many things, following many avenues in our desire to be sure that we had not overlooked anything of importance. As a general comment concerning future training programs, these experiences will undoubtedly permit us to shorten this training period. During the days immediately preceding the launch, the pre-fl ight physicals were given. These examinations do not involve more than the usual profi ling, listening, and other med- ical tests, but I hope that fewer body fl uid examples are required in the future. I felt as though an unusual number of medics were used. Pre-fl ight briefi ng was held at 11 a.m. on the day before launch to correlate all opera- tional elements. This briefi ng was helpful since it gave us a chance to look at weather, radar, camera, and recovery force status. We also had the opportunity to review the control procedures to be used during fl ight emergencies as well as any late inputs of an operational nature. This briefi ng was extremely valuable to me in correlating all of the details at the last minute. PERIOD OF FLIGHT I include as part of the fl ight period the time from insertion into the spacecraft on the launching pad until the time of recovery by the helicopter, The voice and operational procedures developed during the weeks preceding the launch were essentially sound. Period of flight 247 The countdown went smoothly, and no major diffi culties were encountered with the ground crews, the control-central crew, and the pilot. There has been some comment in the press about the length of time spent in the spacecraft prior to launch, some 4 hours 15 minutes to be exact. This period was about two hours longer than had been planned. A fact that is most encouraging is that during this time there was no signifi cant change in pilot alertness and ability. The reassurance gained from this experience applies directly to our upcoming orbital fl ights, and we now approach them with greater confi dence in the ability of the pilots, as well as in the environmental control systems. Our plan was for the pilot to report to the blockhouse crew primarily prior to the T-2 minutes on hard wire circuits, and to shift control to the Center by use of radio frequencies at T-2 minutes. This shift worked smoothly and continuity of information to the pilot was good. At lift-off I started a clock timer in the spacecraft and prepared for noise and vibra- tion. I felt none of any serious consequence. The cockpit section experienced no vibration and I did not even have to turn up my radio receiver to full volume to hear the radio trans- missions. Radio communication was verifi ed after lift-off, and then periodic transmissions were made at 30-second intervals for the purpose of maintaining voice contact and of reporting vital information to the ground. Some roughness was expected during the period of transonic fl ight and of maximum dynamic pressure. These events occurred very close together on the fl ight, and there was general vibration associated with them. At one point some head vibration was observed. The degradation of vision associated with this vibration was not serious. There was a slight fuzzy appearance of the instrument needles. At T+1 minute 21 seconds I was able to observe and report the cabin pressure without diffi culty. I accurately described the cabin pressure as “holding at 5.5 p.s.i.a.” The indications of the various needles on their respec- tive meters could be determined accurately at all times. We intend to alleviate the head vibration by providing more foam rubber for the head support and a more streamlined fairing for the spacecraft adapter ring. These modifi cations should take care of this prob- lem for future fl ights. I had no other diffi culty during powered fl ight. The training in acceleration on the cen- trifuge was valid, and I encountered no problem in respiration, observation, and reporting to the ground. Rocket cutoff occurred at T+2 minutes 22 seconds at an acceleration of about 6 g. It was not abrupt enough to give me any problem and I was not aware of any uncomfortable sensation. I had one switch movement at this point which I made on schedule. Ten sec- onds later, the spacecraft separated from the launch vehicle, and I was aware of the noise of the separation rockets fi ring. In another 5 seconds the periscope had extended and the autopilot was controlling the turnaround to orbit attitude. Even though this test was only a ballistic fl ight, most of the spacecraft action and piloting techniques were executed with orbital fl ight in mind. I would like to make the point again that attitude control in space differs from that in conventional aircraft. There is a penalty for excessive use of the per- oxide fuel and we do not attempt to control continually all small rate motions. There is no aerodynamic damping in space to prevent attitude deviation, but neither is there any fl ight- path excursion or acceleration purely as a function of variation in spacecraft angles. At this point in the fl ight I was scheduled to take control of the attitude (angular posi- tion) by use of the manual system. I made this manipulation one axis at a time, switching 248 Appendix 1: In his own words to pitch, yaw and roll in that order until I had full control of the craft.