Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:34:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

brass monkey wrote:
"Mike P" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:09:10 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I hope his Saturn V ride to heaven is a smooth one :-)

Fly safe, Commander Armstrong. A true hero to many, and
especially us nerds.

+1
Those guys were very stupid/very brave/both.

They we also very intelligent. I have met some of them.

BTW Tickets are still available to have dinner with some of the
Apollo astronauts. It's well worth the money. Not everyone can say
that they have had dinner with Buzz Aldrin and Fred Haise.

I had dinner with President Bush (senior) just after he left office
And I videoed his speech officially, for the charity that invited him.

Comic Relief?

--
Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:32:28 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Graham. wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:34:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

brass monkey wrote:
"Mike P" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:09:10 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I hope his Saturn V ride to heaven is a smooth one :-)

Fly safe, Commander Armstrong. A true hero to many, and
especially us nerds.

+1
Those guys were very stupid/very brave/both.

They we also very intelligent. I have met some of them.

BTW Tickets are still available to have dinner with some of the
Apollo astronauts. It's well worth the money. Not everyone can say
that they have had dinner with Buzz Aldrin and Fred Haise.

I had dinner with President Bush (senior) just after he left office
And I videoed his speech officially, for the charity that invited him.

Comic Relief?
Close, but no cigar.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:59:55 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:23:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You would enjoy it. I did. It's worth looking around. The
astronauts may be having dinner elsewhere in the UK just before or
after the Ponty event. They need to make a living:-)

I think it's a bit sad they have to, but I suppose an Air Force /NASA
pension isn't all that. Neil Armstrong did all right for himself, but
he had a magic kudos attached to his name.

Have you tried their own web sites for info?

No, never even thought of that.
One or two are bound to visit Ireland - like Dublin or Armagh, so I'll
keep an eye out.

The best thing about these dinners is the small talk. The Apollo 11
astronauts used their own cameras for some of the shots and they never
realised the full potential of copyright.

And where else can you have someone tell you that they have flown a vehicle
that does 7 gallons per inch for take off and know they are telling the
truth.

And when Buzz said the bit about North Korea you know why he was chosen as
an astronaut.
--
Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham. wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:59:55 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".


I thought he'd have been able to spell his own name:

Alan Bartlett Shepard

(Now how many typos have I managed to get into this post?)

--
Rod

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".

Not surprising if he couldn't get his own name right.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:59:55 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)


And I was wondering who would be the first to mention that!

--
Rod

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:59:55 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)

Yes, it was a nice one.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
brass monkey wrote:
"Mike P" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:09:10 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I hope his Saturn V ride to heaven is a smooth one :-)

Fly safe, Commander Armstrong. A true hero to many, and
especially us nerds.

+1
Those guys were very stupid/very brave/both.

They we also very intelligent. I have met some of them.

Yeah I got to meet Gene Cernan briefly around 1996 when I did some
consultancy work for NASA. One of the few (at that time) managerial
types who understood and had an interest in my line of work and was
able to discus it coherently.

BTW Tickets are still available to have dinner with some of the
Apollo astronauts. It's well worth the money. Not everyone can say
that they have had dinner with Buzz Aldrin and Fred Haise.

That would be very tempting.

It's in West Yorkshire

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it".

--
Adam

John Williamson wrote:

You also need to find a
crew who can get along with each other in total isolation for a couple
of years without killing each other or themselves,

How many crews kill each other aboard submarines or at Arctic or
Antarctic research stations? I can think of one incident and that was in
a home port so doesn't meet the "isolation" requirement.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:30:14 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

You also need to find a
crew who can get along with each other in total isolation for a couple
of years without killing each other or themselves,

How many crews kill each other aboard submarines or at Arctic or
Antarctic research stations? I can think of one incident and that was in
a home port so doesn't meet the "isolation" requirement.

Not clear how many on total - but this is one odd death...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...ica.robinmckie

--
Rod

Steve Firth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

You also need to find a
crew who can get along with each other in total isolation for a couple
of years without killing each other or themselves,

How many crews kill each other aboard submarines or at Arctic or
Antarctic research stations? I can think of one incident and that was in
a home port so doesn't meet the "isolation" requirement.

The social dynamics inside a large crew (Over 100, normally) on a
submarine are totally different to the dynamics in a small crew (Almost
certainly less than 10.) such as would be the case on the Mars mission.

Even the simulation carried out by the Russians:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15574646

Couldn't fully reproduce the situation of the real thing, as there was
always the knowledge that if things got too bad, they could just walk
out of the door into a breathable atmosphere.

The research stations also have a turnover each year, with an
approximately known date for the supply vessel or aircraft to arrive,
and it is rare for people to stay for more than a few months, so you
know if it gets too bad, there's a way out. Again, the inmates can go
for a walk, which wouldn't be possible on the Mars mission.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:44:12 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

Not clear how many on total - but this is one odd death...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...ica.robinmckie

He ****ed someone off, quite simple really.

John Williamson wrote:
[snip]


The research stations also have a turnover each year, with an
approximately known date for the supply vessel or aircraft to arrive, and
it is rare for people to stay for more than a few months, so you know if
it gets too bad, there's a way out. Again, the inmates can go for a walk,
which wouldn't be possible on the Mars mission.

Whenever long space missions are discussed someone always tries to make a
case for "space madness". Yet there seems to be no evidence that it's a
possibility. TBH being locked in a steel tube with hundreds of crew sounds
worse than being locked up with a couple of handfuls of others.

Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated groups
inevitably break down into murdering each other?

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
[snip]


The research stations also have a turnover each year, with an
approximately known date for the supply vessel or aircraft to arrive, and
it is rare for people to stay for more than a few months, so you know if
it gets too bad, there's a way out. Again, the inmates can go for a walk,
which wouldn't be possible on the Mars mission.

Whenever long space missions are discussed someone always tries to make a
case for "space madness". Yet there seems to be no evidence that it's a
possibility. TBH being locked in a steel tube with hundreds of crew sounds
worse than being locked up with a couple of handfuls of others.

Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated groups
inevitably break down into murdering each other?

Celebrity Big Brother (with any luck).

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:39:13 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".

Not surprising if he couldn't get his own name right.

Other people have problems too (giggle):

http://www.jumbojoke.com/the_benefit_of_experience.html

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:36:36 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:23:30 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You would enjoy it. I did. It's worth looking around. The
astronauts may be having dinner elsewhere in the UK just before or
after the Ponty event. They need to make a living:-)

I think it's a bit sad they have to, but I suppose an Air Force /NASA
pension isn't all that. Neil Armstrong did all right for himself, but
he had a magic kudos attached to his name.

Have you tried their own web sites for info?

No, never even thought of that.
One or two are bound to visit Ireland - like Dublin or Armagh, so I'll
keep an eye out.

The best thing about these dinners is the small talk. The Apollo 11
astronauts used their own cameras for some of the shots and they never
realised the full potential of copyright.

And where else can you have someone tell you that they have flown a vehicle
that does 7 gallons per inch for take off and know they are telling the
truth.

And when Buzz said the bit about North Korea you know why he was chosen as
an astronaut.

I think whoever said that about their own cameras and pictures was
being ironic. Every gram was accounted for, although there were some
instances of smuggling, those for commercial gain were treated
accordingly.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&pg=4195,12940

I didn't know about this until just now.
http://www.check-six.com/lib/Fallen_Astros.htm



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:39:48 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:44:12 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

Not clear how many on total - but this is one odd death...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...ica.robinmckie

He ****ed someone off, quite simple really.

Pity Patrick McGoohan died, he would have sorted that lot out.




--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:38:42 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham. wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:59:55 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/08/2012 21:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

I always thought it was a great shame that "Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky"
wasn't true :-)

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".


I thought he'd have been able to spell his own name:

Alan Bartlett Shepard

(Now how many typos have I managed to get into this post?)
Skitt knows!

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On 26 Aug 2012 23:02:05 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:39:13 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't **** up
Sheperd".

Not surprising if he couldn't get his own name right.

Other people have problems too (giggle):

http://www.jumbojoke.com/the_benefit_of_experience.html

On Sky News last night they were playing a loop of lunar footage some
of which was not Apollo 11 related.

Notably the blast-off of the LM assent stage taken from the lunar
buggy on Apollo 17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
Nice remote camera-work considering the round-trip delay!

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:39:13 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:25:49 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

But Alan Shepard's words as he blasted off were indeed "Don't
**** up Sheperd".

Not surprising if he couldn't get his own name right.

Other people have problems too (giggle):

http://www.jumbojoke.com/the_benefit_of_experience.html

vbg
--
Adam

brass monkey wrote:

Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated groups
inevitably break down into murdering each other?

Celebrity Big Brother (with any luck).

One can only hope. I had a look at it (for about five minutes). I didn't
see any "celebrities" or indeed anyone that I recognised from the media.
That seems to repeat the experience of previous runs of the series. I
can't see how anyone can sit and watch it.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:47:22 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

Notably the blast-off of the LM assent stage taken from the lunar
buggy on Apollo 17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

Yep, I saw that and noticed the impossibility immediately.

Nice remote camera-work considering the round-trip delay!

It was always timed to the split second, but impressive, nonetheless.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:54:42 +0100, "brass monkey" wrote:

Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated groups
inevitably break down into murdering each other?

Celebrity Big Brother (with any luck).

To be fair (gawd knows why), they're picked for likely instability, to
inject some interest for the morons watching.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:54:42 +0100, "brass monkey" wrote:

Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated
groups inevitably break down into murdering each other?

Celebrity Big Brother (with any luck).

To be fair (gawd knows why), they're picked for likely instability, to
inject some interest for the morons watching.

Gay murderers or racial abuse?

Neither will sue me.

--
Adam

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

We could do it now, but only by launching many rockets and assembling the
Mars mission vehicles in Earth orbit. They couldn't have done that in the
1960s.

That approach was von Braun's preferred one, and is better provided you
can maintain the time horizon -you start that way but don't expect to be
able to send the Mars vehicle for 10-15 years.

Von Braun wanted a single piece rocket to land on the moon and return to
earth.
It couldn't be done.
What makes you think he had a better approach to Mars?
Or was this after the moon landings?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:06:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

We could do it now, but only by launching many rockets and assembling the
Mars mission vehicles in Earth orbit. They couldn't have done that in the
1960s.

That approach was von Braun's preferred one, and is better provided you
can maintain the time horizon -you start that way but don't expect to be
able to send the Mars vehicle for 10-15 years.

Von Braun wanted a single piece rocket to land on the moon and return to
earth.
It couldn't be done.
What makes you think he had a better approach to Mars?
Or was this after the moon landings?



"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

(Tom Lehrer)



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:05:35 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:17:52 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
"Which is what we were absorbed with 40 years ago - after the Moon,
what about Mars?
With 70s technology, it would have been an utter, unparalled,
unmitigated disaster in slowmotion.

Why? What's so different about it to landing on the moon, other than
the distance involved? An understanding of Martian climate (or rather
lack thereof) may have knocked it on the head, and also the additional
cost of developing equipment to get there (and back), but I'm surprised
that the technology itself was a limiting factor.

Call it an order of magnitude harder and more expensive.

Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it was
about the technology - rather than financial or societal problems, say -
which would have prevented it from happening. Granted, stuff would
presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit, which certainly would
have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like it's easy now, and that's
with experience developed over decades to draw on), but e.g. were there
materials not discovered then which are absolutely necessary to get the
job done, or was the level of on-board computational power needed simply
beyond what could be done at the time etc.?

cheers

Jules

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:20:33 +0000, Jules Richardson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:05:35 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:17:52 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
"Which is what we were absorbed with 40 years ago - after the Moon,
what about Mars?
With 70s technology, it would have been an utter, unparalled,
unmitigated disaster in slowmotion.

Why? What's so different about it to landing on the moon, other than
the distance involved? An understanding of Martian climate (or rather
lack thereof) may have knocked it on the head, and also the additional
cost of developing equipment to get there (and back), but I'm
surprised that the technology itself was a limiting factor.

Call it an order of magnitude harder and more expensive.

Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it was
about the technology - rather than financial or societal problems, say -
which would have prevented it from happening. Granted, stuff would
presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit, which certainly would
have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like it's easy now, and that's
with experience developed over decades to draw on), but e.g. were there
materials not discovered then which are absolutely necessary to get the
job done, or was the level of on-board computational power needed simply
beyond what could be done at the time etc.?

I'm also wondering about the relative MTBF of the electronic assemblies.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:20:33 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it was
about the technology - rather than financial or societal problems, say -
which would have prevented it from happening.

Well, we've had 40 years of materials science since. Also, some new
materials that might prove to be better - kevlar, carbon fibre, etc.
Even the basics, such as the sealing materials back then - I wouldn't
have trusted my life to them for months on end, or their ability to
re-seal after opening.
I've absolutely no doubt one of the long-term research programmes on
the ISS is looking at that - and what was discovered on Mir.

The moon shots were a dash against failure rates, much of the time.
Considering the likelihood of catastrophe, it's amazing so few deaths
happened.

On 26/08/2012 12:30, ARWadsworth wrote:
I know it costs but why are rooms not full of people wanting to meet these
people?

Because the publicity just hasn't happened?

The cost of the tickets for me would be far less than the cost of
getting to Yorkshire, which is far enough away that I'd need a night in
a local hotel - and that site is carefully designed so you can't tell if
there will be any future events any closer to me.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 26/08/2012 12:30, ARWadsworth wrote:
I know it costs but why are rooms not full of people wanting to
meet these people?

Because the publicity just hasn't happened?

I have made a start.


The cost of the tickets for me would be far less than the cost of
getting to Yorkshire, which is far enough away that I'd need a night
in a local hotel


That is the idea of hotels..You use a local one.

--
Adam

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:09:41 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Because the publicity just hasn't happened?

I have made a start.

It's been utterly abysmal until now.
I had no clue these guys were on a dinner/lecture circuit, else I'd
likely have made an effort to go and see one or two of them by now.
See, that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:35:05 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it was
about the technology - rather than financial or societal problems, say
- which would have prevented it from happening. Granted, stuff would
presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit, which certainly would
have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like it's easy now, and that's
with experience developed over decades to draw on), but e.g. were there
materials not discovered then which are absolutely necessary to get the
job done, or was the level of on-board computational power needed
simply beyond what could be done at the time etc.?

I'm also wondering about the relative MTBF of the electronic assemblies.

Hmm, interesting point!

For the lunar flight, was the computer powered up all the time, or did it
only come into play toward the end of the flight when alignment was most
critical?

Keeping something running trouble-free, even with built-in redundancy,
for the duration of a Mars trip might have been tricky - although I
suppose if it were all core memory then there's some scope for fixing a
fault (if possible) and then recovering (with assistance from the ground
to punch in changed data) from where you left off.

cheers

Jules

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:22:47 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
It's been utterly abysmal until now.
I had no clue these guys were on a dinner/lecture circuit, else I'd
likely have made an effort to go and see one or two of them by now. See,
that's what happens when geeks do publicity - feck all.

Probably because most of the time, geeks don't actually *want*
publicity

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, "charles" writ:

In article , Graham.
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:04:42 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , Andrew Gabriel
wrote:
I loved a comment he made many years later on Radio 4 when the
presenter asked "What was going through your mind when you were
waiting on the launch pad?", to which he replied, "Every part of this
rocket was subcontracted to the cheapest bidder"

That was previously said by John Glenn - the first American into space.

So Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight doesn't count?

John Glenn did sub-orbital, too.


Nope, Shepard (1st) and Grissom (2nd) flew sub-orbital ballistic
flights. Glenn flew an orbital flight (3 orbits).
--
P

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, "Jules Richardson" writ:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:35:05 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
Oh, certainly. Several orders of magnitude. But I'm curious what it was
about the technology - rather than financial or societal problems, say
- which would have prevented it from happening. Granted, stuff would
presumably have to be assembled in Earth orbit, which certainly would
have made it *extremely* hard (it's not like it's easy now, and that's
with experience developed over decades to draw on), but e.g. were there
materials not discovered then which are absolutely necessary to get the
job done, or was the level of on-board computational power needed
simply beyond what could be done at the time etc.?

I'm also wondering about the relative MTBF of the electronic assemblies.

Hmm, interesting point!

For the lunar flight, was the computer powered up all the time, or did it
only come into play toward the end of the flight when alignment was most
critical?

The LEM landing computer was only powered up during preparation for
landing whilst in lunar orbit. Up to that point the LEM had no power as
it's batteries were only designed to support the lunar part of the
mission.

--
P

On Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:47:02 PM UTC+1, Steve Firth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

[snip]





The research stations also have a turnover each year, with an

approximately known date for the supply vessel or aircraft to arrive, and

it is rare for people to stay for more than a few months, so you know if

it gets too bad, there's a way out. Again, the inmates can go for a walk,

which wouldn't be possible on the Mars mission.



Whenever long space missions are discussed someone always tries to make a

case for "space madness". Yet there seems to be no evidence that it's a

possibility. TBH being locked in a steel tube with hundreds of crew sounds

worse than being locked up with a couple of handfuls of others.



Anyway do you actually have any evidence that small isolated groups

inevitably break down into murdering each other?

or having sex with each other.

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Percy
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012, "charles" writ:

In article , Graham.
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:04:42 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , Andrew Gabriel
wrote:
I loved a comment he made many years later on Radio 4 when the
presenter asked "What was going through your mind when you were
waiting on the launch pad?", to which he replied, "Every part of this
rocket was subcontracted to the cheapest bidder"

That was previously said by John Glenn - the first American into space.

So Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight doesn't count?

John Glenn did sub-orbital, too.

Nope, Shepard (1st) and Grissom (2nd) flew sub-orbital ballistic
flights. Glenn flew an orbital flight (3 orbits).

Actually, of course, all these flights were orbital. It's just that with
the first two, the orbit intersected the surface of the Earth.

By that standard, I can jump into orbit (though not into space).