Gemini 4 Experiment Debriefing, 1967

Text

A machine read this text from the scan. When the text and the image disagree, the image is right.

Belt 15

6

... airglow over lighted areas, I think that that would be more easily done than trying to track a certain spot in the airglow because that means that if your flight path is this way, you've got to aim the spacecraft over here and then you've got to track it along like this. It would seem to me that it's easier to just put it some place and hold it there.

MM-hmm.

And especially from the pilot's standpoint when you've got a gunsite or something like it. . . . . . . maintain that spacecraft essentially wings level with . . . and if the pitch attitude's proper, you don't have to worry about the translation across the . . . . . .

This is a question on both 5 and 6. In terms of pre-warned subjects, like the . . . . . . . . . these storms, and this sort of thing. A lot of pre-warned subjects. To your eye, how far below the horizon could you feel you could pick up say a weather phenomenon. Now you're not looking through the atmosphere at something in the atmosphere. Do you feel you could see say $10^\circ$ below the horizon? Can you come up with some estimate there. If you're pointed head essentially try the plane towards it so it's in your window.

Wouldn't this depend upon what the phenomenon was-

. . . covered a 1000 miles on the side - it's make it more 500 miles on the side - I'd be able to see that at $10^\circ$ below the horizon. If it were a line of thunderstorms, I think probably 20 or $30^\circ$. If you're looking for some of the things that we were looking for at $30^\circ$

39