NASA

SP-4012

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK Volume !i

Programs

and

Projects

1958-1968

Linda

Neuman

Ezell

The NASA

Historical

Sede$

Scientific and Technical Information Division 1988 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DE;

Library (Revised Van

of

Congress vols. Jane,

Cataloging-in-Publication 2 and 1937data book, series) 1958-1968. (NASA SP and Ezell. -v. 2. Programs and and joint ; 4012) indexes. 3)

Data

for

Nimmen,

NASA (The Vols.

historical NASA 2 and v.

historical 3 by Linda 1. NASA 1958-1968 States.

Includes

bibliographical

references Neuiman resources -v.

Contents: and projects,

3. Programs Aeronautics

projects, Space

1969-1978. I. United Administration. I1. Ezell, V. Series: Linda The National

I. Bruno, Neuman. NASA

Leonard Ill. Title.

C., IV.

author.

Series.

historical 629.4'0973

series. 74-600126

TL521.312.V36

For

sale

by the

Superintendent

of Documents, Washington, D.C.

U.S. 20402

Government

Printing

Office,

PREFACE

The first two volumes of this series provide a statistical summary of the first decade of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It was a pioneering decade, characterized by public and congressional support, growth, and adventure. While Volume I introduces the researcher to NASA finances, personnel, and installations, the second programs and projects-the previously measured. volume raison contains information on the agency's major d'etre for the "dollars, people, and things"

Established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of July 1958, NASA, a civilian organization, was charged with managing those aeronautics and space activities sponsored by the United States that fell outside the purview of the Department of Defense. Included in the space act were eight general objectives for the new agency: (1) to expand man's knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space; (2) to improve the usefulness and performance of aeronautical and space vehicles; (3) to send instrumented vehicles into space that could support life; (4) to study the long-range benefits that might result from utilizing space; (5) to preserve the role of the U.S. as a technological leader; (6) to support national defense by providing other agencies with information on new discoveries; (7) to cooperate with other countries in the peaceful utilization and exploration of space; and (8) to utilize existing scientific and engineering facilities and personnel. To meet these objectives, NASA channeled its resources into five programs: space science and applications, manned spaceflight, launch vehicle development, tracking and data acquisition, and advanced research and technology. The procurement and development of launch vehicles was a critical first step for NASA. Chapter 1 discusses the military vehicles used by the agency in its early years and the stable of launchers designed and developed by NASA and its contractors. Saturn V, the largest and most powerful of these vehicles, was built for a specific purpose--manned expeditions to the moon. Chapter 2 outlines for the reader NASA's manned spaceflight program. Project Mercury proved that one man could safely orbit the earth at_,t return. Pairs of astronauts in larger vehicles performed larger, more sophisticated missions during Project Gemini. But it was the ambitious Apollo program that captured the attention and the purse of the nation. In 1961 in answer to Yuri A. Gagarin's successful orbital flight, which preceded John H. Glenn, Jr.'s orbital mission by 10 months, President John F. Kennedy declared that before the end of the decade the U.S. would send a man to the moon. At the close of NASA's first decade, three Americans circled earth's natural satellite aboard Apollo

4
iii

iv

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

8; in July 1969 the first of six Apollo lunar landers touched down safely on the moon. Although it received less fiscal support, the space science and applications program brought the agency its first and steadiest supply of results. Chapter 3 explores the disciplines NASA's space scientists sought to study and describes the many vehicles they used-from small sounding rockets and the Explorer family of satellites to large orbiting-laboratory satellites. In addition to supporting "pure" scientific research, NASA specialists also developed satellites of a more "practicaL" nature that contributed to such fields as meteorology and communications. NASA also applied its expertise to aeronautical research, continuing a practice begun by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915. Also included in the advanced research and technology program, desci'ibed in Chapter 4, were investigations in the fields of space vehicle systems, electronics and control, human factor systems, and space power and propulsion. Scientific satellites, manned spacecraft, and experimental aircraft all demanded accurate tracking procedures and sophisticated data acquisition and analysis equipment, which is discussed in Chapter 5. During the first 10 years, the agency's tracking and data acquisition program supported three networks: the Space Tracking and Data Acquisition Network (satellites), the Manned Space Flight Network, and the Deep Space Network. Each of the five chapters is divided into three sections. The narrative introduction to each chapter includes information on the changing management of the program offices at NASA Headquarters. In the budget sections, tables provide a fiscal history of each program and the many flight and research projects sponsored by NASA. The bulk of the book is devoted to describing these projects, including data on the projects' origins. For example, in Chapter 3, the material is divided among six broad categories: physics and astronomy, lunar and planetary, life sciences, meteorology, communications, and applications (including geodesy). In turn, the physics and astronomy section is organized by project: Explorer, Orbiting Solar Observatory, Orbiting Astronomical Observatory, Orbiting Geophysical Observatory, sounding rockets, Vanguard, and miscellaneous projects (including several international ventures). For each flight, a data sheet gives a physical description of the spacecraft and information on objectives, results, and participants. Throughout the book, the reader will find material that is duplicative. This is necessary to give the researcher who is interested in only one program or one project a more complete story. The authors of the NASA Historical Data Book series have made interpret or judge the events they describe; instead they have provided no attempts to only the facts,

figures, and background. Such an approach does not lend itself to volumes that are read from cover to cover, but it does provide students, writers, and others-especially those without ready access to primary documentation-objective material with which to begin their research. The second volume also gives historians, managers, engineers, and scientists working in the field quick answers to specific questions such as: Who initiated the Explorer series of satellites? How large was the Ranger spacecraft? When did the Space Task Group become the Manned Spacecraft Center? How many NASA pilots flew the X-15? What steps did the agency take to expand its research abilities in the field of electronics in the 1960s? Taken as a unit, each chapter will give the more serious reader a complete look at a program, its preNASA origins, objectives, constituents, and results.

PREFACE

v

Volume wasprepared nder II u contract, ponsored s bytheNASAHistorical fO fice.Theauthors indebted thestaffof thatofficefortheirassistance, i to criticisms, andmoralsupport.

LindaNeuman Ezell Spring 1982

CONTENTS

Preface Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Notes Notes

........................................................... One: Two: Three: Four: Five: Launch Manned Space Advanced Tracking Vehicles ....................................... .................................... ......................... .....................

iii 1 89 195 401 519 597 605 609 619

Spaceflight Science

and Applications and

Research and Data

Technology

Acquisition

..........................

............................................................. on Sources NASA ................................................... Organization Charts ................................

Appendix: Index

.............................................................

vii

CHAPTER

ONE

LAUNCH VEHICLES

CHAPTER ONE

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

Before the National Aeronautics and Space Act was signed on July 29, 1958, the art of launch vehicle development was the exclusive concern of the Department of Defense (DoD). With the passage of the act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the new civilian agency charged with managing the country's space program was given the authority to initiate its own launch vehicle program. From an amalgam of civilian and military groups and organizations, NASA's managers began to gather the expertise and hardware they required, but for several years NASA would depend largely on DoD-developed missiles to launch its civilian payloads. When NASA was organized, DoD's Scientific Satellite Project, which included the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard Division and sounding rocket team, was transferred to the new agency. its upper atmosphere In addition to several

satellite and probe projects, NASA acquired the F-I engine development project from the Air Force. On December 3, 1958, the facilities and 2300 employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, were transferred to NASA from the Army. For 22 years, this research group had been studying liquid and solid propellant rockets and recently had been supporting the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's work on Explorer 1, America's first successful artificial satellite. At NASA's Langley Research Center, a facility inherited from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the Scout solid propellant rocket was being developed. Scout, the agency's first launch vehicle program of its own, was an assembly of existing components gathered from the Navy's Polaris missile project, JPL's Sergeant missile, and the Vanguard satellite launcher. In October 1959, the decision was made to transfer to NASA the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's important Development Operations Division, the Wernher von Braun team. This group was developing a large clustered-engine rocket called Saturn (formerly known as Juno V), which agency planners had identified as a potential booster for advanced manned vehicles. NASA had been seeking to acquire the competence of the von Braun team since its founding and on July 1, 1960 officially assumed responsibility for some 4000 personnel and part of the division's facilities near Huntsville, Alabama, which were renamed the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. The civilian agency also had been given authority to develop the Thor-Delta vehicle and the Vega upper stage and in 1960 took over from the Air Force the Centaur high-energy upper stage, which could be used with either the Atlas or the Titan booster. With the acquisition of the Missile Firing Laboratory at Cape Canaveral, Florida, in 1960, NASA possessed the

2

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

experienced people and the specialized family of launch vehicles.* and To develop a "national" NASA had to coordinate

facilities

it needed

to develop

a successful

launch vehicle program, the Department of Defense their efforts to assist one another and to avoid un-

necessary and costly duplication. Responsibility for this coordination was assumed by the Launch Vehicle Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board, a NASA-DoD organization established in September 1960 to replace the ineffectual Civilian-Military Liaison Committee. Since NASA-DoD relations and the prudent management of funds was also a frequent concern of Congress, the space agency's managers and designers took special care in the late 1950s and early 1960s to use military boosters already developed, to continue propulsion research initiated by the services, and to phase out any vehicle that was no longer suitable. NASA made immediate use of Juno and Vanguard vehicles and the Thor intermediate range missile with modified military upper stages; the agency began borrowing the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile in 1959, Redstone in 1960, and Titan in 1964. However, NASA's plans for advanced missions called for larger and more specialized boosters than the military had to offer. 2 In designing these new vehicles, NASA's specialists made every effort to develop the minimum number of different vehicles with which to accommodate the wide range of missions that the agency was planning, and it became standard policy to use the same vehicle configurations repeatedly to improve their reliability.3 Cost effectiveness, reliability and versatility were characteristics the agency's managers and engineers sought in their launchers. NASA's first decade saw the successful conclusion of the manned Mercury and Gemini projects, which employed Redstone, Atlas, and Titan boosters, and the development of the Saturn family of launch vehicles for manned spaceflight. Apollo 8 was sent to orbit the moon with a crew of three by a Saturn V in December 1968, the first manned mission launched by the large booster. For NASA's unmanned programs, the Thor-Delta launch vehicle proved to be a workhorse. It was used 63 times in 1960-1968 to orbit geophysical, astronomical, biological, meteorological, communications-navigation, and interplanetary payloads. The dependable Atlas booster was employed successfully in several configurations, including the AtlasCentaur, which at the end of the agency's first 10 years promised to be a valuable combination for large space science projects. NASA and the military were still depending on and improving the Scout launcher for small-payload tasks at the end of the decade (see fig. 1-1). Until December 1959, all launch vehicle development was managed at NASA Headquarters by the director of spaceflight development, Abe Silverstein. Abraham Hyatt, assistant director for propulsion, reported to Silverstein, and several chiefs

*For Robert

further L. Rosholt,

information NASA pp.

on

NASA Data useful and Tesl

facilities, Book,

see Jane 1958-1968;

Van

Nimmen

and

Leonard vol.

C. Bruno 1, NASA

with

Historical 13-50. Also

NASA

Resources,

SP-4012 A July

(Washington, History Spacecraft 1965-December "The Kennedy tion," vol. ministration of

1976), Apollo Center,

are Charles Operations, Facility,

D. Benson NASA White

and William SP-4204 Sands Test

B. Faherty, Facility

Moonport: 1978); History, Manned

Launch White

Facilities Sands

(Washington,

"MSC

1967," MSC Space Center 3, 1961; Data Facilities

rep. [no number], Story," Jan. 1968; and NASA Hq., (Washington, 1974).

Dec. 1967; Kennedy Space Center Public Affairs Off., NASA, "Wallops Station Handbook; General InformaOff. of Facilities, National Aeronautics and Space Ad-

1, April

LAUNCH VEHICLES
133_ o |

F

_

I

°I 8

133_

@
o

=

_{o

o

c o u-, co , D m,_ _z o m _ 0c_C o Q

,n._

o

o

9 w
> m_

O

g 8

m

°

§£ 8
> a: I,:_=,z_Z3 0 _ n _o

oo

8

_

9_
=

o

$

<= mc_

N

5
U

8

::/: o0 _

m

........
g _
SU313_

,,,,
R ° '-_,x,7, o- _ >r_

4

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

responsible for such areas as solid rocket development and nuclear engines answered to Hyatt. In late 1959, a Launch Vehicle Programs Office was established, with Director Ron R. Ostrander reporting to the agency's associate administrator. A November 1961 reorganization divided launch vehicle management among the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART), the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF), and the Office of Space Science (OSS), later the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). Managed in this fashion, nuclear and other advanced power systems were the responsibility of OART (see also chapter 4 for more on OART). Launch vehicles intended for use in unmanned space science projects were under the purview of Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion Programs Donald H. Heaton (replaced by Richard B. Morrison in 1962). As director of launch vehicles and propulsion in OMSF, Milton W. Rosen oversaw those vehicles that would boost men into space. In 1963, because NASA in general and the Apollo lunar exploration program in particular had become so very large, a major restructuring of the organization took place. The management of launch vehicles for unmanned projects was not affected. Project managers for the various vehicles continued to report to the director of launch vehicles and propulsion programs (Vincent L. Johnson replaced Morrison in 1964; Joseph B. Mahon assumed the role in 1967). Management of the manned vehicles, however, underwent a change. Instead of individuals assuming responsibility for specific components of the Apollo space vehicle and the Saturn launcher, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller divided the authority for Apollo five ways: program control, systems engineering, testing, flight operations, and reliability and quality. For example, the director for systems engineering would be concerned with the Apollo command module, the launch vehicle, the lunar module, and any other component of Apollo vehicle for which systems engineering was required. manager per se in OMSF. (See table l-I of the several offices and operations.) concerned There was no longer for more information of launch a launch on the vehicle

organization development

with the management

LAUNCH

VEHICLES 1-1. NASA Headquarters

Table Four Phases of Launch Vehicle

Management,

Phase I Oct. 1958-Dec. Administrator/Deputy Administrator Associate Administrator Director, Space Flight Development (Abe Silverstein) Assistant Director, Propulsion (Abraham Hyatt) Chief, Rocket Vehicle Development (Milton W. Rosen) Chief, Solid Rocket Development (Elliot Mitchell) Chief, Liquid Fuel Rocket Engines (Adelbert O. Tischler) Chief, Space Propulsion and Auxiliary Power Units (William Cooley) Chief, Analysis and Requirements (Eldon W. Hall) 1959

Phase I1 Dec. 1959-Nov. Administrator/Deputy Administrator Associate Administrator

1%1

Director, Launch Vehicle Programs (Don R. Ostrander) Deputy Director (Hyatt; Rosen, Jan. 1%1) Assistant Director, Vehicles (Rosen; Donald H. Heaton, Jan. Assistant Director, Propulsion (Mitchell) Assistant Director, Launch Operations (Samuel Snyder) Assistant Director, Nuclear Propulsion (Harold B. Finger) Phase III 1961-Oct.

1961)

Nov. Administrator/Deputy Administrator Associate Administrator

1963

Director, Office of Advanced Research and Technology (Ira H. Abbott; Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Aug. 1962) Director, Nuclear Systems (Finger) Director, Propulsion and Power Generation (William H. Woodward; John L. Sloop, Feb. 1962); office combined with Nuclear Systems in 1963 Director, Office of Space Science (Homer E. Newell) Director, Launch Vehicles and Propulsion Programs (Heaton; Richard B. Morrison, June 1%2) Deputy Director, Launch Vehicles and Propulsion Programs (Sloop); office dropped in early 1962 Coordinator, Launch Operations (John W. Rosenberry); office dropped in 1963 Head, Small Vehicles and International Projects (Vincent L. Johnson; Roll D. Ginter, July 1%2) Head, Centaur (W. Schubert; Johnson, 1962) Head, Agena (Dixon L. Forsythe; Joseph B. Mahon, 1963) Program Manager, Scout (Ginter; Warren A. Guild, July 1962) Program Manager, Delta (Johnson; Theodrick B. Norris, 1%2) Program Manager, San Marco (Ginter); office added in late 1962 Head, Advanced Projects (Alfred M. Nelson; J. A. Salmanson, 1963) Director, Office of Manned Space Flight (D. Brainerd Holmes; George E. Mueller, Sept. 1963) Director, Launch Vehicles and Propulsion (Rosen; Robert F. Freitag, April 1963); office dropped in 1%3 (see discussion above) Assistant Director, Vehicle Engineering (Hall; Rosen, acting, late 1962); office dropped in 1963 (see discussion above)

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Four Phases of Launch Vehicle Management,

1-1. NASA Headquarters (Continued)

Assistant office Assistant Assistant 1962);

Director, Director, Director, office dropped

Vehicles Propulsion Launch

(Richard

B. Canright; above) functions (Gus A.

Stanley

M.

Smolensky, to OART

acting,

late

1962);

dropped

in 1963

(see discussion (Tischler); Operations

transferred

D'Onofrio,

acting;

John

K. Holcomb,

June

in 1963

(see discussion

above)

Phase Nov.

IV 1968

1963-Dec.

Administrator/Deputy

Administrator Office M. of Advanced June 1968) (Tischler) and Space Power (Finger; Woodward, April 1967); Research and Technology (Bisplinghoff; Mac C.

Associate Administrator Associate Administrator, Adams, Division Division office Associate Director, Mahon, Program Program dropped Program Program Program Program Program acting; Oct. 1965; James

Beggs,

Director, Director,

Chemical Nuclear

Propulsion Systems

renamed Space Administrator, Launch Dec. 1967)

Power and Electric Propulsion Office of Space Science and Vehicles and Propulsion

in April 1967 Applications (Newell) (Morrison; Johnson, June 1964;

Programs

Manager, Manager, in 1964 but Manager, Manager, Manager, Manager, Manager, Joseph

Centaur Small San Delta Scout Agena

(Johnson; Vehicles and

Ginter, (R. office

1964;

Norris, Projects

1967) (Ginter); office

International dropped 1966;

reestablished Marco (Norris; (Guild; (Mahon; Advanced

in 1967 (Ginter); Manville,

W. Manville) in 1964 1967) E. Goozh, 1967) (Salmanson, Paul 1. T. Gillam, 1966; 1968) Technology added Support in 1968 and

R. K. Sherburne, W. L. Lovejoy, Programs

E. McGolrick, Medium Office

1964) Launch Vehicles of Manned Space (Norris); office Flight (Mueller)

Program Manager, Associate Administrator,

Director, Apollo Program (Samuel C. Phillips) (see discussion above) Director, Program Control (Phillips, acting; Milo L. Seccomb, 1967; James B. Skaggs, (John 1968) (Thomas Disher; (Walter Quality H. Thompson; Savage, 1965; Robert LeRoy Holcomb, George Director, Director, Director, Director, C. White, Systems Testing Engineering H.

1965;

Jerald 1967) 1966)

R.

Kubat,

L. Wagner, E. Day, A. 1963) Lemke,

Melvin

Flight Operations Reliability and Jr., 1966)

C. Williams, acting; (James Turnock;

1964;

George

BUDGET NASA's budget process, from requests for funds to programming the funds granted, was a complex one involving the agency, the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), and Congress. The agency was always considering three budgets simultaneously: the current operating budget, the budget for the ensuing fiscal year, and the preliminary budget for the following fiscal year (the fiscal year beginning July 1). In addition to asking for specific dollar amounts in each year's request, NASA's managers also had to explain and justify each budget category.

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table 1-2. Simplified Steps of the Budget Process

7

1. Program Operating Plans submitted quarterly to NASA Headquarters program offices by the field installations. 2. First draft of preliminary budget prepared by Office of Programming. 3. First internal NASA semiannual budget review (March). 4. Preliminary budget review by BoB, which leads to NASA-BoB negotiations and BoB targets (summer). 5. Second internal NASA semiannual budget review (fall). 6. Formal submission of requests to BoB (Sept. 30). 7. Requests readied and justified for review by congressional authorization and appropriation committees (by Jan.). 8. Initial hearings before House and Senate authorization committees, followed by reporting out of an authorization bill. 9. Similar review by House and Senate appropriations subcommittees. 10. Conference committees resolve any differences. 1I. Debate on floor of House and Senate, followed by passage of NASA authorization and appropriation acts.

From fiscal years 1963 through 1969, NASA's budget was divided into three'accounts: Research and Development (R&D), Administrative Operations (AO), and Construction of Facilities (CoF).* R&D and AO were funded on a no-year basis; that is, the funds were made available over an undefined multiyear period and did not have to be spent in one particular fiscal year. NASA was also permitted to reprogram internally among the three accounts (as of 1965, transfer authority was reduced from 3 °70 to 0.5 °7oof the total R&D authorization). This volume will only be concerned with R&D funds. For budget purposes, R&D was defined loosely to include more than pure research and development. For example, R&D funds were used not only to develop but also to procure launch vehicles and spacecraft after they were being produced in quantity. Severable equipment (equipment not permanently attached to a structure) could be financed with R&D funds, and nonNASA personnel supporting or working directly on an agency project could be paid from R&D accounts. The Bureau of the Budget was responsible for most of the cuts suffered by NASA budgets months before Congress acted on the requests. In the tables that follow, the "request" column represents the amounts agreed to by NASA and BoB. Data on submissions (requests) for this volume are taken from the yearly budget estimates prepared by NASA's Office of Administration, Budget Operations Division, and from chronological histories prepared for each fiscal year by the same ofrice. In Congress, the authorization committees and their several subcommittees intensely examined NASA's requests and the programs for which the funds would be spent. The House committee, for example, was divided into subcommittees corresponding to each NASA program office. NASA managers reported regularly to these subcommittees to keep them informed, because they had the authority to in-

*R&D and AO were combined in FY 1963-1964 and called Research, Development, and Operations (RDO).

8

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

crease maximum

or decrease over

the which

agency's funds funds its

budget could could not

requests.

The

authorization they imposed how

committees limitations the agency

set a or could

be appropriated; they

preconditions reprogram The authorization ects in the or

on

how

be spent; among in the

determined

transfer

monies column

accounts. following were not in the or program The charts always early is the listed 1960s. under ceiling for To set by the projthe projhad further the addid refor launch follow

"authorization" committees. chronological for the the

Authorizations histories, general

individual determine a certain

especially category histories. the

amount ect fell,

authorized consult to restore to funds as the were they

which

chronological funds cut by

appropriations committees the appropriations authorization an individual would

committees or make

power justments not Also, quest, launch vehicle. (however,

authorization however, closely by as "line did

requests. not

Generally, budgets as

committees subcommittees. listing be in the

scrutinize

NASA's

the

appropriated authorized; but are no for the

item,"

were

example, amount

a sum would not

appropriated for tables three are taken each to

vehicle

development, there 1-3 for

be itemized in for volume column, in the reported for the the

Therefore, see on table

appropriations of

columns

a summary and

appropriations for above. this

accounts). from the

Data annual represents estimates estimate).

authorizations histories spent funds to

appropriations mentioned

chronological the (for funds example,

The as 1964

last reported were

"programmed," NASA in the a major budget FY 1966

during

the

fiscal

year in FY

programmed for all

However,

account

the

funds

expended

NASA

Table NASA Fiscal Year 1959 c ! 960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Total Appropriations,

1-3 (in millions Construction Construction of dollars) & Equipment of Facilities b 48.0 84.6 122.8 316.0 776.2 680.0 262.9 60.0 83.0 35.9 2469.4 Total 330.9 523.6 964.0 1825.3 3674.1 5100.0 5250.0 5175.0 4968.0 4588.9 32 399.8

1959-1968 Research & Development 196.6 347.6 670.4 1302.5 2897.9 d 3926.0 4363.6 4531.0 4245.0 3925.0 26 405.6 f

Salaries & Expenses/ Administrative Operations 86.3 a 91.4 170.8 206.8 .... 494.0 623.5 584.0 640.0 628.0 3524.8 e

a

aS&E, 1959-1962; AO, 1963-1968. bC&E, 1959-1961; CoF, 1962-1968. cFY 1959 funds came from NACA and NASA appropriations

and from a transfer

from DoD.

aDuring FY 1963, AO and R&D funds were combined to form Research, Development, and Operations. CBecause of the change in how the accounts were managed in FY 1963, this total is understated by about $440 000 000 (see note d above). fBecause of the change in how the accounts $440 000 000 (see note d above). From Jane Van Nimmen and Leonard 1958-1968; NASA Resources, were managed in FY 1963, this total is overstated NASA Historical by about

C. Bruno with Robert L. Rosholt,

Data Book,

Vol. i, NASA SP-4012 (Washington,

1976), p. 115.

LAUNCH VEHICLES researchnddevelopment a
funds ticular To budget interested categories through notes. budgets ($100 taur. for would amount bottom year. reprogrammed project, review categories (arranged included 1-5. Valuable For were 000 But Mariner 000), the example, earmarked $15 requests ($54 600 salaries the budgets in the from for project, other NASA of various tables one accounts, employees, launch but Summary is provided FY launch 1966, portions Of would also have to consider built to such support .4 such obvious you things

9
as

special and vehicle name not do

facilities support programs, of the can following overlook

a par-

activities. consult vehicle the be found tables

to follow 1-31.

as the

in which

are 1-3

alphabetically), in table

miscellaneous in tables in the bottom project Mariner for Cenrequest which the the or

information in the of the

information prior for to

individual FY 1964 and In

spacecraft request $9 700 the FY for 000 1965

vehicles.

000 was not $10

requested always 900 000

for Atlas-Agena written was and so precisely. requested Centaur; for

were

100 000), between for making

launch did

vehicles, not specify

be divided

Atlas-Agena each vehicle.

the request these tables, for any

to be budgeted notes before

In using about

carefully particular

review vehicle

conclusions

totals

*For further information on NASA's budget process, see Arnold Levine, Apollo Era (1963-1969), NASA SP-4102 (Washington, 1982).

Managing

NASA

in the

Table NASA Research

1-4 1959-1968

and Development Funds, (in millions of dollars) Authorization

Fiscal Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Total aof the total,

Request

Programmed

237.6a 345.3 671.0 1380.5 2968.3 c 4351.7 4523._ 4575.9 4246.6 4352.0 27 651.9 e $146 619 532 was transferred to NASA.

237.6 b 333.1 671.4 1305.5 2957.9 ¢ 4119.6 4341.1 4537.0 4248.6 4147.6 26 899.4

175.7 307.9 644.1 1261.3 2878.6 3824.4 4358.6 4468.9 4249.3 3881.3 26 050.1

b Actual authorization for NASA was $20 750 000; the remainder was transferred c Includes administrative operations money and is thus overstated. d Includes $141 000 000 supplemental request for FY 1964 R&D program. e Overstated as per note c above.

to the agency.

From Jane Van Nimmen and Leonard C. Bruno with Robert L. Rosholt, NASA Historical 1958-1968; NASA Resources, NASA SP-4012, Vol. 1 (Washington, 1976), p. 120.

Data Book,

10

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

_a

o0

_5

_._.
rj_-E E

o

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

l l

r_

oo

0', O_

o
o

I

o
oo

,=_
E

o!
,,_ -4. ¢.1 e.l e.le.l ._-_

12

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Atlas (in Year 1959 1960 ! 961 1962 aSee b From CTotal $30 836 quest, dlncludes and also Atlas-Able, the manned programmed 000. $11 500 000 from the Mercury request, Atlas-Agena/Thor-Agena, spaceflight for all (Mercury) Mercury budget. launch Funding

1-6. History, of dollars) Programmed 8760 b 11 390 b ___c --and Atlas-Centaur. and Little orbital Joe flight I) tests was rea

thousands Request -----

24 900 b 39 000 d Atlas-Antares, vehicles $22 000 flight (Atlas, 000

Redstone, from the Apollo

$5 500 000

from

the Apollo

biomedical

research

request.

Table Atlas-Able (in Year 1959 1960 1961 aFrom b Includes the lunar funds and for planetary the Pioneer exploration payload. thousands

1-7. History dollars) a Programmed 4097 18 349 b 5975 b budget.

Funding of Request ------(Pioneer)

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

13

Table Atlas-Agena (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSee also Thor-Agena. bFrom the lunar and Clncludes budget. dlncludes planetary $3 800 000 $3 000 000 plus two from from FY the 1961 scientific satellite system project Ranger ($32 $346 000 B and thousands Request

1-8. D Funding of dollars) History a Programmed 3500 b 7706 c

16 500 d 113 675 f 93 581 h 132 800 j 97 3001 _ __ _n -- -- -P r

16 670 e 53 500 g 58 874 i __ _k __ m _ __ _o _ _ _q _ __ s

planetary from the

budget. astronomical observatories request, requests: request. astronomical Rebound ($8 observatories 100 000), ($22 775 000), com000), budget, and $200 and $7 360 000 from Rebound from the the Ranger lunar request and and

$9 500 000 the

request,

supplementary

000 from

a transitional

communications following

eFrom the Ranger budget. flncludes funds from the geophysical munications qncludes Mariner ($17 observatories system funds 000 ($3

requests: 800 000),

700 000),

a transitional 900

($27 300 000), and Apollo for high-speed reentry tests ($19 000 000). from the following project budgets: Gemini ($2 000 000), Ranger ($30 advanced Syncom ($200 000), and OAO ($3 400 000). In addition,

000),

$5 100 000 budget,

was programmed plus $2 500 000 hlncludes satellite Ranger Gemini ($12 $22 OGO budget. kOSSA OMSF II. tlncludes ($2 000 000), ($10 ($20 ($15 500 000), 200 000 budget,

for the combined for the combined from the advanced Mariner from from ($47 the the for geophysics

procurement procurement project Syncom

of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena requests: and OAO budgets: ($4 890 000), requests: 700 000), of of OGO

and Thor-Agena and Delta from ($11 828 565 000), 000). ($4 812 ($32 ($15 and ($15 Mariner Atlas-Agena ($17 997

from the OGO the OSO budget. OSO OAO

funds 900 000), funds 400

following

Rebound ($16

000), advanced 000),

intermediate-altitude ($3 600 ($1 000),

215 000),

($6 236 000), project project ($41

R ($6 240 000), following following the for combined observatories Ranger

ilncludes Jlncludes

Mariner OAO and

356 000), Syncom addition, from the the OSO

000),

and,Ranger

416 000). advanced In from 600 000). Thor-Agena Delta and

funds Gemini was plus

100 000),

900 000),

requested

procurement procurement

Atlas-Agena

$4 800 00

the combined 000 for

and

programmed $122 from

$54 599 700

the combined launch requests: Mariner

procurement vehicles, which

of Atlas-Agena included

Thor-Agena. D and Titan Ranger ATS

programmed funds Lunar and

000 for

Gemini project 500 000),

Atlas-Agena

the following Orbiter ($44 $55 400 ($15 400 000 000

geophysical ($10 900

observatories 000), OAO

($5 200 000), ($13 400 000),

($5 900 000), raOSSA OMSF II.

Gemini $115

000). for the combined launch combined procurement vehicles, which of Atlas-Agena included of included and Thor-Agena. D and Titan for Gemini for for the Atlas-Agena and and and and and and

programmed

040 000

programmed requested

nOSSA OMSF °OSSA oOSSA OMSF qOSSA rOSSA sOSSA

$82 300 000 $70 $54 700 for $29 $24

procurement which procurement procurement which procurement procurement procurement

Atlas-Agena Atlas-Agena

Thor-Agena. Titan II. Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena. Titan II. Thor-Agena.

requested

$88 600

for Gemini 669 000 000 for Gemini for

launch the

vehicles,

D and

programmed requested programmed requested programmed

the combined combined vehicles, launch

of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena

requested

$8 500 000

included

D and

396 000 for 000 for

the combined the combined

700 000 $7 999

the combined

Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena.

14

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Atlas-Antares (in Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 thousands

1-9. Funding of History dollars) Programmed 4000 a 1786 b 8972 t_ 3602 °

Request ----1110 a ---

aFunds bOSSA

provided Atlas

by the Project for

FIRE Project

Budget. FIRE.

procurement

Table Atlas-Centaur (in Year Procurement Request Development (Centaur) 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 alncludes b Includes ............... ----12 070 a 34 400 d 51 700 e 54 000 c 69 800 64 000 87 000 $6 700 000 from 41 000 47 000 65 400 b 66 664 110 700 92 000 59 600 29 700 --the Surveyor ---------------f thousands

1-10. Funding of History dollars) Programmed Procurement Development (Centaur) 4000 41 000 47 000 56 400 66 664 110 700 92 000 59 600 29 700 --$5 370 000 from ----2309 c 13 900 c 32 000 44 814 65 000 55 019 68 305 the Mariner request. 36 644 64 673 73 791 90 600 108 100 89 400 53 790 27 200 ---

Authorization Procurement Development (Centaur)

60 000 g 85 000 request, request. request, request, and and $17 and

a $9 000 000

supplementary the Surveyor the Surveyor launch were

CFrom the Surveyor budget. alncludes $17 300 000 from elncludes fTotal $178 sit vehicle $42 000 1966 000 from for

100 000 000

from from

the Mariner the Mariner total

request. request. authorized was

$9 700 was vehicle).

request (authorizations

vehicle not itemized Committee

procurement by launch that bringing

$194

500000;

700 000

was noted procurement

by the Conference budget

$4 000 000

of the $9 250

000 reduction to $60 000

in the launch 000.

was against

Centaur,

the authorization

LAUNCHEHICLES V Table 1-11. Juno Funding istory II H (inthousands ofdollars)
Year 1959 1960 1961 alncludes budget. b lncludes $8 540 funds 000 from from the direct from ray the satellite the scientific satellites scientific Request --___ ___ budget, satellite ($870 and $2 150 000 gamma and from ray Programmed l0 690 a 3483 b 2848 c the communications astronomy beacon air 000).

15

following

budgets: 837), budgets: beacon

satellite satellite

($870 837), ionosphere ($1 741 672). Clncludes ($730 000), funds gamma

measurements following ($705 000),

satellite scientific and

ionosphere ionospheric ($1 413

satellite

measurements

ionospheric

satellite

Table Jupiter (in Year 1959 1960 (Juno thousands I)

1-12. Funding of dollars) History a Programmed 2740 b

Request --......

aFrom

the manned

spaceflight

budget

(Mercury). was for Jupiter procured.

alt was estimated vehicles in FY 1960.

in the FY 1961 budget estimate that $40 000 would be programmed Plans for using this launch vehicle were cancelled, and no hardware

Table Little (in Year 1959 1960 1961 Joe

1-13. History dollars) Programmed 2850 a b c

I Funding of

thousands Request -__ ...... ......

a From the manned purpose test apparatus b It was estimated special purpose test

spaceflight budget. In addition, and airframe development. in the FY 1961 budget apparatus for all and airframe estimate that

$1 170 000 was programmed $1 300 000 would

for Little

Joe

I special Joe I

be programmed

for Little

development. launch vehicles (Little Joe I, Atlas, and Redstone) was

CTotal programmed $30 836 000.

Mercury

16

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Little (in Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Joe II

1-14. Funding of History dollars) Programmed 1250 a ___c ___d ___f ___h __j

thousands Request

1900 a 8800b 5000 a __3 ___g ___i

aFrom bFrom CTotal aTotal eTotal fTotal gTotal hTotal $120 840 iTotal iTotal

the manned the Apollo programmed programmed requested programmed requested programmed 000. requested programmed

spacecraft (advanced for for for for Apollo Apollo

systems manned

(Apollo) budget. spaceflight) request support, support, support, support, support, of which of which of which of which support, of which of which of which

for

a "solid, Little Little Joe Joe Little Joe Joe Joe

suborbital" 11 was a part, II was a part, a part, II was a part, Joe a part, II

launch

vehicle. 286 000. 503 000. 000 000. 663 000. 840 000. part, was

spacecraft spacecraft spacecraft

was $47 was $43 was $144 was $83 was $120 was was a $96

Apollo Apollo for

spacecraft spacecraft Apollo spacecraft spacecraft

Little Little of

11 was

for Apollo

I1 was a part, Little I1 was

spacecraft support,

which Joe Joe

for

Apollo

Little

500 000. 937 000.

for Apollo

support,

Little

II was a part,

was $119

Table Nova (in Year 1961 1962 1963 a NASA's was estimated adoption that of the Saturn $6 322 000 would Request ...... 48 500 163 574 C-5 in July Funding

1-15. History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 297 48 500 163 574 ___a --Nova. In the FY 1963 request, it

thousands

1962 effectively for Nova

cancelled

be programmed

in FY 1962.

Table Redstone (in Year 1959 1960 1961 _ From bTotal the manned programmed spaceflight for all (Mercury) Mercury budgel. launch 1962 budget thousands

1-16. History dollars) a Programmed 6490 4477 __b

Funding of

Request ----750

vehicles request

(Redstone, that $2 450

Atlas, 000

and would

Little

Joe

I)

was for

$30 836 000. II was estimated Rcdslonc in FY 1961.

in the FY

be programmed

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table 1-17. History dollars)

17

Saturn I Funding (in thousands of

a

Year Procurement 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 a Funded vehicle and

Request Development

Authorization Procurement Development

Programmed Procurement Development 19 325 b 9450 c

............... ............... ----90 864 e 75 000 e ----as a separate propulsion (funds launch systems 134 309 224 160 d 249 237 93 800 120 600 4 400 vehicle project project in the Saturn ------------in the FY FY vehicles 134 308 224 160 249 237 --950 e ------...... as part

173 908 193 326 256 887

93 800 120 600 4 400 1959-1963 were also requests, included

187 077 40 265

of the OMSF Apollo

launch as part

1964 request,

and as part

of Project

in the FY

1965-1966 requests of Apollo). b Funded CAn NASA these cle 1964 by DoD.

for procuring

in the FY 1964 request

additional programmed for were funds

$47 Saturn being between

870 000 vehicle requested

was for

programmed vehicle

for of which

the

development of which hardware. usually

of

the

Saturn step;

family however,

by first

DoD. step. of

its funds

Saturn for launch work and

development, Saturn were not by OSSA).

the Saturn

I was the

d Requested e Distinctions budget

development,

the Saturn

I was the first made

some

on advanced development used for

procurement for the

in the Saturn figures

launch for 1962

vehiand

(as they

were

vehicles figure

The procurement manned

are exceptions;

the procurement

1963 is from

the advanced

spaceflight

budget.

Table Saturn (in Year Procurement t963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 a Included the FY 1964 Apollo Project cle budget Apollo applications ............... 55 000 b ------78 500 b as part request, and between 68 600 260 274 100 700 --------Request Development IB thousands

1-18. History dollarsp Programmed Procurement Development 21 271 68 600 260 274 216 100 700 400 ----1000 b 21 900 b 146 817 262 690 274 786 225 626 101 systems and requests. not shown usually made in the Saturn for are from launch vehithe figure shown FY 1964 (from program 1970 and requests, Project and 100 in of

Funding of

Authorization Procurement Development

216 400 156 200 launch Project and launch vehicle Apollo

......... and propulsion

of the OMSF as part Apollo of

Apollo as parl

in the FY 1968-1969 were figures

1%5-1967

applications

in the FY vehicles).

t, Distinctions request)

procurement for OSSA

developmenl

(as they were budget.

The procurement

was an exception;

the procurement

for FY 1966-1968

the Apollo

18

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-19. Saturn Funding istory V H (inthousandsdollars) of a

Year
Procurement 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aFunded vehicle 1965-1967 and

Request Development

Authorization Procurement Development

Programined Procurement Development 623

............... ------------45 600 e as a separate propulsion and 50 000 b 335 988 1 236 172 400 500 843 000 c ......... ----------...... program in the of Project in the FY 1964 Apollo FY 335 172 --------1300 e g 1963 request, as part Apollo and --as part of Project of the 733 000 988 400 1 236 500 1 191 000

57 375 343 442 763 382 964 924 1 135 081 d 1 098 853 OMSF 154 965 launch FY

1 191 000 1 110 000 f launch systems and vehicle program as part

request,

Apollo in the FY

in the

1970 requests, request.

applications

1968-1969

requests. b Supplementary Clncludes

a supplementary

request

of $110

000

000. V launch vehicle were not usually system. made in the Saturn shown for launch vehiare

d Includes $210 000 for Voyager studies e Distinctions between procurement and cle budget for Apollo flncludes SThe (as they were for OSSA for Voyager was not launch

of a Saturn development vehicles).

The procurement V launch items; the

figures vehicle total

FY 1967-1968

applications. $1 500 000

studies by

of a Saturn individual

system. for Project Apollo

authorization 000.

itemized

authorization

was $2 521 500

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

19

Table

1-20.

Scout Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year Request Procurement 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 ............... --3500 a 3000 c 4176 e ---g 5300 h 11 700 10 400 16 800 Development Authorization Procurement Development Programmed Procurement Development 6048 3000 9652 4700 3648 -----------

2000 ......... 3675 8947 ......... ......... ...... ..... ---

-------

2000 3675 8947

--2202 b ---_ 4954 f 11 500 13 287 11 700 9400 10 200

i --J 14 300

---

-----

a From the scientific satellites budget. bIncludes funds from the budgets of the following

scientific satellites: topside

sounder ($52 000), U.K.

ionosphere satellite ($1 200 000), and electron density profile probe ($950 000). c Includes funds from the budgets of the following scientific satellites: recoverable nuclear emulsions probe ($1 000 000), topside sounder ($1 000 000) and U.K. ionosphere satellite ($1 000 000). dCombined amount programmed for procurement of Scout, Delta, and Thor-Agena from the international satellite budget (geophysics-astronomy) was $7 350 000. elncludes funds from the budgets of the following scientific satellites: topside geoprobes ($1 000 000), and U.K. international satellite ($2 850 000). fFrom the Explorer budget. sounder ($326 000),

g$8 800 000 was requested for the combined procurement of Scout and Delta for Explorer and Monitor; $5 500 000 was requested for the combined procurement of Scout, Delta, and Thor-Agena for several international satellite projects. h Includes $4 300 000 from the Explorer budget, and $1 000 000 from the Soviet reentry heating experiment budget. iTotal request for launch vehicle procurement was $194 500 000; total authorized was $178 700 000 (authorizations were not broken down by individual vehicle). JTotal request for launch vehicle procurement was $152 000 000; total authorized was $142 750 000 (authorizations were not broken down by individual vehicle).

Table Thor Funding (in thousands Year 1961 1962
a

1-21. History, a of dollars) Programmed 3200 c 1000 c

Request 2400 b ---

See also Atlas-Agena/Thor-Agena, Thor-Able, and Thor-Delta. bFY 1961 supplementary request for Echo suborbital tests. c For ballistic tests of the Echo (rigid) satellite; no upper stage was used.

20

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Thor-Able (in Year 1959 1960 a Includes budget. hAs reported would in the FY for 1961 request, Thor-Able. $2 120 000 from the scientific satellites thousands

1-22. History dollars) Programmed 4963 a b and $2 843 000 from the lunar and planetary

Funding of

Request --...... budget,

it was estimated

that

$727

000 of

the scientific

satellites

budget

be programmed

Table Thor-Agena B & B Funding (in Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSee also bIncludes plus and $1 900 Clncludes Atlas-Agena $3 000 000 000 from funds B and D. from the scientific request for the thousands

1-23. History of dollars) FY a Programmed 8 302 c 12 100 e 7 166 g _ _ _i __ k _ _ _m _ _ _o -- -- --q 1959-1968

Request 10 600 b 24 400 d 13 059 f 8 200 h 10 100 j _ _ _t _ _ _n -- -- --P

satellites for Echo.

request,

and

$5 700

000

from

the

Tiros

request,

a supplementary programmed ($3 300 000). from the following

following

projects: OSO ($1 000

Nimbus 000),

($2 802 000), topside sounder

Echo ($8

($2 200 300 000),

000), Nim-

topside sounder dlncludes funds 900 000), funds $5

requests:

bus ($10 In addition, Agena

and

Echo

($4 200 090). for the following from $7 350 000 from projects: Echo budget ($4 800 000) budget and OGO and Nimbus procurement ($7 300 000). of Atlasthe OGO for the combined satellites 000)

elncludes and

programmed and

100 000 was programmed

Thor-Agena,

the international

(geophysics-astronomy) ($3 908 000). ($2 366 000), Exof Thor-

for the combined procurement of Delta, Thor-Agena, and Scout. flncludes funds from the following requests: Nimbus ($91 517 alncludes funds programmed for the following and Echo $22 200 and projects:

geophysical

observatories for the combined

plorer ($3 100 000), Nimbus ($1 200 000), hFrom the Nimbus request. In addition, Atlas-Agena Agena, and iOSSA Jlncludes ($1 000 000), kOSSA IOSSA raOSSA nOSSA °OSSA POSSA qOSSA and Thor-Agena Scout for several programmed funds and requested programmed requested programmed requested programmed $24 $54 programmed $82 from Nimbus $54 for OGO; international 599 000 the $55 040 for following 000 for for

I1 ($500 000). 000 was requested

procurement of Delta, and

$5 500 000 for the combined procurement satellite projects (geophysics-astronomy). procurement geophysical procurement procurement procurement procurement procurement procurement procurement of Atlas-Agena observatories of

the combined requests: the combined the combined the combined the combined

Thor-Agena. Explorer

($5 700 000), and and and and and and and

($3 400 000). Atlas-Agena Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena. 300 000 for $70 669 000 700 000 $29 396 700 000 $7 999 for for the combined the combined the combined for of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena of Atlas-Agena Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena. Thor-Agena.

000 for 000

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

21

Table

1-24.

Thor-Delta Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year Request Procurement 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 ............... ----20 000 d 6500 f 10 It)0 h 28 30 22 32 100i 700 900 600 Development Authorization Procurement Development Programmed Procurement Development 12 927 12 476 10 479 5255 2183 -----------

13 300 20 000 b 2900 268 ......... ......... ..... ....... ---

---------

13 300 12 500 2900 268

34a 8000 c 2500 ¢ 31 589_ 30 101 32 27 23 33 374 729 835 696

__i k 31 100

-------

aFrom the Project Echo budget for third-stage hardware. bIncludes a supplementary request of $7 500 000. aFrom the Project Relay budget. dIncludes $7 500 000 from the Project Relay request, and $2 500 000 from the Tiros request.

eFrom the Syncom budget. In addition, $2 500 000 was programmed for the combined procurement of Delta and Atlas-Agena from the OSO budget, and $7 350 000 was programmed for the combined procurement of Delta, Thor-Agena, and Scout from the international satellites (geophysics-astronomy) budget. fFrom the Project Relay request. glncludes funds from the following

projects:

OSO

($2289000),

Explorer

($14 100000),

Tiros

($10 200 000), Relay ($1 000 000), and Syncom ($4 000 000). hlncludes funds from the following requests: Pioneer ($5 000 000), geodesy

($2 800 000) and Tiros

($2 300 000). In addition, $8 800 000 was requested for the combined procurement of Delta and Scout from the Explorer and Monitor request, $4 800 000 for the combined procurement of Delta and AtlasAgena from the OSO request, and $5 500 000 for the combined procurement of Delta, Thor-Agena, and Scout from the international satellites request (geophysics-astronomy). i Includes funds from the following requests: OSO ($2 700 000), Explorer ($7 500 000), Pioneer ($8 100 000), Biosatellite ($6 500 000), and Tiros ($3 300 000). iTotal request for launch vehicle procurement was $194 500 000; total authorized was $178 700 000 (authorizations were not broken down for individual launch vehicles). kTotal request for launch vehicle procurement was $152 000 000; total authorized was $142 750 000 (authorizations were not broken down for individual launch vehicles).

22

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Titan (in

1-25. History of dollars) a

II Funding thousands

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 aFrom $122 $115 the manned total total total spaceflight programmed programmed requested and and budget for for

Request

.....

Authorization

. _ Programmed 22 391

50000 46 900 66 900 ___d __ _e (Gemini). Gemini Gemini for lot launch launch both both vehicles vehicles Gemini Gemini (Titan (Titan launch launch 11 and I1 and vehicles vehicles Atlas-Agena Atlas-Agena (Titan (Titan II and 11 and 66 900 ___d _ __e _

63 709 _ _b _ _ _c

bCombined 700 000. cCombined 400 000. dCombined

both both

D) was D) was AtlasAtlas-

authorized authorized

Agena D) was $88 600 000. eCombined total requested Agena D) was $8 500 000.

Table Vega (in Year 1959 1960 42 800 Funding

1-26. History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 14 291 42 800 4000

thousands Requcsl

Table F-I Engine (in Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ----55 316 54 100 64 100 52 500 41000 ___d Development thousands

1-27. Funding dollars) History a Programmed 50 849 48 320 53 703 61 954 62 396 __b
___¢

of

Authorization ----55 316 54 100 64 100 ----......

e as part of the OMSF launch of Project Apollo in the FY J-2) was $133 200 000. 000. request vehicles 500 000. of was

a Funded as part of the liquid propulsion program in the FY 1963 request, vehicle and propulsion systems program in the FY 1964 request, and as part 1965-1968 requests. bThe amount programmed CThe d FY $24 amount 1968 was programmed the last year for Apollo engine engine requested J-2. development development funds for (F-l, (F-I, Apollo H-l, H-I, engine and and

for Apollo NASA and H-I, Saturn for

J-2) was

$49 800 The launch

development.

500 000 was for the F-l, to the appropriate amount programmed

The procurement development

of engines (F-I, H-l,

for the Saturn and J-2)

charged eThe

account. Apollo engine

was $20

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

23

Table

1-28.

H-1 Engine Development Funding History (in thousands of dollars) a Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ----5200 9800 4800 5500 __a Authorization ----5200 9800 ...... ..... ..... Programmed 5_2 6260 11 531 6550 b

a Funded as part of the OMSF launch vehicle and propulsion systems program in the FY 1964 request and as part of Project Apollo in the FY 1965-1968 requests. bThe amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-l, H-I, and J-2) was $133 200 000.

CThe amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-l, H-l, and J-2) was $49 800 000. oFy 1968 was the last year NASA requested funds for Apollo engine development. The request of $24 500 000 was for the F-1, H-l, and J-2. The procurement of engines for the Saturn launch vehicles was charged to the appropriate Saturn account. eThe amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-l, H-l, and J-2) was $20 500 000.

Table

1-29.

J-2 Engine Development Funding History (in thousands of dollars) a Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 732 200 600 500 900 ___a Authorization Programmed 18 33 46 48 49 574 635 769 284 102 b c e

38 48 61 45 37

38 732 48 200 61 600 ...... ...... ......

aFunded as part of the liquid propulsion program in the FY 1963 request, as part of OMSF launch vehicle and propulsion systems program in the FY 1964 request, and as part of Project Apollo in the FY 1965-1968 requests. bThe amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-l, H-l, and J-2) was $133 200 000. CThe amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-l, H-l, and J-2) was $49 800 000. dFy 1968 was the last year NASA requested funds for Apollo engine development. The request of $24 500 000 was for the F-l, H-l, and J-2. The procurement of engines for the Saturn launch vehicles was charged to the appropriate Saturn account. e The amount programmed for Apollo engine development (F-1, H-l, and J-2) was $20 500 000.

24

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
Table RL-10 1-30. History Engine Development Funding (in thousands of dollars) a Request ...... ...... 32 600 17 900 20400 12 000 ......... Authorization

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 16 29 18 14 332 645 521 970

32 600 17 900 ...... ......

a Funded as part of the OMSF launch vehicle and propulsion systems program in the FY 1964 request, as part of Project Apollo in the FY 1965 request, and as part of Project Apollo and the Centaur development project in the FY 1966-1967 requests. The procurement of RL-10 engines was charged to the appropriate launch vehicle accounts.

CHARACTERISTICS

The described and Thor,

launch in the were Antares, for orbital

vehicles following used and with

utilized tables. several

by Two

NASA

during

the

agency's from Atlas was

first the

10 years military, with

are Atlas Able,

boosters upper alone and and

borrowed stages. as the were

different it also stood

paired

Agena, vehicle that

Centaur;

standard added

Mercury to Thor

launch

missions. and science into

Able, versatility. program. onto

Agena, Juno

Delta

to increase to the rode Joe II, and to time also

missile's early Titan

range space IIs

Vanguard missiles were and Little hardware was

vehicles man-rated Gemini Joe I and for developed which was Vega

contributed to boost Little Mercury specifically over are

NASA's first modified were Apollo support tion used

Redstone distinct techniques of launch venture. Two proposed

Mercury

astronauts

ballistic Two launch family

trajectories, vehicles, and vehicles And

astronauts

orbit.

to test

and The

qualify Saturn

the

programs. the Apollo were launch 5 cases, launch sources

lunar upgraded vehicle

exploration and stable.

Scout,

changed first Nova, and

as its engines to the discussed.

its reliability

improved, vehicles,

NASA's

contribu-

In some particular NASA may some for clude stages the drical

finding vehicle

the "official" was not data may on

figures the same

for

the height, not

weight, to

or thrust find

of a

possible.

It was

uncommon Measurements, ways, stage does of into the

several

with

conflicting Height in the

vehicle.

therefore, and begins not the there and usually individual was ends in-

be approximate. disagreement measuring the

be measured material over

several where

different an upper stack Weight not take

source The

purposes.

height

of

a launch however, Diameter much

vehicle does. does wider

payload

(spacecraft); (wet stage, addition

weight, weight). which

includes of the

propellant booster due to the

consideration of the cylin-

base

is often or

than

rest

vehicle

of fins

strap-on

engines.

LAUNCHEHICLES V

25

I

O

I_

I

18

O

;A
,t= 0

Ox

"G

¢q _ _I_ ¢-I ¢'I

._o

o

0

e
0 0

*"

O O r---

p_ ¢,4

e¢l

I

t-

,.1=

I_

ID.

"1=1 _B

I:_ 0 .Z:

alB 0

O I.UD_ O

,-. "_ _

"6
O _1 ,.tD

,._

_

O

0

0

-_-_

_

..

_ _
0

_
m 0

_-'= o
g _

m_mZZNm_

26

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK if only minor abbreviations modifications of for propellants

Engine number changes may not always be noted the engines precipitated the changes. The following were used throughout the following tables: IRFNA = inhibited red fuming nitric acid LH2 = liquid hydrogen LOX = liquid oxygen N204 = nitrogen tetroxide RP-1 = kerosene UDMH = unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine WFNA = white fuming nitric acid

Thrust

was

measured

in newtons

(pounds

of thrust

multiplied

by

4.448

equals

newtons). Payload capacity was expressed in the number of kilograms that could be boosted to a specific ballistic height or to a certain orbit (measured in nautical miles converted to kilometers). When available for major vehicles, a listing by launch vehicle number (serial number or production number) has been provided, with information on how each vehicle was used and its rate of success. Consult table 1-32 and figure 1-2 for a summary of the success rates of NASA's launch vehicles. A chronology of each vehicle's development and operation has also been included. Development of many of the launch vehicles often preceded the founding of the space agency, but these early highlights of the vehicle's history have been provided. Launch dates and time were based on local time at the launch site.

100

8O

o
= 60 40 f J

/

0 1958 VEHICLE VEHICLE PERCENT ATTEMPTS SUCCESSES SUCCESSFUL 4 0 0 1959 14 8 57 1960 17 10 59 1961 24 16 67 1962 27 23 85 1963 15 14 93 1964 30 27 90 1965 30 26 87 1966 36 34 94 1967 27 25 93 1968 23 19 83 TOTAL 247 202 82

Figure 4-2. Launch

Vehicle Success

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

27

r

e¢._ ¢xl

,_-

I-

_- i Z_
-II

"_'
-I I

o_

,-.1

_oolII11

28

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

itO

___,_.._ .o

LAUNCH VEHICLES

29

The Atlas

Family

When engineers at NACA's Langley laboratory began seriously studying manned spacecraft designs in early 1958, they identified the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile as a candidate for orbiting a small blunt-shaped craft. Under development at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (Convair, later a division of General Dynamics) since 1946, Atlas flew its designed range for the first time in November 1958. NASA, the new civilian space agency, put Atlas to work the next year. Four Mercury astronauts were boosted into orbit by the Atlas D (also designated Atlas SLV-3) in 1962-1963 (see tables 1-33, 1-34). This reliable booster was also put to use during the second phase of the manned program as the Gemini target launch vehicle. But Atlas played an even larger role in the agency's space science and applications program. Atlas was first paired with the Able upper stage, which was derived from the Vanguard launch vehicle. This unsuccessful configuration failed in its attempts to send a Pioneer probe to the moon in 1959-1960 (see tables 1-37, 1-38). The AtlasAgena combination fared better. First with Agena B and later with the upgraded Agena D (manufactured by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company for the Air Force and NASA), Atlas-Agena launched Mariner, Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Orbiting Geophysical Observatory, and Applications Technology Satellite payloads (see tables 1-39 through 1-43). Teamed with the Antares, a modified solid motor from the Scout third stage, Atlas was used to hurl reentry experiments (Project FIRE) onto ballistic trajectories at speeds that simulated lunar spacecraft reentry in 1964-1965 (see tables 1-44, 1-45). Atlas-Centaur was the most promising configuration of the Atlas family. The high-energy Centaur, made by General Dynamics, was the first American vehicle to use liquid hydrogen as a propellant. During 1966-1968, Atlas-Centaur launched the Surveyor lunar probe series and one Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (see tables 1-46 through 1-48). NASA officials seriously considered one other Atlas-upper stage combination. Vega was being planned by NASA and General Dynamics as an interim vehicle to be used while Centaur was undergoing lengthy research and development phases. In 1959, however, the Department of Defense revealed its work on the Agena B stage; Atlas-Vega was dropped in favor of the military's proposed vehicle (see tables 1-49, 1-50). The Atlas booster was unique in that it had 1.5 stages. In addition to its primary booster engines, Atlas carried a sustainer engine system, which was jettisoned shortly after launch. The Atlas MA-5 propulsion system was manufactured by Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation. In the mid-1960s, NASA funded a "stretch-out" program for Atlas. By increasing its length, engineers were able to increase the vehicle's propellant capacity. The Atlas SLV-3X (or SLV-3C) was first used by NASA in 1966. 6

30

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Atlas Launch D/Atlas Vehicle-3)

1-33. SLV-3 (Standard

Characteristics

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg):

23.2 3 (4.9

(24.1

including

the Centaur

interstage

adapter)

at the base)

128 879

Propulsion

system 1.5 Rocketdyne 1 752 512 LOX/RP-1 With Funds Centaur, were 1133 spent kg to a parking 1965 and orbit trajectory to the moon out" the standard Atlas, thereby prime from 1966. in FY 1966 to "stretch Corp. Aviation, stages D, an Atlas-Centaur and MA-5 propulsion system (see table 1-33)

Stages: Powerplant." Thrust Payload Origin: Contractors: How utilized." (newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

increasing Consolidated Rocketdyne With First Atlas

its propellant Vultee Div., and on Oct. North Agena 26,

capacity. Aircraft American D upper 1966 for Atlas-Agena

(Convair/General Inc., engines unmanned R&D launch. to launch

Dynamics), payloads,

Centaur used D/Atlas

Remarks: See also:

SLV-3,

Atlas-Centaur.

Table Atlas SLV-3X/Atlas

1-34. SLV-3C Characteristics

Height (m): Diameter (m): Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: weight (kg):

21.9 3 (4.9

at base)

117 979 1.5 MA-5 propulsion 266 880 667 1 kg to 555 km earth orbit Force. Dynamics), prime by Convair under contract to U.S. Air Vultee Aircraft Corp. (Convair/General North American D, Aviation, and Centaur Inc., engines stages to launch unmanned 200 system, newtons newtons consisting of thrust of thrust of one sustainer and two booster each. engine engines (Rocketdyne (Rocketdyne YLR-105) YLR-89) producing producing

system

Thrust Payload

(newtons): capacity:

1 601 1224.7

280

Propellant: Origin: Contractors:

LOX/RP-

ICBM developed Consolidated Rocketdyne

Div.,

How

utilized:

Project Mercury, 1959-1963 With Able, Agena B, Agena payloads, 1959-1966.

upper

Remarks:

Project Gemini to launch Agena target vehicles, 1966 There were six versions of the Atlas, A to F. NASA used differed launch from vehicle the military versions stronger in the upper following neck, and adapter section,

only

the D model, modified

which

ways:

spacecraft-

inclusion

of an emergency

system for manned half-stage consisted was jettisoned NASA and propellant's See also:

Mercury spacecraft. The Atlas is said to have 1.5 stages. The of the sustainer engine plus some supporting structure, which weight after the initial boost phase. During 1964-1965, explored the possibility of adding fluorine to the increase Atlas booster performance. The "FLOX Atlas" B, Atlas-

to reduce Rocketdyne oxidizer to

project was dropped Atlas SLV-3X/Atlas Agena D, Atlas-Antares,

in 1965 in favor of SLV-3C, Atlas-Able, Atlas-Centaur,

improving Centaur's Atlas-Agena A, and Atlas-Vega.

performance. Atlas-Agena

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing Vehicle Serial # 10 20 50 67 77 80 88 91 93 100 103 104 107 109 111 113 117 121 May May Feb Aug. Oct. Nov. Jan. 8, 1962 24, 1962 20, 23, 1962 1961 Sept. Sept. Dec. Nov. April 25, 1960 Sept. Sept. Nov. July Feb. 9, 24, 26, 29, 21, 1959 1959 1959 1960 1961 Mercury Pioneer Pioneer Mercury Mercury Mercury Pioneer Mercury Pioneer Mercury Mercury Mercury R&D boilerplate (Atlas-Able) (Atlas-Able) MA-1 MA-2 (flight cancelled) Yes Yes No (airframe Yes No (flight cancelled) Centaur (AC-1) Yes Yes Yes B) Yes Yes Agena Agena B) B) Yes No (guidance failure) 126 130 133 135 144 145 July 22, 1962 Nov. May April June 27, 1963 R&D launch with Centaur (AC-2) Yes Yes B) (AC-3) Yes Yes system control failure) failure) test Date Mission of Atlas 1-35. D Boosters Atlas Stage

31

Successful* No (electrical Yes Yes No (airframe Yes failure) failure)

(Atlas-Able) MA-4 (Atlas-Able) MA-5 MA-3 (flight

13, 1961 15, 29, 25, 1960 1961 1961

launch

with

Mercury Mercury Ranger Mercury Ranger Ranger

MA-7 MA-6 1 (Atlas-Agena MA-8 2 (Atlas 3 (Atlas

3, 1962 18, 1961 26, 1962

15, 1963 23, 30, 1962 1964

Mercury Ranger

MA-9 4 (Atlas-Agena with Centaur (cancelled) B)

R&D launch Mercury Mariner

MA-10

1 (Atlas-Agena

No (ground failure)

guidance

146 151 152 156

Dec. Aug.

11, 1964 11, 1965

R&D R&D

launch launch

with with

Centaur Centaur

(AC-4) (AC-6)

Yes Yes

Mercury March 2, 1965 R&D

(unassigned) with Centaur (AC-5) No (propellant failure) feed

launch

167 174 179 184 194 195 Oct. Aug. April Sept. Sept. 26, 27, 1966 1962

Mercury

(flight with

cancelled) Centaur B) (AC-8) (AC-9) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

R&D launch Mariner R&D

2 (Atlas-Agena launch with Centaur

7, 1966 20, 1966

Surveyor OGO

2 (Atlas-Centaur) 1 (Atlas-Agena B)

4, 1964

32

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Listing Vehicle Serial 196 199 204 215 250 263 264 # Feb. Jan. March Oct. 17, 1965 30, 1964 21, 1965 Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger FIRE Date of Atlas D

1-35. Boosters (Continued) Atlas Stage

Mission

Successful* 8 (Atlas-Agena 6 (At|as-Agena 9 (Atlas-Agena 5 (Atlas-Agena 7 (Atlas-Agena 1 suborbital B) B) B) B) B) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

18, 1962 1964

July 28, April May

14, 1964 22, 1965

(Atlas-Antares) (Atlas-

FIRE I1 suborbital Antares) Mariner Mariner Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor OAO OAO ATS ATS ATS ATS Gemini Gemini Gemini Gemini Gemini Gemini Gemini Mariner 0(30 OGO Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor (88% successful). shortly after

288 289 290 291 292 5001 5002C 5101 5102 5103 5104 5301 5302 5303 5304 5305 5306 5307 5401 5601 5602A 5801 5802 5803 5804 5805 5901C 5902C 5903C *8 failures _The Agena

Nov. Nov. May July April April Dec. Dec. April Nov. Aug. Oct.

28,

1964

4 (Atlas-Agena 3 (Atlas-Agena 1 (Atlas-Centaur) 4 (Atlas-Centaur) 3 (Atlas-Centaur) 1 (Atlas-Agena 2 (Atlas-Centaur) 1 (Atlas-Agena 2 (Atlas-Agena 3 (Atlas-Agena 4 (Atlas-Centaur) target target target target target target target (Agena (Agena (Agena (Agena (Agena (Agena (Agena D) D) D) D)

D) D)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5, 1964 30, 1966 14, 1967 17, 1967 8, 1966 7, 1968 6, 1966 5, 1967 5, 1967 10, 1968 25, 1965 16, 1966 17, 1966 1, 1966 18, 1966 12, 1966 II, 1966

D) D) D) D) D) D) D) D) B) D) D) D) D) D) D)

Yes** Yes No (flight Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes control failure)

Mad'ch May June July Sept. Nov. June June March Aug. Nov. Feb. May Aug. Sept. Nov. Jan.

14, 1967 6, 1966 4, 1968 10, 1966 6, 1966 4, 1967 4, 1967 1, 1967 8, 1967 7, 1967 7, 1968

5 (Atlas-Agena 3 (Atlas-Agena 5 (Atlas-Agena Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter

l (Atlas-Agena 2 (Atlas-Agena 3 (Atlas-Agena 4 (Atlas-Agena 5 (Atlas-Agena

5 (Atlas-Centaur) 6 (Atlas-Centaur) 7 (Altas-Centaur)

out of 67 attempts stage, however,

malfunctioned

separation.

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Date 1946 Contract poration 1947 Contract research Air 1951 Force awarded (Convair) by U.S. Air of Atlas 1-36. and Event Force to Consolidated missile, Vultee Aircraft Operations

33

Development

Cor-

to develop cancelled

a long-range

the MX-774. Convair continued

with Convair on its own. reestablished

due to budget

restraints;

1950 Jan.

missile Air

program. reinstated (Project MX-1953); proposed

Convair missile Essentials

contract with named Atlas. of Atlas testing

Force

1953 June March 11, 1957 1958

design began. designers

were

developed

by 1953.

Atlas NACA

flight

Langley program. personnel to procure flew orbital

considered

Atlas

for

the

first

U.S.

manned

spaceflight Oct. 17-18, 1958 Langley Division Nov. Dec. Sept. 24, 1958 Atlas First NASA IO-D Nov. 26, 1959

opened Atlas

negotiations vehicles. for the first (Air

with

the Air

Force

Ballistic

Missile

its designed launch

range

time. Force Big Joe Project Score). test with Atlas

18, 1958 9, 1959

of entire conducted

vehicle

successfully (the Atlas,

Mercury

boilerplate failure). lunar probe;

however,

suffered

an electrical with a Pioneer

Unsuccessful upper stage 50-D

launch

of Atlas-Able first to Cape time

failure

due stage. mission

to

malfunctions; delivered

Atlas

was used for first

with

an upper

June

18,

1960

Atlas (MA-I).

Canaveral

Mercury-Atlas

July

29,

1960

MAd launch tural failure. MA-2 MA-3 proper launch launch

was unsuccessful

because

of launch

vehicle

and adapter

struc-

Feb. April

21, 25,

1961 1961

was was

successful. unsuccessful because of launch vehicle failure to assume

trajectory. launch launch launch launch launch launch were was was successful; successful Atlas with first declared chimpanzee manned safe for manned launch.

Sept. Nov. Feb. May Oct. May

13, 1961 29, 20, 24, 1961 1962 1962

MA-4 MA-5 MA-6 MA-7 MA-8 MA-9 Funds

aboard. flight using Atlas launch vehicle.

was successful; was was was spent capacity successful. successful. successful. to modify

3, 1962 15, 1963

1965-1966

the Atlas;

by stretching

out the vehicle's

tanks

its

propellant Oct. 26, 1966 First launch

was increased; Atlas

work with

was accomplished Centaur upper

by Convair. stage (R&D launch)

of stretched-out

was successful.

34

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table 1-37. Atlas-Able Characteristics
1st stage (Atlas) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: MA-5 propulsion Thrust Payload (newtons): capacity: system 1 601 280 LOX/RP-I 680 33 360 WFNA/UDMH earth orbit for interplanetary launch assembly, Able Corp. mission vehicle. instrumentation, Dynamics), Atlas Co., engines 3d stage engine the Pioneer checkout, Atlas and 13 344 Solid 1930 hydrazine 1 649 914 A J10-101 Altair X-248 injection rocket (m): (m): weight (kg): system 21.9 3 117 780 2265 390 154 120 589 5.3 1.9 2d stage 3d stage 4th stage Total

(w/payload) 0.7 29.8

Propellant:

kg to 555 km

227 kg to lunar impact 136 kg to escape trajectory Origin: Con tractors: Able Space stages derived from Technology

the Vanguard

Laboratories,

Pioneer payload (4th stage) Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Rocketdyne Div., North

(Convair/General Aviation, Inc., Powder stage). in all three was mated

American

Aerojet-General, 2d-stage engine Alleghany Ballistics Laboratory, How utilized." Pioneer Failed lunar First See also: Atlas lunar due probe; D/Atlas probe retired SLV-3, (with stage Atlas Remarks: to upper

Hercules booster

malfunctions the Atlas and

attempts with

to launch stage.

in 1960. in which an upper Thor-Able, Vanguard.

configuration

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

35

Table Chronology Date 1955 Aerojet-General second-stage sounding Dec. 6, 1957 First ploded Late 1957 Air cone It rocket received propulsion engine. test vehicle stage of Atlas-Able

1-38. Development and Event an system Air Force contract to design from and produce a Operations

for Vanguard

derived

the Aerobee-Hi

Vanguard due

launch malfunction.

with

live second

stage

(TV-3);

vehicle

ex-

to first requested tests. with

Force reentry was

Aerojet-General Two the months Thor later booster

to modify the first Able as the

stage

for

use stage RTV

in ICBM (reentry

nose test

upper

was delivered.

used

Thor-Able

vehicle). March 17, 1958 First successful was directed Vanguard used through Force launch; 1959. Ballistic Able Missile 3 and Division 4. to proceed with the second stage performed as expected.

Vanguard March 27, 1958 NACA

the Air Able

procurement April Aug. Fall 23, 1958 First Thor-Able

of two RTV

probes,

launch. due to first stage malfunction. by Abe small under Silverstein, probes agreement director, Of-

17, 1958 1958

Thor-Able Atlas-Able fice

1 exploded combination Flight

suggested Development,

to NASA to launch

of Space

to the moon. between NASA began

Nov.

1958

Work and

was begun Air Force Able vehicle

on Atlas-Able Missile 4. on 3 and

probe Division.

project

Ballistic

Space Technology

Laboratories

constructing Sept. Nov. Sept. Dec. 24, 26, 25, 15, 1959 1959 1960 1960 Atlas-Able Unsuccessful Second

exploded of

pad lunar

during probe

ground with probe

tests. Atlas-Able. with with Atlas-Able. Atlas-Able. Atlas-

launch

Pioneer

unsuccessful

launch launch without

of Pioneer

lunar

Third unsuccessful Able vehicle retired

of Pioneer lunar probe a successful launch.

36

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Atlas-Agena

1-39. A Characteristics

1st stage (Atlas) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: (m): (m): weight (kg): 21.9 3 117 780

2d stage (Agena 5.9 1.5 3851 A)

Total (w/adapter) 29 121 631 2

system MA-5 propulsion system Bell XLR-81 8001; 8048) 67 610 IRFNA/UDMH orbit Atlas-Hustler, Corp. Co., upgraded (model to model 1 668 890

Thrust

(newtons):

1 601 280 LOX/RP-I 2265 kg to 555 km earth Derived from the proposed in the late 1950s. Vultee Div., Missiles for Aircraft and Space Consolidated Rocketdyne Lockheed Proposed Tailor-made became called Atlas Bell Aerospace,

Propellant: Payload Origin: capacity:

a configuration

proposed Dynamics),

to the Air Force Atlas

Contractors:

(Convair/General Aviation, Agena engine satellites each used B, and into used JP4 earth Inc., Atlas

North Textron,

American 2d-stage unmanned for model Agena

engines

How utilized: Remarks:

launching to the SLV-3,

orbit. the improved Agena B The Bell engine IRNA/UDMH. D. was also

requirements the first

mission.

Because by NASA. fuel,

available, the "Hustler"; D/Atlas

A was never

the second

See also:

Atlas-Agena

Atlas-Agena

Table 1-40.
Atlas-Agena B Characteristics

1st stage (Atlas) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload (newtons): capacity: (m): (m): weight (kg): 21.9 3 117 780

2d

stage B)

Total (w/adapter) 30.6 124 802 2

(Agena 7.2 1.5 7022

system MA-5 propulsion 1 601 2627 280 1 km earth trajectory or Venus A. Aircraft American Corp. Aviation, 2d-stage and Ranger engine series and two OGO (Convair/General Inc., Atlas orbit kg to 555 system Bell XLR-8 l-Ba-9 (model

8081; upgraded 71 168 IRFNA/UDMH

to 8096) i 672 448

Propellant:

LOX/RP-

340 kg to escape 204 kg to Mars Origin: Con tractors:

Uprated Atlas-Agena Consolidated Vultee dyne Div., North

Dynamics), engines Lockheed

Atlas

Rocketand

Missiles

Space Co., Agena Bell Aerospace, Textron, How utilized: To launch the Mariner Remarks: See also:

satellites. D, and Thrust-

Capable of engine restart. Atlas D/Atlas SLV-3, Atlas-Agena Augmented Thor-Agena B and D.

A, Thor-Agena

B, Atlas-Agena

LAUNCH VEHICLES Table 1-41. Atlas-Agena D Characteristics
1st stage (Atlas) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: MA-5 propulsion 1 601 280 system Bell XLR-81-Ba-9 (model 71 168 8247) 1 672 1 823 N2OJUDMH earth orbit 448 680 (w/SLV-3C) (m): (m): weight (kg): 21.9 23.2 3 (SLV-3C) 1.5 7248 (SLV-3C) 125 028 136 2 127 (w/SLV-3C) 2d stage (Agena 7.2 D) Total (w/adapter) 30.6 32.1 (w/SLV-3C)

37

117 780 128 879

system

Thrust

(newtons):

Propellant: Payload capacity:

1 752 512 (SLV-3C) LOX/RP-I 2718 250 kg to 555 km kg to Mars 385 kg to escape trajectory or Venus B. Aircraft and Space

Origin: Contractors:

Uprated

Atlas-Agena Vultee Div., Missiles

Consolidated Rocketdyne Lockheed Bell Aerospace, Target vehicle To launch

Corp. Co.,

(Convair/General Aviation, Agena engine 1966. Orbiter, a greater and Inc., Atlas

Dynamics), engines

Atlas

North

American 2d-stage Gemini, Lunar accept for

How

utilized:

Textron, for Project OAO, could

Mariner, D model

ATS unmanned of payloads

payloads. than could the B

Remarks:

The Agena model. Work

variety Agena

was underway

in 1967

an uprated

D Bell engine, A, Atlas-Agena

model B, and

8533. Thrust-

See also:

Atlas D/Atlas SLV-3, Augmented Thor-Agena

Atlas SLV-3C, B and D.

Atlas-Agena

38

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-42. Listing f Agena andDStages o B VehicleDatef o Serial Launch # BorD Mission Agena Stage Model Successful* Ranger 1(Atlas-Agena) No(failed torestart) 6001 Aug. 1961 B 23, No (attitude control 6002 Nov. 8, 961 B Ranger 2 (Atlas-Agena) 1 1 system failed) 6003 Jan. 26,1962 6004 Apr. 3, 962 2 1 6005 Oct. 8, 962 1 1 6006 Feb. 1965 17, 6007 March 1965 21, 6008 Jan. 1964 30, 6009 July 1964 28, 6101 Sept. 1962 28, 6102 Nov. 1965 28, 6201 Aug. 28,1964 6202 May 1966 14, 6301 Jan. 1964 25, 6501 Sept. 5,1964 6502 Oct. 4, 965 1 1 6901 July 1962 22, 6902 Aug. 1962 27, ADT1/5001 11, 966 Nov. 1 AD82/5002 25, 965 Oct. 1 AD108/5003 16, 966 March 1 AD109/5004 17, 966 May 1 AD129/5005 18, 966 July 1 AD130/5006 12, 966 Sept. 1 AD136/6151 6,1966 Dec. AD137/6152 5,1967 Apr. AD140/6153 5,1967 Nov. AD165/6221 18, 968 May 1 AD123/6311 23, 966 June 1 AD171/6503 4,1968 March
D D D D D B B B B B B B B B Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger Ranger Alouette Explorer 3 (Atlas-Agena) 4 (Atlas-Agena) 5 (Atlas-Agena) 8 (Atlas-Agena) 9 (Atlas-Agena) 6 (Atlas-Agena) 7 (Atlas-Agena) 1 (Thor-Agena) 31 and Alouette 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Thor-Agena) B B B B D B Nimbus Nimbus Echo OGO OGO Mariner 1 (Thor-Agena) 2 (Thor-Agena) 2 (Thor-Agena) 1 (Atlas-Agena) 2 (Thor-Agena) 1 (Atlas-Agena) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A (Atlas failed) Yes 12 Yes stage

B D

Mariner GATV

2 (Atlas-Agena) 5001, Gemini

(Atlas-Agena) D GATV 5002, Gemini 6A No (probable start) GATV Agena) GATV 5004, Gemini 9A N/A failed) Gemini 10 ,Yes (Atlas stage 5003, Gemini 8 (AtlasYes hard

(Atlas-Agena) D GATV 5005,

(Atlas-Agena) GATV 5006, Gemini 11 Yes

(Atlas-Agena) ATS ATS ATS 1 (Atlas-Agena) 2 (Atlas-Agena) 3 (Atlas-Agena) B (Thor-Agena) Yes No (failed Yes N/A failed) D D PAEGOS OGO 1 (Thor-Agena) Yes Yes (Thor stage to restart)

Nimbus

5 (Atlas-Agena)

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing Vehicle Serial # AD121/6630 AD122/6631 AD128/6632 AD131/6633 AD159/6634 AD99/6703 AD74/6801 AD133/6802 AD68/6931 AD69/6932 AD157/6933 *4 failures out of Date of Launch Sept. Nov. Feb. May Aug. Apr. June July Nov. Nov. June 12, 1966 of Agena B and Mission 1-42. D Stages (Continued) Agena Stage Successful* Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter 1 (Atlas-Agena) 2 (Atlas-Agena) 3 (Atlas-Agena) 4 (Atlas-Agena) 5 (Atlas-Agena) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

39

B or D Model D D D D D D B D D D D (89070 successful).

Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar OAO OGO OGO Mariner Mariner Mariner

6, 1966 4, 1967 4, 1967 1, 1967 8, 1966 6, 28, 1966 1967

1 (Atlas-Agena) 3 (Atlas-Agena) 4 (Thor-Agena) 3 (Atlas-Agena) 4 (Atlas-Agena) 5 (Atlas-Agena)

5, 1964 28, 1964

14, 1967

38 attempts

Table Chronology Date Oct. 1956 Development Missile and its propulsion engine, thrust and Aerospace's Division associated and later began of Agena

1-43. and Event Operations

Development

at Lockheed an stage The 1956.

under advanced vehicle,

contract military which was

to the satellite called engine to provide be carried

Air

Force

Ballistic 117L) in-orbit its Bell Bell of

to develop upper control. renamed since

system

(WS of after

would

be capable Hustler had been

upper

stage The

Agena. missile the missile

Hustler would dropped,

under

purview

It was designed which were

66 720 newtons by a B-58 bomber. was transferred

for an air-to-surface

When requirements for to the Agena project. 1957 The Air Force Ballistic

the engine

Missile

Division

contracted

with

Lockheed

for

the

Agena. Jan. Feb. 1959 28, 1959 NASA First Force Sept. April 24, 1959 had Air plans for launch the using Agena with with Thor and Atlas first from boosters. Used 28, by the Air through

Force

of an Agena Discoverer

a Thor series

stage. Feb.

to launch 13, 1960.

satellite

1959

Air Force issued a contract amendment to Lockheed an advanced Agena, to be known as Agena B. NASA's Vega launch vehicle program B Coordinating was cancelled Board

for

the development

of

• Dec.

11, 1959

in favor

of the Air

Force the

Atlas-Agena Air Force and new Agena. Early 1960 NASA's Ballistic April 1960 Agreement Agena

B. An Agena NASA

was established and

to assist

in coordinating

the development

utilization

of the

Marshall Missile

Space Division,

Flight who between the next

Center, would NASA three

Huntsville, for them acquire

AL, NASA

was given from from

authority Force Lockheed. of 16

to supervise

procurement

of Agena

B vehicles

the Air

directly

was reached over

and Lockheed years.

for the purchase

B vehicles

40

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-43. Chronology ofAgena evelopment D and Operations (Continued) Date Event

May 1960 Oct. 6, 960 2 1 Nov. 1960 12, 1961 Feb. 1961 Aug. 23,1961 1961-1966

First successful ofAtlas-Agena launch A,carrying Midas the 2satellite. Unsuccessful ofAirForce launch Thor-Agena Discoverer Bwith satellite; failureue d tostage separation malfunction. First irForce ofAgena A launch BonanAtlas ooster. b Atlas-Agena Adiscontinued AirForce bythe infavor ffollow-on o AtlasAgena B. Agreement between and signed NASA AirForce regarding procurement of Agena Bvehicles. NASA's launch first ofAtlas-Agena Ranger 1, a lunar probe, as the Bwith
payload. low earth Atlas-Agena 4 being satisfactorily. and 3, with (NASA used booster.) The Agena orbit. stage failed to restart, and the probe was injected into B combination mission Atlas-Agena used during to launch used Ranger with I through launch Mariner I and 9, with vehicle 2 and June with Ranger OGO 6, 1966. the Thor 1

the first

which

the two-stage

performed

B was also

the last launch of an Agena a total of 18 Agena B stages;

B taking 5 of these

place on were used

May 1962 29, June 962 1 Dec. 1962 12, Sept. 1963 1964-1968

NASA improved Air

memorandum Agena

of agreement model, the flight Agena tested

was issued D,

stating

that

the adoption

of an

was desirable. D. from Marshall Space Flight

Force

successfully program

the Agena transferred Cleveland. and NASA

Atlas-Agena Center New

authority Center, Air Force and 1968, PAEGOS 3, and Atlas

to Lewis agreement

Research between vehicles

was

reached the two used

regarding organizations.

pro-

curement From through 5 utilized Nov.

of Agena

cooperation Atlas-Agena

between D was March

5, 1964 through Gemini targets,

20 times 5, Lunar

to launch Orbiter of OGO 1

6 Project

1, Mariner3 OG05. SLV-3C. The (NASA

through also

5, A TS 1 through the stretched-out four times

4, 1968 launch used

the Thor-Agena

D configuration

in 1965-1968.)

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

41

Table Atlas-Antares

1-44. Characteristics

1st stage (Atlas) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust (newtons): MA-5 propulsion 1 601 280 LOX/RP1 km ballistic Propellant: Payload Origin: Contractors: capacity: system (m): (m): weight (kg): system 21.9 3 117 780

2d stage (Antares) 2.9 0.7 1258

Total (w/adapter) 25.6 122 310 2.5

ABL

X-259 1 708 032

106 752 solid trajectory Antares solid

90 kg on a 9260

The Antares upper stage the Scout launch vehicle. Consolidated Rocketdyne Alleghany Vultee Div., Ballistics FIRE in excess (Flight test launch

was a modified Corp.

motor

from

the 3d stage Atlas

of

Aircraft North Laboratory,

(Convair/General Aviation, Inc., Powder direct hour Co.,

Dynamics), Atlas engines 2d stage

American

Hercules Reentry to obtain per

How

utilized:

Project Special speed

Investigation used kilometers Scout.

Environment). measurements to simulate of reentry lunar heating and at a inspacecraft

Remarks:

vehicle

of 40 225

See also:

terplanetary probe reentry. Atlas D/Atlas SLV-3 and

Table Chronology Date April 14, 1964 Launch cessful. Launch of FIRE of

1-45. Operations Event

Atlas-Antares

1 (Flight

Investigation

Reentry

Environment)

was

suc-

May

22,

1965

of FIRE

2 was

successful.

42

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Atlas-Centaur Height (m): 23.2

1-46. Characteristics 13 14.6 3 w/payload fairing 146 024 2.5 34

Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages:

(m): weight

(kg):

3 128 879

17 145

system MA-5 propulsion 1 752 512 LOX/RP1 system 66 720 LOX/LH x 2 = 2 133 440 I 885 952 2 RL-10s

Powerplant: Thrust (newtons):

Propellant: Payload capacity:

3857 kg to 555 km earth orbit 1225 kg to escape trajectory 815 kg to Venus or Mars stage. Dynamics), Atlas engines Atlas

Origin: Contractors:

General Dynamics studies for a high-energy second Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. (Convair/General Rocketdyne General Pratt Div., Dynamics, & Whitney, planned North Centaur 2d-stage to boost with engines 1962-1965-era Centaur it Mars was not and American Aviation, Inc.,

How

utilized:

Originally development

Venus until

spacecraft, 1966 to

but

due

to the

problems probe launch

used

launch One

Remarks:

Surveyor lunar First American serious between evaporate. Early on R&D 26, D/Atlas

series (1966-1968) vehicle to utilize vehicle's hydrogen

and other scientific satellites. liquid hydrogen as a propellant. was hydrogen caused the loss; liquid

of the

problems with the the oxygen and

development fuel tanks

heat transfer hydrogen to

launches 1966 with SLV-3

used and

the standard Atlas SLV-3C.

Atlas;

the stretched-out

Altas

was

first

used

Oct.

AC-9.

See also:

Atlas

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing of 1-47. Vehicles

43

Centaur

Vehicle Serial # F-I AC-2 AC-3

Date

Mission

Centaur Stage Successful* No (fairing Yes No (premature shutdown) engine malfunction)

May Nov. June

8, 1962 27, 1963 30, 1964

R&D launch R&D launch R&D launch

AC-4 AC-5

Dec. March

1 I, 1964 2, 1965

R&D launch R&D launch

Yes No trial down (Atlas stage shut

prematurely)

AC-6 AC-7 AC-8 AC-9 AC-10 AC-11 AC-12 AC-13 AC-14 AC-15 AC-16 AC-17 *4 fad.lures out of

Aug. Sept. April Oct. May July April Sept. Nov. Jan. Dec. Aug.

11, 1965 20, 1966

R&D

launch 2

Yes Yes No (failed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (failure to ignite) 2d burn)

Surveyor R&D R&D

7, 1966 26, 30, 14, 1966 1966 1967

launch launch 1 4 3 5 6 7

Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor OAO ATS successful). 4 2

17, 1967 8, 1967 7, 1967 7, 1968 7, 1968 10, 1968 (75%

16 attempts

44

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 1956 Convair/General could Oct. 1957 Studies discussions Aug. 28, 1958 ARPA oversee stage tract stage's July July 1, 1959 1960 be used for with of Atlas-Centaur

1-48. Development Event and Operations

Dynamics the Atlas

began booster.

to study

high-energy

second

stages

that

a Centaur with the

prototype Advanced

were Research

completed; Projects

General Agency

Dynamics (ARPA).

began

requested a contract for Atlas executed engine

the Air Force with General

Research Dynamics

and Development for the development

Command to of an upper

to be propelled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (conon Nov. 14). Pratt & Whitney received a contract for the development. for Centaur was transferred to NASA. new

Responsibility NASA proposed Marshall Space The Centaur

to utilize Centaur, Flight Center, for launch first schedule was

which was being managed by the 1962 Venus and Mars missions. revised for Canaveral due 1964. by General due mission Dynamics. to Centaur set for responsibility to problems with

Jan.

1961

engine

development; Oct. May 30, 1961 First First flight

mission shipped

rescheduled to Cape (AC-I) revised

vehicle

8, 1962

Atlas-Centaur Launch recommended

test launch schedule

was unsuccessful again with first

fair1965. for

ing failure. Sept. 1962 Marshall Centaur Nov. June 27, 1963 30, 1964 AC-2 AC-3

cancelling to Lewis

Centaur; Research

management Center,

was transferred R&D R&D launch launch

Cleveland.

was successful. achieved engine with majority of objectives, but experienced

premature Dec. 11, 1964 AC-4 R&D

Centaur launch two-burn launch

shutdown. model of Surveyor was due lunar not probe was successful, but

secondary March 2, 1965 AC-5 stage. Mid-1965 Aug. 11, 1965 Centaur AC-6 R&D

inflight was

experiment

completed. shutdown of Atlas

unsuccessful

to premature

declared R&D launch Surveyor launch

operational. with new propellant utilization system was successful

(simulated April 7, 1966 AC-8 the May Sept. Oct. Dec. 30, 20, 26, 1966 1966 1966 1966 R&D planned

launch). was unsuccessful; the dummy payload was not put into

parking

orbit. 1 lunar 2 lunar with probe probe was successful.

Launch Launch AC-9 NASA than

of Surveyor of R&D Surveyor launch

was successful. Atlas ATS SLV-3C was successful. with Atlas-Centaur rather

stretched-out OAO and

decided Atlas-Agena

to launch D. successfully ATS

satellites

April 17, 1967Dec. 7, 1968

Atlas-Centaur attempt not occur and

launched 4 on Aug. and

Surveyor 10, 1968 second stage

3 through failed did when not

7 and Centaur separate.

OAO

2. The did

to launch

ignition

the spacecraft

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Proposed Atlas-Vega 1-49. Characteristics

45

1st stage (modified Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust (newtons): MA-5 propulsion Propellant: Payload capacity: 1 601 280 LOX/RP2177 476 227 Origin: Contractors: 1 system (m): (m): weight (kg): system 18.6 3 117 910 Atlas)

2d stage

3d stage (optional)

Total

4.8 3 14 512

6.4 3 2268

29.9

134 690 2.5 or 3.5

GE

405H-2

JPL

design 1 783 648

155 680 LOX/RP-I km earth trajectory orbit (with orbit (with 3d stage) 3d stage)

26 688 solid

kg to 555 kg to escape kg to lunar design

NASA

Consolidated Rocketdyne Vultee General Jet

Vultee Div.,

Aircraft

Corp.

(Convair/General Aviation, Inc., Atlas Dynamics), engine vehicle to be used B. for

Dynamics), engines, Vega

Atlas Consolidated

North

American

Aircraft Corp., (Convair/General Electric, 2d-stag6 engine Laboratory, 3d-stage

Propulsion

How

utilized."

General purpose "interim" launch Atlas-Centaur became operational. Dropped Atlas in favor of DoD-sponsored D/Atlas SLV-3.

a variety

of missions

until

Remarks: See also:

Atlas-Agena

Table Chronology Date Fall 1958 Vega design was conceived of

1-50. Development Event by NASA engineers as an interim and upper stage missions to

Atlas-Vega

be used with Atlas until Atlas-Centaur Dec. 15, 1958 Atlas-Vega launch ly two Jan. 30, 1959 Funds design

booster for a variety was available. was proposed

of unmanned

manned

by NASA

in an interagency vehicle with

meeting a thrust

on U.S. of near-

vehicles; million were

it was described newtons.

as a three-stage

made

available

to the Jet

Propulsion

Laboratory

for

third

stage

development. March 18, 1959 Convair, Atlas-Vega March April 4, 18, 1959 1959 General Launch 1960. General Dynamics and Corp., production. a contract for for the second the first stage flight engine. Aug. was awarded the prime contract for

development Electric Co. plan

was awarded was adopted

schedule

Vega, with

set for

Oct.

13,

1959

Civilian-Military dropped in favor Vega was cancelled ty and development

Liaison of the

Committee DoD-sponsored

recommended Agena B. B, which had

that

the

Vega

stage

be

Dec.

11, 1959

in favor of Agena schedule.

a similar

payload

capaci-

46

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Juno

1 and II

NASA adopted the Juno I and Juno II military vehicles to launch its early Explorer satellites and probes. Juno I, made from a modified Jupiter C, successfully launched the first American satellite, Explorer 1, for the Army in 1957. Juno I was transferred to NASA shortly after the civilian agency was established and was used only once unsuccessfully before it was replaced by Juno II. An extended Jupiter intermediate ballistic missile served as Juno II's booster stage. NASA used Juno II in 1958-1961 with poor results: only 3 successful missions in 10 attempts. NASA's own Scout launch vehicle replaced Juno as the primary launcher for the Explorer series. 7

Table 1-51.
Juno I Characteristics

1st stage (modified Redstone) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Rocketdyne A-7 (m): (m): weight (kg): 17.1 1.8 28 828

2d stage

3d stage

4th

stage

Total

(w/payload)

approx. 575

1.2

approx. 244

1.2

approx. varied payload

1.5 with

21 approx. 30 000

system 11 scaled-down Sergeants, clustered 3 scaled-down Sergeants, clustered 1 scaled-down Sergeant

Thrust

(newtons):

369 LOX/

184

73 392 solid

24 019 solid

8006 solid

474

601

Propellant:

hydrazine Payload Origin: capacity: 18 kg to 555 Developed Chrysler, Rocketdyne Laboratory, How utilized: Remarks." To launch km earth orbit Ballistic American engines satellites. referred to as Jupiter for reentry nose cone C, which tests. Juno was a three-stage 1 is an adaptation Missile Agency and Inc., the Jet Propulsion lst-stage engine Jet Laboratory. Propulsion by the Army prime Div., early North Explorer Aviation, upper-stage

Contractors."

Juno I is sometimes launch vehicle used of Jupiter C. Mercury-Redstone

incorrectly by the Army and Juno I1.

See also."

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Date Sept. 20, 1956 The Army nose conducted plus reentry cone was the first two tests of Juno 1-52. and Event long-range upper Army. satellite for the International stage, by the firing of Jupiter Jupiter C, a three-stage Operations

47

I Development

vehicle missile Nov. 8, 1957 The single Jan. 31, 1958 Launch Missile March March July Aug. Oct. Oct. 26, 24, 21, 22, 5, 1958 26, 1958 Launch Launch Launch Launch Juno Launch Langley

(Redstone,

solid-fuel

stages).

C was used

for

Army

directed with motor.

to launch a modified This 1, the launch first

a scientific Jupiter vehicle American

Geophysical Sergeant of

Year

C with became satellite,

an added known by

fourth as Juno.

a

Explorer

the

Army

Ballistic

Agency

was successful. 2 was 3 was 4 was 5 was unsuccessful successful. successful. unsuccessful; satellite failed to achieve orbit. due to fourth-stage malfunction.

of Explorer of Explorer of Explorer of Explorer was of transferred Beacon

1958 1958 1958 1958

to NASA. 1, a suborbital Center, was atmospheric due physics test developed upper by stage

Research

unsuccessful

to premature

separation.

Table Juno

1-53.

II Characteristics

1st stage (extended Jupiter) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: (m): (m): weight system 19.6 2.7 (kg): 49 000

2d stage

3d stage

4th stage (w/payload)

Total

approx. 575

1.2

approx. 244

1.2

approx. varied

1.5

23.5 50 111 4

Rocketdyne 5-30

11 scaled-down Sergeants, clustered

3 scaled-down Sergeants, clustered

1 scaled-down Sergeant

Thrust Propellan Payload

(newtons): t:

667 200 LOX/ RP-1

66 720 solid

17 792 solid

7117 solid

758

829

capacity:

45 kg to 555 Upgraded Chrysler, Rocketdyne Jet Propulsion IRBM

km earth trajectory I, which North

orbit was developed by the Army. Inc., lst-stage engine

20 kg to escape Origin: Contractors: Juno prime Div.,

American

Aviation, engines

Laboratory, scientific propellant

upper-stage satellites. was capacity

How

utilized."

To launch Jupiter

Explorer

Remarks: See also:

increased

by

extending

the

booster

section

and fuel tanks Juno I.

by 0.9 meter.

48

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 1955 Work Ballistic March Sept. 1957 1958 First began on the of Juno II

1-54. and Event Operations

Development

Jupiter

intermediate

range

ballistic

missile

by

the Army

Missile

Agency. flight first was was tests. qualification as the Juno new 11. missile booster to Army stage for Ballistic the Juno Missile launch

Jupiter

IRBM

Chrysler Agency. vehicle,

delivered Jupiter which adopted

flight

named

redesignated

Oct. Dec.

21,

1958

NASA Launch

the Juno lunar that

11 vehicle. probe was unsuccessful the spacecraft the due to several from probe fired escaping was too put launch earth into vehi-

6, 1958

of Pioneer3

cle malfunctions March 3, 1959 Launch rather July 16, 1959 Launch ly after Aug. 14, 1959 Launch system Oct. March Aug. 13, 1959 23, 1960 1960 Launch Launch Marshall prior Nov. Feb. 3, 1960 24, 1961 Launch Launch orbit. April May 27, 24, 1961 1961 Launch Launch of Pioneer than lunar

prevented 4 was

orbit.

unsuccessful; the second

heliocentric

orbit

when

stage

long. was destroyed short-

of Explorer launch of when

probe

was unsuccessful; sharply from due

the vehicle its course. to booster

it deviated 2 was

Beacon

unsuccessful

and

attitude

control

malfunctions. of Explorer of Explorer Space time 7 was probe successful. was unsuccessful assumed due overall to upper stage malfunction. for Juno I1;

Flight JPL

Center had

responsibility with Marshall.

to this

shared

the authority

of Explorer of Explorer

8 was successful. probe was unsuccessful; the probe did not achieve proper

of Explorer of Explorer

11 was probe

successful. was unsuccessful due to second-stage failure.

Little Joe I and Little

Joe I1

NASA engineers designed Little Joe I and Little Joe II to serve as test vehicles for two manned spacecraft projects. The two vehicles are not related, but were both used to verify spacecraft abort systems and to simulate other mission phases. Little Joe I, the airframes for which were manufactured by North American Aviation, was first put on the launch pad at Wallops Island in August 1959 with a boilerplate model of the Mercury capsule. In the event of a malfunctioning Redstone or Atlas booster, Mercury astronauts would need an escape system. With Little Joe I, this system was verified under a variety of conditions. Two of the eight payloads carried biological payloads, as well. The last test took place in April 1961. For more information see table 2-29. Little Joe II served the Apollo program. Built by Convair/General Dynamics, Little Joe I1 demonstrated the Apollo abort system at transonic, high-altitude, and intermediate-altitude phases of launch. Four Apollo boilerplate models were launched by the test vehicle table 2-51). 8 in 1964-1966 at White Sands. (For more information see

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

49

Table Little Joe

1-55.

I Characteristics

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg): system

16.8 2 18 140 1 4 Thiokol 1 023 solid 1814 NASA North Thiokol kg on a 160 design American Chemical Mercury Aviation, Corp., manned prime propulsion capsule system tests (matched escape system search qualified; tests. altitude was tested and that could methods be km ballistic path 040 Castors + 4 Thiokol Recruits

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant." Thrust Payload Origin: Contractors:

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

How

utilized:

Project reached

qualification Capsule was

with the Mercury-Redstone). parachute for Project system

at maximum

dynamic pressure; were verified. Remarks: Designed exclusively

retrieval

Mercury

Table Chronology Date Aug. 1958 NACA's requested Langley Research of Little Joe

1-56. and Event Center Pilotless for for Aircraft tests Research of to a maximum Division launching altitude was fullof Operations

I Development

to prepare

specifications manned

a vehicle

capable

scale and full-weight 160 kilometers. Nov. 1958 Twelve tle Joe 1958 1959 North Thirty fired the-pad Sept. Oct. 25, 1959 North Little companies airframes. American minutes prematurely. abort American Joe 6

spacecraft

responded

to NASA's

invitation

for

bids to construct

Lit-

Dec. Aug.

29, 21,

Aviation before trajectory. completed (also called the

was first and

assigned Little tower

the prime

contract. launch (L J-l), the rocket on an off-

Joe scheduled combination

Capsule

were launched

shipment L J-I)

of the airframes. was successful with a Mercury

4, 1959

launch

boilerplate Nov. 4, 1959 Little' Joe

model. IA (also called LJ-2) launch was successful with a Mercury

boilerplate Dec. 4, 1959 Little Joe

model. 2 (also called and L J-3) launch payload launch payload was successful with a Mercury

boilerplate Jan. 21, 1960 Little Joe

model IB

a biological called LJ-4)

(a rhesus was

monkey). with a Mercury

(also and

successfull

boilerplate Nov. 8, 1960 Little escape sule, March 18, 1961 Little Joe and Joe

model

a biological with Mercury jettison separate. L J-6) rocket

(a rhesus

monkey). was unsuccessful; booster, cap-

5 launch and tower

production rocket ignited

capsule prematurely;

rocket

tower

did not called

5A (also

launch fired

with a production

capsule

was a par-

tial success; April 28, 1961 Little cessful; Joe

the escape 5B (also

prematurely. with a production rather capsule than was suc-

called Castor

L J-7) motors

launch carried

two of the

ballast

propellant.

50

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Little Joe II

1-57. Characteristics

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight system

10 3.9 (kg): 25 924--63 1 1 Aerojet-General + solid 12 69g NASA General Aerojet Chemical kg to an altitude design Dynamics/Convair, General, propulsion Corp., of and propulsion flight escape system conditions of conditions. design of First U.S. a from launch Mercury's abort vehicle Little to utilize Joe 1, but used and for skin. the same of kind spacecraft system simulation mission prime system system to be experienced Apollo command during module Apollo missions. under Strucmaxwas tested Thiokol of 35 km on a ballistic path Algol (148563×6=891 ID + 6 Thiokol 379) = Recruit 1 350413 TE-29s 368

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant:

Thrust(newtons):459034 Propellant: Payload Origin: Contractors: capacity:

How

utilized."

Simulations tural imum design

aerodynamic different

Remarks:

Completely of characteristics.

program-testing

a corrugated

Chronology
Date June 1961 Apollo pellant April 6, 1962

Table 1-58. of Little Joe I1 Development
Event engineers booster suggested for boilerplate proposals was using

and Operations

a fin-stabilized, tests for

clustered-rocket,

solid

pro-

flight issued

of Apollo. the production of an Apollo test

A request for launch vehicle. Convair/General letter contract A definitive Convair The vehicle first

May

11,

1962

Dynamics was awarded. contract the of

was

selected

to develop

the Little

Joe

vehicle;

a

Feb. July Aug.

18,

1963

was negotiated first flight Joe

with vehicle

Convair/General to the White the Sands overall

Dynamics. test facility. of the

16, 1963 28, 1963

delivered launch for Apollo of A-001

Little

II demonstrated

capability

simulations. (Apollo Transonic Abort) with Apollo boilerplate was suc-

May

13, 1964

Launch cessful. Launch cessful. Launch away was

Dec.

8, 1964

of

A-002

(Apollo

Max

q

Abort)

with

Apollo

boilerplate

was

suc-

May

19, 1965

of A-003 from the

(Apollo the malfunctioning

High

Altitude escape launch

Abort) system vehicle,

with took which

Apollo was

boilerplate what

was safely

unsuccessful. designed

However,

launch

the boilerplate

the mission

to accomplish. (Intermediate Altitude Abort) with Apollo boilerplate was

Jan.

20,

1966

Launch of A-004 successful.

LAUNCH VEHICLES Mercury-Redstone

51

Project Mercury, the first step in the NASA manned spaceflight program, was undertaken to prove that one man could safely orbit earth and return to a predetermined point. The Atlas missile was being modified to boost astronauts to orbit, but a less powerful, less expensive vehicle was required for the manned ballistic tests that would precede orbital flight. Two of the Army's missiles became candidates for the role. In October 1958, days after the space agency was officially opened for business, NASA requested eight Redstone and three Jupiter missiles from the Army for Project Mercury. In the interest of simplifying launch operations, the requirement for Jupiter was soon dropped. Redstone was modified for manned use by Chrysler Corporation, its manufacturer, and was ready for verification tests by late 1960. A chimpanzee was Mercury-Redstone's first passenger. In 1961, two missions were launched 2 under successfully Mercury.) 9 with astronauts on board. (For more information see chapter

Table 1-59. Mercury-Redstone Characteristics Height (m): Diameter (m): Launch weight (kg): Propulsion system Stages: Powerplant: Thrust (newtons): Propellant: Payload capacity: Origin: Con tractors: How util&ed: Remarks: See also: 18 (25.3 w/spacecraft) 1.8 29 931 1 Rocketdyne A-7 346 944 LOX/RP-1 1814 kg to an altitude of 189 km on a ballistic path. Army ballistic missile. Chrysler Corp., prime Rocketdyne Div., North American Aviation, Inc., engine Project Mercury launch vehicle for ballistic shots. First large ballistic missile developed by the U.S. Redstone tanks elongated for Mercury. Juno I.

propellant

52

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 1950 The Army's Guided Hermes engine system. awarded missile was system. program Missile CI of Mercury-Redstone

1-60. Development Event Center recommended missile of the further and Army's development the North requirements of the American for a and Operations

proposed XLR43-NA-1 tactical March 27, 1951 Contract missile May April Oct. 1, 1951 8, 1952 28, 1952

surface-to-surface to meet Department

to North

American

to modify

their

engine

for

the

A development The new missile was

was

begun

for

a new Redstone.

missile.

was assigned a letter

the name contract

Chrysler duction. First First

issued

as prime

contractor

for

Redstone

pro-

Aug. June Oct.

20,

1953

R&D

flight

test. deployment. was whereby manned to Ballistic the reached the between Army NASA would and the Army 10 Redstones Ordnance and 3

18, 1958 6, 1958

operational agreement Command for

Tentative Missile Jupiters

supply

NASA's

program. Army Missile Ordnance Agency Missile began Command planning for 8 of

Jan.

8, 1959

NASA Redstones;

supplied

funds

the Army

production

Mercury-Redstone. Jan. July 1960 1, 1960 First Mercury-Redstone static test firing. was transferred Flight Center. from the Army Ballistic

Authority Missile

for the Mercury-Redstone Agency to Marshall I arrived was Space

Aug. Nov. Dec.

3, 1960 21, 1960

Mercury-Redstone Launch of MR-I

at Cape

Canaveral. due to premature system and booster cutoff. vehicle

unsuccessful abort

19, 1960

Launch of combination

MR-IA to qualify was successful. a biological the engine

spacecraft-launch

Jan.

31,

1961

Launch of MR-2 with a malfunction caused caused the capsule

payload (chimpanzee) to operate at a higher the target was area. successful.

was successful, but thrust level, which

to impact (Booster with with a man a man

beyond

March May July June

24,

1961

Launch Launch Launch Redstone

of MR-BD of MR-3 of MR-4 missile

Development) aboard aboard

5, 1961 21, 1961 1964

was successful. was successful.

program

was deactivated.

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

53

Nova

Nova was proposed by early NASA advanced planners as a "super booster," capable of sending large spacecraft directly to the moon and beyond. Ten powerful F-1 engines would make up its first stage; a nuclear engine was being considered for the third stage. Four major aerospace companies were studying designs for the giant launcher in the early 1960s. Also under development at this time was the Saturn family of vehicles. Managers at NASA Headquarters and at the Marshall Space Flight Center recognized that the agency could not afford both. In July 1962, NASA chose the lunar rendezvous mode for Apollo, the agency's manned lunar program, over direct ascent, cancelling any immediate need for Nova. Saturn would serve Apollo's needs. Although studies of possible Nova configurations and missions continued for two more years, hardware design and development were never commenced, l0

Table 1-61.
Proposed Nova Characteristics

1st stage Height Diameter Launch (m): (m): weight (kg): 35 15-18

2d stage

3d

stage

Total 107-114 4 5300005 436000

Propulsion Stages:

system:

Sever_ propellant,

configurations or nuclear

were engines. 1-2 Aerojet M-ls 5 337 10 675 or 10 Rocketdyne J -2s 8 896 000 LOX/LH2

proposed

that

would

use

F-l,

M-l,

J-2,

solid-

Po werplant (example A):

8-10 Rocketdyne F-Is 53 376 00066 720 000 or

I General 600200 oi" nuclear engine undefined LOX/LH2 nuclear or undefined Rocketdyne J-2 889 600 59 603 78 284 200800

Thrust

(newtons):

Powerplant (example Thrust B): (newtons):

10-12 Rocketdyne F-Is 66 720 00080064000

Propellant: Origin: Contract for design ors

LOX/RP-1 NASA design

study: How utilized: Remarks:

General Proposed Operational

Dynamics, for manned target

Martin

Marietta, to the

Boeing, moon was

and Douglas and for 1970. planetary flights.

missions this

for

super-booster

54

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date Jan. 1959 Nova powerful chamber of direct for Aug. 1959 F-I was officially than engine ascent engine vehicle under of

1-62. Nova Development Event

proposed

by it would

NASA utilize

to serve

as a "super Nova

rocket" thrust

more single-

the Saturn; to the moon. development. managers Saturn

a 6 700 000-newton was awarded

development

by the Air Force.

would

be capable by NASA

Rocketdyne

a contract

Launch

at NASA and

Headquarters proponents. would Nova.

recognized

the possibility

of conflicts Early 1961 The sued Aug. Jan. March 1961 24, 1962 28, 1962 First NASA Marshall definition July 1962 General tracts. NASA lunar Oct. 1, 1962 Martin Nova shall's yon

between Braun team

Nova that

indicated

NASA C-2 and

be overextended

if it pur-

development open test

of both firing

Saturn

of the F-I for

engine. M-I engine a request development for proposals to Aerojet-General. for Nova systems

awarded Space and

a contract Flight Center

issued design.

preliminary and

Dynamics

Martin

Marietta

were

chosen

for

Nova

study

con-

July

11, 1962

endorsed program, Marietta studies Future were

the Saturn thereby

C-5

and

the

lunar

rendezvous need facilities for

mode Nova.

for its first

cancelling

an immediate launch

was awarded continued Office,

a Nova as part but

study

contract. funded by Marclass

1963-1964

of post-Saturn no large booster

planning beyond

Projects considered

the Saturn

was seriously

by NASA.

The Saturn

Family

Wernher

von

Braun's

earliest

proposals

to the

U.S.

Army

were

for

large

clustered-engine rockets. With such a vehicle, heavy payloads could be put into orbit or spacecraft could reach the moon. The Advanced Research Projects Agency approved plans for an Army Ballistic Missile Agency clustered-engine booster in August 1958. Von Braun's multistage vehicle was called Juno. The first contracts let for Juno were to the engine maker. Rocketdyne (later a division of North American Aviation) set to work uprating its Thor-Jupiter engine (H-l) and developing an even larger powerplant, the F-1 (also being considered for the proposed Nova vehicle). In November 1959, NASA assumed management responsibility for the large booster program, which had been redesignated Saturn. The agency soon recommended that long-range development include a family of Saturn launch vehicles. By the summer of 1962, Saturn had a firm assignment: it would boost Apollo astronauts to the moon. The first member of the family was the two-stage Saturn I (originally called Saturn C-I). Powered by engines made at Rocketdyne and Pratt & Whitney, both stages were flight tested in a 1964 launch. Five Apollo boilerplate models launched by Saturn I in 1964-1965 as a step toward qualifying the spacecraft manned flight. were for

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

55

Saturn IB (also called C-1B and Uprated Saturn) was a step closer to the vehicle required for lunar missions. Used to perform the earth-orbital phase of Apollo, it depended on nine Rocketdyne engines in its two stages. Saturn IB helped qualify the Apollo spacecraft three times in 1966 and 1968. On October 11, 1968, it boosted Apollo 7 with a crew of three astronauts into orbit. Plans for Saturn V (also called Saturn C-5), NASA's largest launch vehicle, were officially approved in January 1962. Powered by 11 Rocketdyne engines, its first launch took place in 1967. Saturn V's three stages sent an Apollo spacecraft to lunar orbit for the first time in December used in the next decade of NASA's plications (Skylab) missions. 1968 (Apollo 8). This reliable operations for lunar exploration vehicle would be and Apollo ap-

The Marshall Space Flight Center oversaw the work of many Saturn contractors. The major ones were Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation (Saturn I first-stage propulsion, Saturn IB first- and second-stage propulsion, and Saturn V first-, second-, and third-stage propulsion, plus Saturn V second-stage airframe), Chrysler Corporation (Saturn I first-stage airframe, Saturn IB first-stage airframe), Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company (Saturn I second-stage propulsion), Douglas Aircraft Corporation (Saturn I second-stage airframe, Saturn IB secondstage airframe, Saturn V third-stage airframe), and Boeing Company (Saturn V first-stage airframe). _]

APOLLO SPACECRAFT LEM ADAPTER ¢/ INSTRUMENT UNIT S-IVB BOOSTER

•APOLLO f1_ APOLLO ;-"_i _# / SPACECRAFT INSTRUMENT ADAPTER T SPACECRAFT LEM J

S-II BOOSTER

::T
s,
r

S-IC BOOSTER

_.1

_/"

BOOSTER

i Itlrl_

BOOSTER
SATURN I SATURN II

--,

I/.I

SATURN

V

Height

(m):

57.9

68.3

111

Figure 1-3. Comparison
Source: From Lunar Courtney Spacecraft, G. Brooks, NASA

of Three Saturn Launch
James SP-4205 M. Grimwood, (Washington, and 1979),

Vehicles
S. Swenson, Chariots for Apollo; A History of Manned

Loyd

p. 93.

56

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Saturn

1-63.

I Characteristics

1st stage (S-I)

2d stage (S-IV) 12 5.6 45 350

Instrument Unit 0.86 4 1179

Total

w/ & tower

spacecraft 57.9 453 2 500

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg): system

25 6.5 385 475

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload

8 Rocketdyne 6 672 000

H-Is

6 Pratt & Whitney RL-10A3s 400 320 7 072 320 LOX/LH2 (von Braun team) design

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant: Origin: Con tractors:

LOX/RP-1

9070 kg in 555 km earth orbit Army Ballistic Missile Agency North Chrysler, American first Aviation, stage second-stage stage perfecting of the Apollo V.

first-stage

propulsion

Pratt & Whitney, Douglas, second How utilized: First step toward tests

propulsion the Saturn spacecraft. V vehicle for lunar missions. Used in

qualification Remarks: See also: Briefly Saturn referred IB and

to as Juno Saturn V.

Table 1-64.
Chronology Date April 1957 Studies darge 2721 Dec. 1957 The 6 672 Aug. 15, 1958 The were boosters to 5442 Army 000 begun capable kilograms by the Army's of Saturn I Development and Event yon Braun to team 18 140 at Redstone kilograms Arsenal into orbit on or Operations

of launching to an escape Agency with Projects to conduct (unofficially to Rocketdyne

9070

trajectory. proposed to DoD of four (ARPA) R&D known to program as Juno the a booster capable engines. the Army for a of

Ballistic newtons

Missile of thrust

a cluster Agency an

Rocketdyne authorized at V). Thor-Jupiter

Advanced Missile

Research Agency booster awarded the H-I.

Ballistic

Redstone

6 672 000-newton Sept. 11, 1958 Contract was which became ARPA V. Dec. Jan. 1958 9, 1959 First full-power was F-I.

update

engine,

Oct.

1958

tentatively

identified

the advanced

multistage

launch

vehicle

as Juno

H-I

engine

firing. a contract to develop a larger single-chamber

Rocketdyne engine, the ARPA First

awarded

Feb. April

3, 1959 28, 1959

officially production

named H-I

the project engine was

Saturn. delivered to the Army Ballistic Missile

Agency. Nov. Dec. 18, 1959 1959 NASA assumed technical direction of Saturn. study for a three-stage Saturn

ARPA and NASA requested an engineering from the Army Ordnance Missile Command.

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Date of Saturn I Development 1--64. and Operations Event (Continued)

57

Dec.

15, 1959

Saturn ment C-1.

Vehicle program

Evaluation for a family

Committee of Saturn

recommended launch vehicles,

a long-range the first

developto be called

Jan.

18, 1960

The

Saturn

project

was

formally

approved

and

given

the

highest

national

priority. March March April 16, 28, 26, 1960 1960 1960 Saturn First NASA ond July Aug. 1, 1960 10, 1960 transfer live firing to NASA of Saturn became test official.

booster. Co. a contract to develop the Saturn sec-

awarded (S-IV). was awarded and

Douglas

Aircraft

stage

Program NASA for

formally

transferred to Pratt

to the Marshall & Whitney vehicle. for

Space

Flight

Center. engine

a contract S-V stages

to develop

the LR-119

the S-IV

of the C-I

Oct.

21,

1960

NASA

awarded for

a study an S-V assembly Pratt

contract stage

to Convair on the C-I

the S-V upper in Jan.

stage, 1961.

but

the

requirement Feb. March 1961 1961 First horizontal

was dropped C-I vehicle.

of a complete & Whitney's

Marshall the RL

redirected 10-A-1 would

development and

of the LR-119; stage.

instead,

be used

for Centaur

the S-IV was

April June

29, 1961

1961

First

flight

qualification was awarded

test of SA-I to Chrysler required

booster for

successful. of the quality and

Contract reliability components.

the management the various

testing

program

to qualify

Saturn

booster

July

1961

Rocketdyne Dynamics, powered

static Douglas, upper

fired for

the F-1 engine. and Saturn. assembled

Contracts Martin

were

awarded to study

to General a nuclear-

Lockheed,

Marietta

stage

Sept.

15, 1961

SA-I

vehicle Cape

was completely Canaveral. was almost

on the launch

pedestal

at launch

com-

plex 34, Oct. Nov. Nov. Nov. April 27, 1961 SA-1

launch

flawless

(first

stage test only;

dummy

second

stage).

6, 1961 17, 1961 19, 1961 25, 1962

S-I1 stage Chrysler RL-10 SA-2

was redesigned Corp. was selected

to incorporate to build tested (first-stage

five J-2 engines. 20 S-I boosters. (first U.S. liquid second hydrogen stage engine). with

engine launch

was successfully was successful Project

test only;

was filled

water-called May 1962 S-II stage shortened Chrysler SA-3 Saturn 1963 SA-4

Highwater). from 22.9 meters to 42 meters. to produce to 24.8 meters; S-IC stage was

was lengthened from 43 meters was awarded was was was

Aug. Nov. Feb. March June

6, 1962 16, 1962 1963 28, 1963

a contract

21 C-I

boosters.

launch C-1 launch

successful renamed successful

(first-stage Saturn I.

test only).

(first-stage Apollo

test only). boilerplate and launch escape system

Dynamics

test of S-IV

stage with

was completed. Oct. 30, 1963 Saturn 1 manned missions were dropped from NASA's plans, thereby

deleting the need for six Saturn I vehicles. Later that winter meteoroid detector satellite mission was planned for the 10th

a third Pegasus Saturn I launch.

58

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-64. Chronology of SaturnDevelopment I and Operations (Continued) Date Event Marshall receivedfirstproduction F-1 the model engine. SA-5 launch successfullive and was with first second stages. SA-6 launch successfulthe was with guidance active firstime system forthe t and anApollooilerplate included configuration. b model inthe SA-7 launch Apollooilerplate with b commandservice wasucand modules s cessful. I was eclared Saturn d operational. SA-9 launch withApollo boflerplate Pegasus 1 meteoroid detection and
satellite was launch successful. with Apollo boilerplate and Pegasus 2 was successful (first SA-8 contractor-built S-I stage). with Apollo boilerplate Saturn and Pegasus 3 was successful; this

Oct. 1, 963 3 1 Jan. 1964 29, May 1964 28, Sept. !964 18, Feb. 1965 16, May 1965 25, July 1965 30,

SA-10 marked

launch

the conclusion

of the

I program.

Table Saturn IB

1-65. Characteristics

I st stage (S-IB) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload (newtons): capacity: Propellant: Origin: Contractors: (m): (m): weight (kg): system 8 Rocketdyne 7 116 800 LOX/RP-1 16 598 Uprated North Chrysler, North Douglas, How utilized: To further missions; Remarks: See also: Called Saturn kg to 195 km Saturn American first American, second qualify also used 1. H-Is 24.5 6.5 401 348

2d stage (S-IVB) 17.8 6.6 103 852

Instrument Unit 0.9 6.6 1859

Total

w/ & tower

spacecraft 68.3 589 550

1 Rocketdyne 1 000 earth 800 orbit first-stage LOX/LH2

J-2 8 117 600

Aviation, stage second-stage stage the Apollo for

propulsion

propulsion spacecraft training. May 1966 through 1967. and the Saturn stages required for the lunar

astronaut

Uprated Saturn 1 from 1 and Saturn V.

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Date March May 31, 1961 1961 NASA approved of the accelerated the C-2 for of Saturn 1-66. and Event development of the Saturn lunar C-2 vehicle. circumnavigation capability. and Nova concepts. Operations

59

1B Development

Reexamination indicated a need work

configuration with greater

to support performance

a Saturn was

June Dec.

23, 21,

1961 1961

Design Douglas

on C-2

discontinued

in favor stage

of C-3 (S-IVB)

was selected capable

to modify of 889 600 the need for

the second newtons a new Apollo IB.

by installing

a single

J-2 engine July 11, 1962 NASA orbital Feb. Aug. 1963 1963 Saturn Contracts S-IVB Oct. Nov. 30, 1963 Speedup Marshall engine. Nov. June April 27, 1964 1, 1965 1963 First

thrust. t_'o-stage spacecraft. Saturn for manned earth-

announced missions C-IB

with

full-scale Saturn

was renamed awarded

were stage.

to Chrysler

for the S-IB stage

and

to Douglas

for the

of Saturn Space

1B development Center directed

was approved. Rocketdyne to develop an uprated H-I

8, 1963

Flight

extended-duration delivered the

firing first

test of four

J-2 engine. uprated H-I engines. was

Rocketdyne First stage authorized

was successfully to increase the

static-fired for the first time; Rocketdyne H-l's capability to 911 840 newtons. to uprate the thrust

July

1965

Rocketdyne initiated a development program of the J-2 engine to 1 023 040 newtons. Chrysler First Stages shipped the arrived first IB booster

capability

Aug. Sept. Oct. Oct. Dec.

9, 1965 19, 1965 1, 1965 28, 26, 1965 1965

to Kennedy

Space

Center.

IVB stage were

at Kennedy. complex 34. two H-1 uprated engines. they were

mated delivered spacecraft AS-201.

at launch

Rocketdyne An Apollo

to Chrysler was added

the first

to the launch

vehicle;

together

designated Feb. 26, 1966 Launch module First Saturn Launch hydrogen Aug. Jan. Jan. Oct. 25, 22, 1968 11, 1968 1966 1968 Launch Launch Uprated Launch

of AS-201 heat shield). uprated IB was J-2

was

successful

(suborbital

test

of

Apollo

command

May May July

6, 1966 19, 1966 5, 1966

engine

arrived Uprated

at Marshall. Saturn I. was successful (observation of liquid

renamed without gravity).

of AS-203 in zero of AS-202 of Apollo Saturn of Apollo

a spacecraft

was successful 5 (AS-204) with

(test lunar

of command module Saturn of three

module

heat

shield).

was successful. IB. was successful.

I was

officially

designated with crew

7 (AS-205)

60

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Saturn 1st stage (S-IC) 2d stage (S-II)

1-67.

V Characteristics 3d stage Instrument Unit Total w/ &

(S-IVB)

spacecraft tower 111 2 621 004 3

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg): system

42.1 10.1 2 076 123

24.9 10.1 437 628

17.9 6.6 105 212

0.9 6.6 2041

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant:

5 Rocketdyne F-Is

5 Rocketdyne J-2s 5 004 000 LOX/LH_ kg to 195 km earth trajectory 2d-, and

1 Rocketdyne 1 023 040 LOX/LH2 orbit J-2 39 387 040

Thrust

(newtons):

33 360 129 248 45 350

000

Propellant: Payload capacity: Origin: Contractors:

LOX/RP-I

kg to escape

Uprated Saturn North American, stage Boeing,

lB. lst-, 1st stage,

3d-stage 3d stage

propulsion

and

2d

Douglas,

How utilized: Remarks: See also:

To launch Apollo lunar missions. Called Saturn C-5 in 1961-1962. Saturn 1 and Saturn lB.

LAUNCH VEHICLES Table 1-68. Chronology ofSaturn DevelopmentOperations V and
Date Sept. Nov. Dec. Dec. 11, 1961 10, 1961 NASA vanced selected Saturn. North American Event to develop and build for the S-I! stage and

61

for an adproducof the a

NASA received tion of advanced Boeing S-IC Douglas single be used

proposals Saturn

from five firms boosters. likely

the development for prime of Saturn

15, 1961 21, 1961

was selected stage was as selected

as the most Saturn. to modify stage the

candidate stage Called Saturn.

contractor

of advanced

the second thrust. of

IB by installing stage, C-5 and it would for

J-2 engine approved lunar

of 889 600 newtons development was awarded

the S-IVB Saturn to design

the third

in the advanced

Jan. Feb.

25,

1962

NASA manned

the three-stage American

the

program. contract to North fabricate of the

9, 1962

Preliminary the S-II Marshall S-IVB Boeing

Mid-May Aug. Aug. Aug. Feb. May April Aug. Jan. Jan.

1962

stage of C-5. Space Flight stage to 6.6 was awarded

Center a contract

directed

Douglas

to increase

the diameter C-5 booster.

meters. for the development of the engine

6, 1962 8, 1962 15, 1962 1963 1963 23, 1966

Douglas was awarded a contract for 11 S-IVB stages. Rocketdyne was awarded a contract to continue H-1 Saturn C-5 was renamed Saturn V.

R&D.

The J-2 engine was successfully First captive firing of Saturn more than Saturn S-If Propulsion studies V. 4 million V flight stage arrived of stage newtons booster

fired for the first time. V second stage test vehicle, of was thrust. shipped to Kennedy for to Space

which

developed

26, 1966 21, 27, 1967 1967

First First Jet design Saturn

Center. for preliminary by at

at Kennedy. issued a request missions proposals Mars to Voyager outfitted design be launched arrived

Laboratory unmanned model

April

27, 1967

Saturn upper Marshall. S-IVB AS-501 First and orbital

as a manned was held

orbital

workshop

May1967 June 1967 July Aug. Aug. Nov. April Dec. 11, 1967 3, 1967 26, 1967 9, 1967 4, 1968 21, 1968

workshop

review

at Marshall.

was erected. second stages of AS-502 were mated.

Successful completion Rollout of first Saturn Launch Launch stage Launch spacecraft of Apollo of Apollo engine of Apollo orbited

of Apollo-Saturn V dynamic test program. V vehicle, the AS-501, at Kennedy. was successful. was partially failure crew successful to restart). of three was successful; the (premature secondthird-stage with

4 (AS-501) 6 (AS-502) and 8 (AS-504)

shutdown

the moon.

Scout

Scout was NASA's most frequently used small launch vehicle. A product of the Langley Research Center, its development was initiated in 1957 when the laboratory was part of the National Advisory Committee created a vehicle that depended on off-the-shelf for Aeronautics. Scout's designers components and a small budget; ac-

cordingly, it was dubbed the "poor man's rocket." Both NASA and the Air Force recognized the importance of the solid-fuel Scout for launching small payloads and pushed for its early completion. Vought Astronautics of Chance Vought Aircraft

62

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

(later Ling-Temco-Vought, Incorporated), the prime contractor, delivered the first four-stage Scout to Wallops Island in 1960. NASA used Scout to launch more than a score of Explorer-class satellites and probes, small payloads with scientific objectives, in 1961-1968. But Scout's design was not static. In 1962, its first and third stages were upgraded with new engines, as was the fourth stage in 1963. In response to requests from the military for more reliability and in anticipation of an increased demand for a small-satellite launcher, NASA further improved the second and fourth stages in 1965. Scout's payload capacity had more than doubled by 196512

Table 1-69. Scout Characteristics (as of 1968)
1st stage (Algol Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload Origin: Contractors: (newtons): capacity: AerojetGeneral 449 solid 145 kg to 555 Pilotless National Vought prime Aerojet-General, Thiokol Alleghany pulsion United How utilized: national Remarks: shelf Scout Technology Explorer payloads. first launch Scout vehicle was program thus times dubbed from of its own, the 1960 to "poor 1968 the emphasis man's (see rocket." table 1-70). was on off-theCenter, and other fourth-stage small propulsion satellites, including a number of interTo launch As NASA's was scientific Chemical Ballistics first-stage Corp., propulsion second-stage Hercules propulsion Powder Co., thirdand fourth-stage proAircraft Advisory Astronautics 248 Thiokol TX 271 solid km earth Research Committee Div., orbit of 8000-9600 Division, for Chance km Langley Aeronautics Vought Aircraft (Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc.), Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, 354 328 Hercules ABL 93 408 solid X-259 UTC FW-4S 25 798 solid 839 782 (m): (m): weight (kg): system 4 9.1 1 10 771 liB) 2d stage (Castor 6.2 0.8 4429 11) 3d stage (Antares 2.9 0.7 1260 II) 4th stage I11) 21.9 16 780 Total

(Altair 1.5 0.5 300

Propellant:

45 kg to an altitude

Laboratory,

components; upgraded

several

LAUNCH VEHICLES

63

r.-.r wE

'..D O',

E

6
',D

_

<_

-_.

e-,

O',

c5
I"-i

F-

.-_
0'3

t"4

8 =_" c,

',,D

eq

eq

"q

_J e-

_

_

___

64

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Listing Vehicle Serial ST-I # July 1, 1960 R&D launch Date Mission of

1-71. Scout Vehicles Successful Launch* Partial tion (4th-stage incomplete) separa-

ST-2 ST-3 ST-4 ST-5 ST-6

Oct. Dec. Feb. June Aug.

4, 1960 4, 1960 16, 1961 30, 25, 1961 1961

R&D Beacon

launch satellite 9

Yes No (2d-stage Yes No (3d-stage Partial satellite stage (orbit reduced malfunction) failure) life of by 4thfailure)

Explorer

S-55 satellite Explorer 13

ST-7 ST-8

Oct. March

19, 1961 1, 1962

P-21 R&D

probe launch (plus Reentry 1)

Yes Yes

Heating ST-9 March 29, 1962 P-21A P-21A S-110 July 20, 1963 Reentry Experiment S-113 June 28, 1963 NASA

Experiment

Yes probe Heating 3 of Air Force payload Reentry 2) Yes Flight for AEC Yes Yes Yes Yes Heating 4 AEC Yes Yes Yes Yes 25 Yes Yes I 30 satellite Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (3d-stage failure) Yes No (lst-stage failure)

launch

geophysics S-114 Aug. 31, 1962 R&D Heating S-115 S-116 Dec. May 16, 22, 1962 1963 Explorer RFD-I launch

research (plus

Experiment 16 (Reentry

Demonstration) S-122R S-123RR S-124R S-127 S-129R Dec. Oct. July March Aug. 19, 1963 9, 1964 20, 1964 27, 1964 Explorer Explorer SERT Ariel Reentry Experiment S-130R S-131R S-133R S-134R S-135R S-136R S-137R S-138R S-139R Oct. Aug. Nov. Aug. Nov. April Dec. Nov. Dec. 9, 1964 10, 1965 6, 1964 25, 1964 21, 29, 1964 1965 RFD-2 R&D Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer San Marco for launch 23 20 24 and 27 2 1 19 22

18, 1964

15, 1964 18, 1965 6, 1965

Explorer FR-I

French

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing Vehicle Serial # Date of Scout 1-71. Vehicles (Continued) Successful Launch

65

Mission

S-141C S-147C

Feb. June

9, 1966 10, 1966

Reentry NASA

Heating launch

Experiment of Air Force

5 OV3-

Yes Yes

IV research S-152C May 29, 1967 ESRO 2A

satellite No (4th-stage payload orbit) did failure; not achieve

S-155C S-159C S-160C S-161C S-164C

May Oct. March May April

5, 1967 19, 1967 5, 1968 16, 1968 27, 1968

Ariel RAM

3 C-1 37 2B (IRIS) Heating 6 39 and 1 (Aurorae) C-2 40

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Explorer ESRO Reentry Experiment

S-165C S-167C S-168C

Aug. Oct. Aug.

8, 1968 3, 1968 22, 1968

Explorer ESRO RAM

Yes Yes Yes

*5 failures

out

of 39 attempts

(87%

successful).

66

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date July 1957 The Pilotless Aircraft need of Scout

1-72. and Event Research to extend Division the (PARD) performance at NACA's capabilities Langley of center existing Operations

Development

recognized the research rockets. Summer Aug. Oct. 11, 1958 1958 1959 1958 1958 A design Specifications NASA Contracts Memorandum was avoid while Scout March 1959 Contracts were March 1, 1959 NASA Air April April 1959 18, 1960 also assumed were for

a new for

rocket the rocket

was

conceived drafted. Scout

by

PARD.

were for

responsibility let for of propulsion

development.

Oct.-Dec. Feb. 27,

development. between NASA and the Air vehicle Force, was which to to

understanding a small

developing

all-solid-fueled

launch

signed

duplication. NASA would the Air Force would make for military with payloads.

have responsibility for Scout development the necessary modifications it required

Minneapolis-Honeywell by NASA. officially

Regulator

Co.

and

Aerojet-General

announced and

the Air Force version of

announced would for

their

joint Blue and

Scout Scout.

program;

the

Force's

the vehicle a contract test

be called

Vought During vehicle

was awarded a component broke complete up after

the airframes firstand

the launch

tower. the

to analyze

third-stage

performance,

first-stage launch from

burnout. Wallops Station; fourth-stage separation

July

1, 1960

First

Scout

was not Oct. Dec. Feb. March 4, 1960 4, 1960 16, 1961 Scout Beacon Explorer Decision fourth June Oct. 30, 3, 19611968 Scout

accomplished. launch was successful. was unsuccessful successful to (first due satellite the to second-stage launch with of and failure. Scout). Scout's third and

R&D

satellite 9 launch was stages,

launch was

1961

announced the work

increase

performance by NASA

to be funded

jointly

the Navy.

was

used plus

by NASA

to

launch

18 orbital

payloads

and

7 ballistic

ex-

periments, Nov. 1, 1961 Launch small

11 non-NASA

payloads. 1 (Mercury Network the error; Test Project Vehicle Mercury the vehicle or MNTV), tracking was destroyed a net-

of Mercury-Scout communications

payload

to verify

work, was unsuccessful due 43 seconds after launch. 1962 March Aug. 29, 31, 1962 1962 First Launch Scout cessful and of R&D due third stages

to a technician's

of Scout was an

were successful

upgraded. (first first flight stage with X-259 liB) engine). was unsuc-

P-21A launch

probe

to test

improved

(Algol

to a third-stage

electrical

malfunction.

LAUNCH VEHICLES

67

Table 1-72. Chronology of Scout Development and Operations (Continued) Date 1963 June 28, 1963 Nov. 1963 Nov. 21, 1964 1965 Aug. 10, 1965 Fourth stage was upgraded. Launch of an Air Force research payload was successful (first flight of ABL X-258 engine on fourth stage). The Air Force and the Navy urged NASA to improve the reliability of Scout. Two Explorer satellites were successfully launched with a single Scout. Second and fourth stages were upgraded. R&D launch to evaluate upgraded second and fourth stages was successful. Event

The Thor Family

Thor was developed in 1956 by Douglas Aircraft Company as an intermediate range ballistic missile for the Air Force, but it also proved to be a most useful booster for launching Air Force and NASA unmanned payloads to earth orbit. Not a year went by during NASA's first decade that the agency did not make use of Thor with either the Able, Agena, or Delta upper stage. NASA used the Thor-Able combination only five times in 1958-1960, with three successful launches. The Able stage was derived from the Vanguard vehicle by the Air Force (see tables 1-76, 1-77). More successful was the Thor-Agena configuration, also initiated by the Air Force. NASA put Thor to work with Lockheed's Agena B in 1962, replacing the upper stage with the improved restartable Agena D in 1966 (see tables 1-78 through 1-83). But Thor was most frequently launched with Delta, a two-part vehicle designed by NASA engineers and produced by Douglas. Together Thor and Delta went through 12 configuration changes over nine years (see table 1-84). Delta's two stages were steadily improved; strap-on engines were added to Thor (Thrust-Augmented Delta, or TAD); Thor was lengthened (Thorad); Delta's second stage was omitted in two models. Thor-Delta, often called simply Delta, was highly successful in launching Echo, Explorer, Tiros, Syncom, Orbiting Solar Observatory, Intelsat, and other scientific and applications satellites: only 5 failures in 63 attempts in 1960-1968 (see tables 1-85, 1-86). Thor's powerplant was augmented by the addition of three strap-on solid-fuel Thiokol engines, almost doubling the booster's thrust. This version of Thor was used with Agena B, Agena D, and Delta. By stretching the Thor booster from 17 to 21.6 meters in length, Douglas gave the vehicle more propellant, increasing its burn time. The thrust-augmented Thorad, as the lengthened Thor was called, was paired with Agena D and Delta. The improved munications satellites (286.7 kilograms) 35 000 kilometers) in 1968. _3 Thor-Delta was able to put Intelsat 3 cominto geosynchronous orbit (approximately

68

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Thor

1-73.

Characteristics

Height (m): Diameter (m): Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: weight

17 2.4 (kg): 48 978 1 Rocketdyne MB-1 Basic LR79-NA-9 676 096

system

Thrust

(newtons):

Propellant: Payload capacity: Origin: Contractors:

LOX/RP-1 243 kg to an altitude Air Force IRBM. Douglas Rocketdyne To launch With manned Able, Aircraft Co., of 463 Inc. km on a ballistic path prime system stages to launch a variety system of unof

(McDonnell

Douglas), propulsion Delta used upper an MB-3

How

utilized:

Div., North inflation tests Agena test

American, for Echo. D, and vehicles used

B, Agena launch

payloads. inflation propulsion capable

Remarks:

Echo

733 920 newtons of thrust. The standard model Thor Thor See also: was upgraded in some

was the

DM-18. with the addition Thor-Agena of strap-on B and engines and

configurations See following

by the elongation Thor-Able, Thrust-Augmented

of its tanks. Thor-Agena

tables. D, Long-Tank,

Thor-Agena

B, Thrust-Augmented D, and

Thor-Delta.

Table Listing Vehicle Manufacturno. Nov. Oct. Aug. May April March Nov. Aug. July March March Aug. July Feb. Sept. April 8, 1958 11, 1958 Date of

1-74. Thor Stages Mission Thor Stage Successful* 2 (Thor-Able 1 (Thor-Able 6 (Thor-Able I) 1) III) Yes Yes Yes Yes II) IV) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

ing no./Model 129/DM-1812-6 130/DM-1812-6 134/DM-1812-6 144/DM-19 148/DM-1812-2 219/DM-1812-6A 245/DM-19 270/DM-19 286/DM-19 295/DM-19 301/DM-19 312/DM-19 316/DM-19 317/DM-19 318/DM-19 320/DM-19

Pioneer Pioneer Explorer Echo Tiros Pioneer Tiros Echo Tiros Explorer OSO

7. 1959 13, 1960 1, 1960 11, 1960 23, 1960

(Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Able 5 (Thor-Able 2 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta) 3 (Thor-Delta) 10 (Thor-Delta)

12, 1960 12, 1961 25, 1961

7, 1962 15, 1961 10, 1962 8, 1962 18, 26, 1962 1962

1 (Thor-Delta) 12 (Thor-Delta) l (Thor-Delta) 4 (Thor-Delta) 6 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta)

Explorer Telstar Tiros Tiros Ariel

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing Vehicle ing Manufacturno. June Jan. 19, 1962 15, 1962 Tiros Echo (booster 338/DSV-20 July 18, 1962 Echo (booster 341/DM-21 345/DSV-3A 346/DSV-3A 355/DSV-3B 357/DSV-3B 358/DSV-3B 359/DSV-3B 363/DSV-3B 370/DSV-3B 371/DSV-3B 373/DSV-3B 374/DSV-3C 387/DSV-3C 391/DSV-3B 392/DSV-3C 393/DSV-3C 397/DSV-2A 399/DSV-2A 411/DSV-3C 415/DSV-3C 417/DSV-3D 426/DSV-3D 431/DSV-3C 434/DSV-3C 435/DSV-2C 436/DSV-3C 441/DSV-3C 442/DSV-3E 445/DSV-3C 453/DSV-2A Sept. Oct. Oct. Dec. April Feb June May 29, 1962 Alouette Explorer Explorer Relay Explorer Syncom Tiros Telstar Syncom Tiros Relay Tiros 5 (Thor-Delta) (Big Shot only) (Big Shot 2) only) 1 (Thor-Agena 14 (Thor-Delta) 15 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta) 17 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta) 7 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Delta) 8 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Delta) 9 (Thor-Delta) 18 (Thor-Delta) Explorer A (Thor-Delta) B) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B) Yes Yes Yes Yes (Thor-Delta)Yes Yes Yes D) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 (ThorYes Yes 1) Date of Thor 1-74. Stages (Continued) Mission Thor Stage

69

no./Model

Successful* Yes Yes

321/DM-19 337/DSV-2D

2, 1962 27, 1962 13, 1962 2, 1963

14, 1963 19, 1963

7, 1963 1963 1963

July 26, Dec. 21, Jan. Jan. Nov. March Oct.

21, 1964 22, 1965 26, 1963 19, 1964 4, 1964 1964

Explorer Beacon Explorer Explorer Echo Nimbus OSO Tiros Syncom Intelsat OSO OSO 0(30 Explorer Explorer lntelsat ESSA Explorer Agena B)

21 (Thor-Delta) 26 (Thor-Delta) B)

Dec. 21, Jan. Aug. Feb.

25, 1964 28, 1964

2 (Thor-Agena 1 (Thor-Agena

3, 1965

2 (Thor-Delta) 10 (Thor-Delta) 3 (Thor-Delta) I (Early Bird)

July 2, 1965 Aug. April March Aug. Oct. May May Sept. Feb. Nov. 19, 6, 1964 1965 8, 1967 25, 1965

3 (Thor-Delta) C (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Agena 32 (Thor-Delta) 28 (Thor-Delta) II-D (Thor-Delta)

14, 1965 25, 29, 27, 1966 1965 1967

3, 1966 29, 1965

1 (Thor-Delta) 31 and Alouette

454/DSV-3E 456/DSV-2C 457/DSV-3E

Jan. May Nov.

11, 1968 15, 1966 6, 1965

Explorer Nimbus Explorer

36 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Agena 29 (Thor-Delta) D)

Yes Yes Yes

70

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-74. ListingfThor o Stages (Continued)

Vehicle Manufacturing no./Model no. 460/DSV-3E
461/DSV-3E 462/DSV-3E 463/DSV-3E 464/DSV-3E 467/DSV-3E 468/DSV-3E 470/DSV-3E 471/DSV-3G 472/DSV-3E 473/DSV-2C 474/DSV-3E 475/DSV-3G 476/DSV-3E 479/DSV-3E 480/DSV-3E 481/DSV-3E 484/DSV-3E 486/DSV-3E 488/DSV-3E 489/DSV-3E 490/DSV-3C 520/DSV-2L

Date Dec. 1965 16,
Feb. Aug. Oct. Oct. July Jan. March Dec. Jan. June July Sept. July Nov. Nov. Dec. April May July Dec. Oct. May 28, 1966 17, 1966 2, 1966 26, 1966

Mission
Pioneer ESSA Pioneer ESSA Intelsat Explorer lntelsat Intelsat 6 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Delta) 7 (Thor-Delta) 3 (Thor-Delta) II-A (Thor-Delta)

Thor Stage Successful*
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes

1, 1966 11, 1967 22, 1967

33 (Thor-Delta) I[-B II-C (Thor-Delta) (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta)

14, 1966 26, 1967 23, 1966

Biosatellite ESSA

4 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Agena

PAGEOS OGO

28, 1967 7, 1967 4, 1968 8, 1968 10, 1967 5, 1968 20, 24, 1967 1967

4 (Thor-Delta) 2 (Thor-Delta) 38 (Thor-Delta) 9 (Thor-Delta) 6 (Thor-Delta) 1 (Thor-Delta) 5 (Thor-Delta) 34 (Thor-Delta) 35 (Thor-Delta) 8 (Thor-Delta) 4 (Thor-Delta) B (Thor-Agena D)

Biosatellite Explorer Pioneer ESSA HEOS ESSA Explorer Explorer Pioneer OSO

19, 1967 13, 1967 18, 1967 18, 1968

Yes Yes No (control system malfunction)

Nimbus

528/DSV-3L 529/DSV-3L

Aug. Sept.

16, 1968 18, 1968

ESSA Intelsat

7 (Thor-Delta) Ill F-I (Thor-Delta)

Yes No (control system malfunction)

534/DSV-3L 536/DSV-3L *2 failures

Dec. Dec. out of 79 attempts

15, 1968 18, 1968

ESSA Intelsat

8 (Thor-Delta) II| F-2 (Thor-Delta)

Yes Yes

(97°70 successful).

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

71

Table Chronology Date Dec. 27, 1955 Ballistic Missile Office, of Thor

1-75. and Event Air Materiel Command, awarded of Weapon a contract System to the 315A, an Operations

Development

Douglas Aircraft Company intermediate range ballistic Oct. Jan. 26, 25, 1956 1957 Douglas Missile tank. Missile Missile kilometer The Thor NASA attempts upper 1959 May 13, 1960 The The delivered 101 launch the first was

for the development missile. WS-315A missile, due

which

became

known

as Thor. oxygen

unsuccessful

to the rupture

of the liquid

Sept. Oct.

20, 24,

1957 1957

105 launch 109 launch range. booster of Pioneer stages

was the proved

first that

completely the vehicle

successful could

Thor fly its

launch. required 3200-

1958

was used had 1 and

with

the Able probes;

upper

stage

by the Air Force cases the launch

and

by

(NASA

responsibility 2 lunar

for the October in both

11 and November

8 launch vehicles'

malfunctioned). was mated was used with with the Agena the Delta upper upper stage stage by the Air Force. at-

Thor Thor

booster booster launch

by NASA

in the

tempted Aug. 12, 1960 First proved

of an Echo Thor-Delta

satellite; launch

the Delta by NASA

stage

malfunctioned. 1) took place. Thor-Delta by NASA in

successful to

(Echo

be a highly

successful

configuration

(used

61 times

1960-1968). Sept. 29, 1962 The Thor-Agena launch of 1965-1968. OGO B configuration 2; this was used by NASA was used for the times first time by in the in

configuration

four

NASA

72

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Thor-Able

1-76. Characteristics

1st stage (Thor) 17 2.4 48 978

2d stage

3d stage

4th stage

Total (w/payload)

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg): system

5.3 2100

1.9 390

0.7 154

27 51 622

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant:

Rocketdyne MB-I Basic LR79-NA-9 676 096 LOX/ RP-I

A.ll0-41 AJI0-42

or

Altair ABL X 248

ARC 1 KS 420

Thrust

(newtons):

34 000

13 650 solid

1930 solid

725

676

Propellant: Payload capacity:

WFNA/UDMH earth from Co., North second Corp., probes orbit the Vanguard American, stage launch Thor Able propulsion Hercules satellites. in four variations vehicle, but there (Able I, 11, III, and IV). The were some slight variations in are an average for the was the DM 1812-2, the Powder Co., third-stage propulsion propulsion vehicle; Thor Thor system was an Air Force IRBM. (McDonnell Douglas), prime prime derived Div.,

122 kg to 850 km Able stages Douglas Rocketdyne Space Aerojet-General, Alleghany Atlantic Ballistics Research small Aircraft Technology

Origin: Contractors:

propulsion

Laboratories, Laboratory, and

fourth-stage

How

utilized."

To launch

Remarks:

NASA briefly used this configuration four Ables were basically the same weight, different thrust, and variations. engine numbers. The Thor model

The figures shown above used in this configuration

DM1812-6, See also: Atlas-Able

or the DM1812-6A. and Thor.

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Date 1955 of Thor-Able 1-77. Development and Event Operations

73

Aerojet-General second-stage the Vanguard

was awarded propulsion system launch vehicle. with live second

an

Air Force

contract

to design

and

produce rocket

a for

based

on the Aerobee-Hi

sounding

Dec.

6, 1957

Vanguard malfunction. Air Force nose cone Air per Force stage.

stage

(TV-3)

exploded

due

to

a

first-stage

Late

1957

requested Aerojet-General to modify the stage for use in ICBM reentry tests; the Able stage was the result of those modifications. established a space probe program that would utilize the Able up-

March

17,

1958

First

successful

launch

of

Vanguard;

second

stage

performed

as

pro-

grammed. April 23, 1958 Attempted cessful. Successful ICBM Aug. 17, 1958 launch of Thor-Able combination by the Air Force was unsuc-

July

9, 1958

launch and

of Thor-Able; velocities. attempt and third

first

test of a full-scale

ICBM

nose

cone

at

ranges

Thor-Able the first-stage separation

1, an Air Force engine of attempt attempt failed the second to launch to launch to ignite.

to launch stages.

a lunar after

probe, there

was unsuccessful; was also uneven

exploded

77 seconds

liftoff;

Oct. Nov.

11, 1958 8, 1958

NASA's NASA's third

the Pioneer the Pioneer

1 lunar 2 lunar

probe probe

was was

unsuccessful. unsuccessful; the

stage

Aug. March April

7, 1959 11, 1960 1, 1960

Thor-Able Thor-Able Thor-Able

II1 successfully IV successfully II successfully

launched launched launched

Explorer Pioneer Tiros 1.

6. 5.

74

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Thor-Agena 1st stage (Thor) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload Origin: Contractors: (newtons): capacity: Rocketdyne LR79-NA-13 765 056 LOX/RP-1 1380 Agena Force Douglas Rocketdyne Lockheed How utilized: kg to 185 km developed IRBM. Aircraft Div., Missiles earth by Co., North and orbit MB-3 Basic (m): (m): weight system 17 2.4 (kg): 48 978

1-78. B Characteristics 2d stage (Agena 7.2 1.5 7000 55 978 B) 23 Total

Bell XLR-81-Ba-11 66 720 IRFNA/UDMH 831 776

Propellant:

34 kg to synchronous

altitude Lockheed Inc.

transfer under

ellipse contract Douglas), Thor propulsion prime to the Thor Air Force; Thor was an Air

(McDonnell Co., Agena

prime

American, Space

system

Bell Aerospace, Textron, To launch earth-orbital Agena stage capable B and

second-stage propulsion scientific satellites. restart.

Remarks: See also:

of engine Thor

Atlas-Agena

Table Chronology Date Oct. 1956 Development vanced military became Force per stage 1957 The stage. Jan. April 1959 24, 1959 NASA announced issued plans Air began the of Thor-Agena

1-79. B Development Event and Operations

at Lockheed system Agena. with

under and

contract

with

the Air Force stage vehicle;

for

an adthis up-

satellite

its associated

upper

contracted

Lockheed

for

production

of the Agena

upper

to use

the Agena amendment

with

Atlas

and

Thor.

The Air Force of an advanced

a contract

to Lockheed B.

for the development

Agena, its Vega

to be known upper-stage

as Agena development

Dec.

11,

1959

NASA Agena

cancelled B.

program

in favor

of the

Oct.

26,

1960

The Air Force to stage-separation

failed

in its attempt malfunction.

to launch

a Thor-Agena

A; failure

was due

Feb.

1961

An

agreement

was

signed of

between Agena

NASA

and

the

Air

Force

regarding

NASA's Sept. 29, 1962 NASA launch Jan. 25, 1964

procurement successfully from

B vehicles. 1 with a Thor-Agena B (first NASA

launched Test of

Alouette Range). 2 passive

the Western B launch

Thor-Agena cessful. Thor-Agena Thor-Agena Agena B was

Echo

communications

satellite

was

suc-

Aug. Nov. 1966

28, 1964 29, 1965

B launch B dual

of Nimbus launch

1 meteorological 2 and Agena

satellite Explorer D.

was successful. successful.

of Alouette in favor of

31 was

discontinued

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

75

Table Thrust-Augmented 1st stage (Thor) Height (m): Diameter (m): Launch 17 2.4 3.4 (w/strap-ons) weight (kg): 48 777 12 653 (strap-ons) system Thor-Agena 2d stage (Agena B) 7.2 1.5 7000

1-80. B and D Characteristics or 2d stage (Agena D) 7.2 1.5 7250

Total 23

69 000

Propulsion Stages:

2 Rocketdyne + 3 Thiokol Bell XLR-81Bell XLR-81Ba-11 MB-3 Basic TX-33-52 strap-ons BA-11 765 056 719 775 71 168 1 555 999 LOX/RP-I solid IRFNA/UDMH N2OJUDMH 57 kg to 4284 km earth orbit Agena developed by Lockheed under contract to the Air Force; Thor was an Air Force IRBM. Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. (McDonnell Douglas), Thor prime Rocketdyne Div., North American, Thor propulsion system Thiokol Chemical Corp., Thor strap-ons Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Agena prime Bell Aerospace, Textron, second-stage propulsion To launch earth-orbital scientific satellites. Thor used was Douglas Model DSV-2C. Thor, Thor-Agena B, Atlas-Agena B, Atlas-Agena Augmented Thor-Agena D D, and Long-Tank, Thrust-

Powerplant: Thrust (newtons): Propellant: Payload capacity: Origin: Contractors:

How utilized: Remarks: See also:

Table Chronology

1-81. B & D

of Thrust-Augmented Thor-Agena Development and Operations Event

Date 1962

Air Force ordered the Thrust-Augmented Thor from Lockheed; the vehicle consisted of a standard Thor with three strap-on solid-propellant Castor I motors. First Air Force launch of a Thrust-Augmented Thor vehicle was destroyed when it veered off course. was unsuccessful; the

Feb. 28, 1963

March

18, 1963

The Air Force launched a payload into polar orbit with a Thrust-Augmented Thor-Agena D. NASA launch of OGO 2 was successful D. NASA launch Agena B. NASA launch Agena D. of Nimbus with Thrust-Augmented Thor-Agena

Oct.

14, 1965

May 15, 1966

2 was successful

with Thrust-Augmented

Thor-

June

23, 1966

of PAGEOS

1 was successful

with Thrust-Augmented

Thor-

July 28, 1967

NASA launch of OGO 4 was successful D.

with Thrust-Augmented

Thor-Agena

76

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Long-Tank, Thrust-Augmented D)

1-82. Thor-Agena Characteristics D

(Thorad-Agena

1st stage (Thorad) Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload Origin: Contractors: (newtons): capacity: Rocketdyne MB-3 765 1360 Agena Force Douglas Rocketdyne Thiokol Lockheed How utilized: Used once satellites. The Propellant: Basic 056 1 kg to 185 km developed IRBM. Aircraft Div., Chemical Missiles by NASA Thor + 3 Thiokol strap-ons 719 775 solid earth orbit under by Lockheed Co., North Corp., and Textron, Inc. TX-33-52 (m): (m): weight 21.6 2.4 (kg): 70 000 12 653 system (strap-ons)

2d stage (Agena 6.2 1.5 7250 D)

Total

27.8 90 000

2 Bell XLR-81-Ba-11 71 168 N2OJUDMH contract Douglas), Thor Agena propulsion prime to launch Thor; two the earth-orbital thrust scientfic reto the Thor Air Force; Thor was an Air 1 555 999

LOX/RP-

(McDonnell Thor strap-ons Co.,

prime

American, Space

system

Bell Aerospace,

second-stage

propulsion attempt

in an unsuccessful became the

Remarks:

long-tank

standard

model

capability

mained seconds. after See also: Thor,

the same as the short-tank Thor, The Thorad-Agena D combination one attempted launch. Thor-Agena Thrust-Augmented

but the burn was dropped

time was increased by 65 in favor of Thorad-Delta D, and Thor-Delta.

only

B & D, Atlas-Agena

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Chronology Thor-Agena Date 1966 The Thor booster Thor, giving was uprated of Long-Tank, D) 1-83. Thrust-Augmented Development Event by stretching the stage; the result was and Operations

77

D (Thorad-Agena

the

Long-Tank lengthened,

or Thorad. The liquid oxygen and RP-1 the booster 65 more seconds of burn time and more were payload. purchased Tbors to launch the were from Douglas

tanks were the capabili-

ty to lift 20 percent Jan. 5, 1966 21 Thorad quent May 18, 1968 NASA boosters

by the Air Force; version. Secor satellites at on launch

all subse-

new-production attempted D

the Thorad B and was

Nimbus vehicle

a simple when it

Thorad-Agena malfunctioned.

vehicle;

destroyed

Table Thor-Delta

1-84. Characteristics

Thor-Delta

1st stage (Thor)

2d stage (Delta) 5.2 1.3 3149

3d stage (Delta) 1.5 0.5 268

Total adapters 27.4 52 395 3

w/

Height Diameter Launch

(in): (m): weight (kg): system

17 2.4 48 978

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload

Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-9 676 096 LOX/RP-1 272 kg to 185-kin

AJ10-142 33 360 WIFNA/UDMH earth orbit

Altair 13 344 solid

X-248-A7 722 800

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

Thor-Delta Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: (m):

A 15.9 2.4 (kg): 48 978 5.2 0.8 2268 1.5 0.5 268 51 509 3 Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR-79-NA-11 742 272 15.9 2.4 (kg): 48 978 816 kg to AJl0-118 33 360 WIFNA/UDMH 185 km earth 5.2 0.8 2721 orbit 1.5 0.5 239 51 938 3 Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-11 A J10-118A Altair X-248-A5DM 27.4 Altair X-248-A5D 27.4

(m): weight

system

(newtons): capacity: (m): (m): weight system

Propellant:

LOX/RP-1

13 344 solid

789

520

78

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Thor-Delta Thor-Delta B (Operational Delta) 2d stage (Delta) 34 250 IRFNA/UDMH km earth orbit

1-84. (Continued)

Characteristics

1st stage (Thor) Thrust (newtons): 742 816

3d stage (Delta) 13 344 solid

Total adapters

w/

790 410

Propellant: Payload capacity:

LOX/RP-I 272 kg to 185

Thor-Delta Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload (m):

C (Standard 15.9 2.4

Delta) 5.2 0.8 2721 0.9 0.5 259 51 958 3 27.4

(m): weight system

(kg): 48 978

Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-11 742 272 816 kg to 185 km

AJ10-118D 34 472 IRFNA/UDMH earth orbit

Altair 25 576 solid

A-258 802 864

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

LOX/RP-I

Thor-Delta Height Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload (m):

C-I

(Standard 15.9 2.4 (kg): 48 978

Delta) 5.2 0.8 2721 1.5 0.5 259 51 958 3 27.4

(m): weight system

Rocketdyne Basic 742 272 816

MB-3

AJI0-118D 34 472 IRFNA/UDMH earth orbit

UTC 24 909 solid

FW-4 802 197

LR79-NA-11

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

LOX/RP-1 kg to 185 km

Thor-Delta Height Diameter Launch (m):

D (Thrust-Augmented

Delta, 15.9 2.4

TAD) 5.8 0.8 2721 1.6 0.5 270 64 622 28.0

(m): weight (kg):

48 978 12 653 (strapons)

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant:

system 3 Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-13 + 3 Thioko[ TX-33-52 ons 719 775 solid 185 km earth orbit strap34 694 IRFNA/ UDMH 25 576 solid I 545 101 AJ10-118D Altair X-258

Thrust

(newtons):

765 056 LOX/RP-I 590 kg to

Propellant: Payload capacity:

LAUNCH VEHICLES
Table Listing Thor-Delta G (Thrust-Augmented ls_ stage (Thor) Improved 2d stage (Delta) of Thor Delta) 3d stage (Delta) Total (w/adapter) 27.4 67 798 1-84. Stages (Continued)

79

Height (rn): Diameter (m): Launch weight (kg):

15.9 2.4 48 978 12 653 (strapons)

5.2 1.4 6167

Propulsion Stages."

system 2 Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-13 + 3 Thiokol TX-33-52 ons 719 775 solid km earth orbit 34 694 IRFNA/UDMH 1 519 525 strapAJ10-118E ---

Po werplant:

Thrust Payload

(newtons): capacity."

Propellant."

765 056 LOX/RP-1 500 kg to 265

...................................................

_ ......................................

Delta

J (Thrust-A

ugmented

Improved

Delta)

Height Diameter Launch

(m): (m): weight (kg):

15.9 2.4 48 978 12 653 (TX°33-52) strap-ons) 13 333 (TX-354-3) strap-ons)

5.2 1.4 6167

1,4 0.9 301

27.4 68 09968 779

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust

system 3 Same Delta 765 as for E 056 719 775 solid km AJ 10-118E 34 694 IRFNA/ UDMH earth orbit Thiokol TE-364-3 44 480 solid 1 564 005

(newtons):

Propellant: Payload capacity:

LOX/RP-1

190 kg to 6900

Delta Height

M

(Long-Tank, (m): (m): weight (kg):

Thrust-Augmented 21.6 2.4 70 000 13 333 (strap-ons) 5.2 1.4 6167

Delta) 1.4 0.9 301 89 801 32.0

Diameter Launch

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant:

system 3 Rocketdyne MB-3 Basic LR79-NA-13 + 3 Thiokol TX-354-5 ons AJ10-118E strapThiokol TE-364-3

80

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 1-84. Listingf Thor o Stages (Continued) 1st stage 2dstage 3dstage
(Thorad) Thrust (newtons): 765 056 LOX/RP-I 1180 372 kg to 719 solid 185 km earth orbit altitude transfer ellipse 775 (Delta) 34 694 IRFNA/ UDMH (Delta) 42 256 solid

Total
(w/adapters) l 561 781

Propellant: Payload capacity:

kg to synchronous

Thor-Delta Height Diameter Launch (m):

N (Long-Tank, 21.6 2.4 (kg): 70 000 13 333 (strap-ons)

Thrust-Augmented

Delta) 5.2 1.4 6167 89 500 32.0

(m): weight

Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: Thrust Payload

system Same Delta as for M 719 775 solid AJ 10-118E 34 694 IRFNA/UDMH 1 519 525

(newtons): capacity:

Propellant:

765 056 LOX/RP-1

1180 kg to 185 km earth orbit 372 kg to synchronous altitude NASA Douglas design Aircraft produced Co., North Corp., Delta by Inc.

transfer

ellipse to extend Thor usefulness prime and of Thor Delta booster. prime

Origin: Con tractors:

Douglas (McDonnell

Aircraft

Douglas), propulsion and third system Powder

Rocketdyne Div., Thiokol Chemical Aerojet-General, Alleghany Ballistics United Technology How utilized." With of the Thor

American, Thor Thor strap-ons stage propulsion Hercules stage orbits; Relay,

system stage

Laboratory, Center, third in a variety kinds of Tiros,

Co.,

third

stage many different by and classes Delta ESSA

booster were

of configurations included Explorer,

to boost lntelsat,

satellites

to several

in the payloads OSO,

launched HEOS,

combinations satellites. Remarks: See also:

Echo,

The Thor-Delta was often called Thor,

configurations the workhorse

were often of NASA's

referred to only as "Delta." unmanned program. Long-Tank,

Thor-Delta

Thrust-Augmented D.

Thor-Agena

B & D, and

Thrust-Augmented

Thor-Agena

LAUNCH VEHICLES Table 1-85. Listing ofDelta Vehicles Vehicle #/ Serial
Delta Model # May Aug. Nov. March July Aug. Feb. March April June 13, 1960 Echo Echo Tiros 1 2 10 I/DM-19 2/DM-19 3/DM-19 4/DM-19 5/DM-19 6/DM-19 7/DM-19 8/DM-19 9/DM-19 10/DM-19

81

Date

Mission

Delta tages S
Successful* No Yes Yes Yes Yes (2d-stage failure)

12, 1960 23, 25, 1960 1961

Explorer Tiros 3

12, 1961 15, 1961 8, 1962 7, 1962 26, 1962

Explorer Tiros OSO Ariel Tiros 4 l 1 5

12

Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial (spacecraft not enter planned orbit) did

19, 1962

ll/DM-19 12/DM-19 13/A 14/A 15/B 16/B 17/B 18/B 19/B 20/B 21/C 22/B 23/B 24/B

July Sept. Oct. Oct. Dec. Feb. April May June July Nov. Dec. Jan. March

10, 1962 18, 1962 2, 1962 27, 1962

Telstar Tiros Explorer Explorer Relay Syncom Explorer Telstar Tiros Syncom Explorer Tiros Relay Beacon 8 2 7 l 6

1

Yes Yes 14 15 Yes Yes Yes 1 17 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 18 Yes Yes Yes Yes

13, 1962 14, 1963

2, 1963 7, 1963 19, 1963 26, 26, 21, 21, 1963 1963 1963 1964 19, 1964

2

Explorer

A

No (3d-stage malfunction) Yes

25/B 26/C 27/C 28/C 29/C 30/D 31/C 32/C 33/C

Aug. Oct. Dec. Jan. Feb. April May July Aug.

19, 1964 4, 1964 21, 22, 1964 1965

Syncom Explorer Explorer Tiros OSO Early Explorer Tiros OSO 10 C 9 2

3 21 26

Yes Yes Yes Yes (Intelsat I) Yes Yes Yes No (3d-stage failure)

3, 1965 6, 1965 29, 2, 25, 1965 1965 1965

Bird 28

34/E

Nov.

6, 1965

Explorer

29

Yes

82

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table 1-85. Listing of Delta Vehicles (Continued)
Vehicle Serial #/ Delta Model # 35/E 36/C 37/E 38/C-1 39/E-1 40/E-I 41/E 42/E-1 Date Mission Delta Stages Successful* 6 1 2 32 33 7 3 II-A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (apogee malfunction) 1 II-B 4 3 II-C 5 34 35 2 II-D 4 6 8 36 38 7 111 F-I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No (3d-stage malfunction) Yes Yes Yes I11 F-2 Yes motor

Dec. Feb. Feb. May July Aug. Oct. Oct.

16, 1965 3, 1966 28, 1966 25, 1966

Pioneer ESSA ESSA Explorer Explorer Pioneer ESSA lntelsat

1, 1966 17, 1966 2, 1966 26, 1966

43/G 44/E-1 45/E 46/C 47/E-1 48/E 49/E-1 50/E-1 51/G 52/E-1 53/C 54/E-1 55/E-1 56/E-1 57/J 58/N 59/M

Dec. Jan. Jan. March March April May July Sept. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. July Aug. Sept.

14, 1966 11, 1967 26, 1967 8, 1967 22, 20, 24, 1967 1967 1967

Biosatellite Intelsat ESSA OSO lntelsat ESSA Explorer Explorer Biosatellite lntelsat OSO ESSA Pioneer Explorer Explorer ESSA lntelsat

19, 1967 7, 1967 27, 18, 1967 1967

10, 1967 13, 1967 11, 1968

4, 1968 16, 1968

18, 1968

60/E-1 61/E-I 62/N 63/M

Nov. Dec. Dec. Dec.

8, 1968 5, 1968 15, 1968 18, 1968

Pioneer HEOS ESSA lntelsat 8 1

9

*5 failures

out

of

63 attempts

(92°7o successful).

LAUNCH VEHICLES Table 1-86. Chronology ofThor-Delta DevelopmentOperations and
Date Feb. 3, 1959 Douglas modified creating Vanguard Aircraft launch a vehicle second responded vehicle based stage based on of the Thors Event to a NASA on the Thor had the agency with an request booster. purchased The second guidance X-248 for proposals NASA from stage and third to develop

83

a by

wanted the Air attitude stage

to extend Force

the usefulness

the Thor-Able. improved

was a modified control serve

system. It was redesignated as Thor-Delta's third stage. April 1, 1959 Douglas defined

Delta.

A Vanguard

would

was awarded a contract by NASA to produce as an "interim" launch vehicle. It was intended Scout and Vega serving as

the Delta, which to be used only the primary

was as a

temporary vehicle, with vehicles of the future. May 13, 1960 First launch of Thor-Delta due launch

launch

with

an

Echo

passive

communications

satellite

was unsuccessful Aug. Nov. Dec. Oct. Dec. Nov. April 13, 1960 23, 1960 First successful

to a second-stage of Thor-Delta were of orbits, was used was was with used used thrust for for for used

failure. with Echo 1. to launch many different

Thor-Delta payloads Thor-Delta Thor-Delta Thor-Delta Thor-Delta cessfully.

configurations to a variety A model B model C model D model

successfully

18, 1968 2, 1962 13, 1962 26, 6, 1963 1965

the first

time

successfully. successfully. successfully. for the first time suc-

the first time the first time

augmentation

was used

Dec.

11,

1959

NASA's and

Vega

second-stage continued with

project

was cancelled

in favor

of

the Agena vehicle. first

B,

the agency

to use Thor-Delta improved Delta

as a standard stage was used

launch for the

Nov.

6, 1965

Thor-Delta successfully.

E model

time

May July July Aug. Sept.

25,

1966

Thor-Delta Thor-Delta Thor-Delta Thor-Delta Thor-Delta launch tioned.

C-1

model

was used was was used for

for for

the first the first

time time

successfully. successfully.

1, 1966 4, 1968

E-1 model J model N model M model payload

used

the first the first was used

time time for

successfully. successfully. the first Delta's time; third the attempt stage malfuncto

16, 1968 18, 1968

was used with

for

Thorad

a dual

was unsuccessful

because

Titan

II (Gemini

Launch

Vehicle)

The Titan II is another example of a missile borrowed by NASA for a nonmilitary purpose. Built for the Air Force by the Martin Company, the Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile was adapted for use in Gemini, the second phase of NASA's manned spaceflight program, in 1963. Titan, with its two stages, was more powerful than Atlas and safer because it used a storable hypergolic liquid propellant. Titan did not require the complex abort

84

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

system The

necessary vehicle was

for not

the potentially without and

explosive

Redstone, however. entire

Atlas, Problems

and

Saturn with

boosters.

its difficulties, for the two-man was

second-stage during orbit. 1964. II on inlaunch

combustion forced The Less the than launch

stability

a tendency the Vehicle first

vehicle

to oscillate mission

a delay Gemini a year pad see

in scheduling Launch later, 12 times also chapter

Gemini qualified

to earth launch NASA

(GLV) the first

in a test to orbit. were

in April put Titan For

it boosted

of 10 crews launches

in 1964-1966; 2 under

all the Gemini.14

successful.

more

formation

Titan

II (Gemini

Table 1-87. Launch Vehicle, 2d stage 8.2

GLV)

Characteristics Total 27.4

1st stage Height (m): 21.6

Diameter (m): 3 Launch weight (kg): 122 445 Propulsion system Stages." Po werplant: 2 Aerojet-General YLR-87-AJ-7 Thrust (newtons): 1 912 640 UDMH/N204 Propellant: Payload capacity: Origin: Contractors: How utilized: Remarks: 3200 kg in 185 km earth Air Force ICBM orbit

(5.8 forward of stage separation plane) 3 27 210

150 000

Aerojet-General YLR-91-AJ-7 444 800 UDMH/N204

2 357 440

Martin Co., Martin Marietta Corp., prime Aerojet-General Corp., propulsion T_ launch Gemini spacecraft to qualify rendezvous and docking techniques, and to observe astronauts' reactions to long-duration earth-orbital missions. Man-rating the Titan ICBM required minimal changes to the basic Titan 11. Changes were made in the interest of pilot safety (e.g., system redundancies); some modifications were also necessary to ready the basic ICBM to accept the Gemini payload.

LAUNCH

VEHICLES

85

Table Chronology of Titan II

1-88. Launch Operations Event Vehicle, GLV)

(Gemini and

Development Date May 2, 1955

The Air Force approved became the Titan missile. First The for that Titan Air ICBM test

the

development

of

an

ICBM

airframe,

which

Feb. June

6,

1959

launch. a contract of a Titan ability liquid to the Martin 1I; the primary to use oxygen. Titan lI for launching an improved Mercury a storable Co. (later Martin between liquid Marietta) the two propellant

1960

Force was

awarded Titan II's

the development would not require

difference hypergolic

missiles

Spring

1961

NASA (Gemini)

engineers manned

considered spacecraft. II was

Fall

1961

Air Force Titan launch vehicle. 1961 First successful

officially

selected

by

NASA

as the

Project

Gemini

Dec. March

28,

captive

firing

of Titan

ll. by the Air Force, preceded by 51

1962

First operational launch R&D and test launches. First R&D launch NASA vehicle II; these Gemini's considered However, (Nov. was of Air and

of Titan

I ICBM

March Spring

16, 1962 1963

Force

Titan

I1. second-stage the Pogo of launch before combustion effect) the missile could instabiliwith be man-

Together ty and Titan rated.

the Air Force

solved (called

vibration-oscillation problems schedule was delayed

problems

had to be corrected because

vehicle

difficulties. launch test

Fall-Winter

1963

NASA vehicle. flights

substituting problems

the Saturn with 1964). Kennedy. the launch Titan

I for Titan were solved

II as the Gemini during the

various

1963 to April to Cape

Oct. April Jan. March June Aug. Dec.

26,

1963

GT-I Launch Launch Launch Launch Launch

airlifted

8, 1964 19, 1965 23, 1965

of Gemini of Gemini

1 to qualify 2 to qualify 3 with 4 with 5 with 7 with crew crew crew crew

vehicle was

was successful. successful.

the spacecraft of two

of Gemini of Gemini of Gemini

was successful.

3, 1965 21, 1965

was successful. was successful. to act as a rendezvous target for Gemini 6.4

4, 1965

Launch of Gemini was successful. Launch Launch Launch Launch Launch Launch of Gemini of Gemini of Gemini of Gemini of Gemini of Gemini

Dec. March June July Sept. Nov.

15,

1968 1966

6,4 with 8 with 9,4 with 10 with 11 with 12 with

crew crew crew crew crew crew

was

successful.

16,

was successful. was successful.

3, 1966 18, 12, 1966 1966

was successful. was successful.

11, 1966

was successful.

86

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Vanguard

Vanguard, the launch vehicle and the satellite, was the product of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). The Navy team, which had experience with sounding rocket research, began in 1955 to design a small vehicle capable of orbiting a satellite for the American committee of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). NRL received official approval for the project from the Department of Defense contract (DoD) in August 1955. In less than a month, they had awarded three-stage launcher to the Martin Company. the prime for the

Table 1-89. Vanguard Characteristics
1st stage Height (m): 13.4 2d stage 5.8 3d stage 1.5 o r 3d stage 1.5 Total 21.9 (w/cone and aerodynamic spike) Diameter Launch Propulsion Stages: Powerplant: GE X-405 Aerojet-General A J-10 33 360 WIFNA/ UDMH Payload capacity: 11.3 Naval Martin General kg to 555 Research Co., Electric km earth earth Laboratory prime Co., first-stage propulsion second-stage Rocket Co., propulsion third-stage propulsion Hercules as part Geophysical would from for be built the Viking the on Powder Year). the technology sounding launch rocket, vehicle and developed the second the satellite. during from the the Co., third-stage States' earliest propulsion satellite proorbit orbit with design. ABL third stage Grand Rocket 10 230 Central Co. ABL X-248 (m): weight (kg): system 3 1.1 8181 0.8 1977 0.8 194 0.8 227 10 385

133-KS-2800 Thrust (newtons): 124 544 LOX/RP-I 10 675 solid 168 solid 134-168 579

Propellant:

24 kg to 555 km Origin: Contractors:

Aerojet-General, Grand Central Alleghany How utilized: To launch gram Remarks." Many (part later

Ballistics small launch

Laboratory, satellites

geodetic vehicles derived rocket.

of the United

of the International

Vanguard The first Aerobee Vanguard

program. stage was sounding was

the designation

both

LAUNCH VEHICLES

87

Because NRL suffered delays in the development of the Vanguard launch vehicle, DoD gave the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, which had also submitted an IGY satellite proposal, approval to participate. Explorer 1, launched by a Juno I, became the first American satellite to orbit earth on January 31, 1958. Vanguard I followed less than two months later. When NASA was established in October 1958, Vanguard and the group at NRL responsible for the project were transferred to the new civilian agency. NASA tried four times in 1959 to orbit scientific payloads with Vanguard; only one was successful. For more information see also chapter 3 under Vanguard. _5

Table 1-90.
Chronology Date 1955 Early started small in the year, working satellite, and Naval Research to interest of Vanguard Development and Event Laboratory expressed (NRL) vehicle by the scientists capable international and engineers a scientific Operations

on the design in reply the military on Special proposal Committee Year stage, for

of a three-stage in orbiting

of launching

community July 6, 1955 The Committee heard Aug. 24, 1955 NRL's

artificial (the Steward satellite

satellites. Committee within DoD)

Capabilities a scientific

program. for launching (Viking an Internafirst stage,

The Steward tional Aerobee

approved satellite new third

NRL's with stage). with

proposal

Geophysical second

a three-stage

vehicle

Sept. Sept.

9, 1955 23, 1955

NRL The

was Martin of

authorized Co. engine.

to proceed

its proposal contract with

for Project for development

Vanguard. and for prothe

was awarded Martin

the prime

duction first-stage Nov. March 1955 1956

Vanguard;

subcontracted

General

Electric

Aerojet-General Grand Central

was awarded Rocket for third was the Co. stages. first and

a contract Alleghany

for

the second

stage. were award-

Ballistics

Laboratory

ed contracts Dec. March Oct. Feb. 6, 1957 17, 1958 1, 1958 17, 1959 TV-3 TV-4 Project SLV-4 bumped Feb. 13, 1959 SLV-5 because June 22, 1959 SLV-6 tank Sept. 18, 1959 launch launched

complete 1 scientific

Vanguard satellite to NASA. orbit, but

launch

with

three

live

stages.

Vanguard was Vanguard payload,

successfully.

Vanguard launch the

transferred 2 into

the value

third

stage

reignited

and

impairing launch with

the a

scientific magn0meter

of the satellite

satellite. was unsuccessful

Vanguard of

second-stage launch dropped ABL orbit.

malfunction. with after third a scientific second-stage successfully satellite ignition. launched Vanguard 3 scientific was unsuccessful because

Vanguard pressure with into

TV-4BU, satellite

stage,

CHAPTER TWO

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

CHAPTER

TWO

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

Wartime research in the fields of aeronautics and rocketry guaranteed that the 1950s would be a promising decade for American engineers and pilots who sought aircraft that would fly faster and higher, and for military specialists and scientists who recognized the rocket's potential. Private industry, the military, and one of the country's chief civilian research organizations, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), sought to apply of a world war to more nationalistic goals. the new technology spawned by the crises Improved radar and radio interferometry

equipment on missile ranges allowed the military to evaluate captured German rockets and their own sounding rockets and fledgling missiles more effectively. Specially-instrumented aircraft proved out new design concepts and procedures over California deserts. On the Atlantic coast, engineers operational used small

rockets to conduct materials testing at high speeds. Frontier beyond the atmosphere was the goal of these and other exercises. By mid-decade, the Navy, Army, and Air Force were all exploring different paths by which to reach that frontier. Rivalry among the services to become the leader of an American "space program" almost swept aside NACA. This advisory-research body was traditionally committed to methodical investigations that would assist the user agency (usually the military) in its mission; space spectaculars and quantum overnight leaps in the state of the art were not its way of doing business. But it was an age of rapid acceleration, and there were pockets of enthusiasm for the new pace even within the conservative NACA. Sending biological payloads, animal and later human, into space was seemingly a logical extension of two ongoing activities: the scientific satellite-sounding rocket program being conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory, the Army, and others, and the Air Force-NACA hypervelocity research aircraft program.* If intercon-

*During the postwar years, the Army experimented with animals (monkeys and mice) as part of the V-2 program at White Sands Missile Range, while the Air Force conducted similar investigations with Aerobee sounding rockets at Holloman Air Force Base. From 1953 through 1957, however, medical experimentation with animals was discontinued as the military ballistic missile project monopolized night opportunities and funds. Investigators had to be content with aircraft-borne experiments. In the USSR during the 1950s, researchers sent numerous biological payloads on rocket flights, with dogs being frequent test subjects. For more information, see Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean; A History of Project Mercury, NASA SP-4201 (Washington, 1966), pp. 37-38; Edward C. Ezell and Linda N. Ezell, The Partnership; A History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, NASA SP-4209 (Washington, 1978); and Joel Powell, "Animal Precursors to Manned Space Flight," Spaceflight 22 (Sept.-Oct. 1980), pp. 315-18.

91

92

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

tinental allisticmissilesouldbeaugmented boostinstruments orbit,why b c to into couldtheynotcarrymen? pilotscouldfly to thefringes theatmosphere, If of why could theynotgobeyond? xcept E totheenthusiastic believers, the"whys" were obvious.Boosters under development inthemid-1950s bytheAir Force andtheArmy werestill experimental could not be expectedo carry largespaceships. and t Although themysteries thesound of barrier hadbeen solved withtheXS-1 research aircraft,hypervelocity flight aboveMach4 wasstill challenging Air Forcethe NACA team; scapeelocities erefar out of reach.Medical vidence e v w e thatman couldsurvive therigorsof spaceflight wassketchy andbased onexperiments with rocket-powered impact leds, entrifuges, s c soundingockets, r andparabolic ircraft a flights. Experts could not evenagreeon the optimumdesignfor a manned spacecraft thatwouldprovide thepilotprotectionromtheenvironment spaces f of a wellaswithstandheintense eating t h thatwasexpected duringatmospheric reentry. Therewereenough challenges keepall interestedarties, ilitaryandcivilian, to p m busyfor manyyears. MilitaryProposals

for Man-in-Space

A view popular with the Air Force was that the skies belonged to it, and this branch of the military was not going to allow the absence of an atmosphere to restrict its domain. With the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, under development at Convair since 1946, the Air Force sought to defer "Soviet aggression." In increasingly sophisticated aircraft, Air Force test pilots in the mid-1950s were flying three times the speed of sound and approaching altitudes of 20 000 meters. Space medicine proved to be a natural extension of aviation medicine, and the Air Force established several special facilities for human factors research as it related to space travel. NACA supported these Air Force programs with research in the fields of aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, and materials. Protection of a warhead during reentry was one critical problem that NACA specialists at the Ames and Langley aeronautical laboratories tackled. Since 1954, the Air Force and NACA, along with the Navy, had also been formally involved in a joint hypersonic research aircraft project that the Air Force labeled X-15.* Flying at speeds in excess of Mach l had been "round one." The X-15 with a design speed of Mach 6 at 76 000 meters was "round two." The third round would hopefully take the Air Force into space. The Soviet Union's unexpected success in orbiting two satellites in 1957, the second one with a biological payload, interfered with the Air Force's incremental plans. The U.S. desperately needed to get into space soon, and with a manned mission, warned military leaders. The Air Force could not hope to launch its weighty X-20 Dyna-Soar (round three, based on a delta-wing flat-bottom glider design favored at NACA's Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory) in the near future, but there was a more feasible alternative: send a man into orbit in a ballistic-shaped capsule

*See chapter I, pp. 44-51, for more information on the Atlas missile and chapter more on the joint hypervelocity research aircraft program.

4,

pp. 202-24, for

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

93

atop an ICBM.* NACA engineers at Langley had been studying this possibility, and they agreed that a conical spacecraft with a blunt reentry surface could be launched by missiles currently available. Abandoning for the present a scheme for a mission launched by a two-stage vehicle under development, the Air Force proposed to NACA in January 1958 that the Committee join them in supporting a two-phase manned program. First they would get "Man-in-Space-Soonest" using the ballistic missile (Atlas) approach; then they would proceed with their boost-glide vehicle.' Before NACA and the Air Force could formalize any agreement, events in Washington of a more political nature overtook them. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, personally committed to keeping space a peaceful frontier, submitted a bill to Congress in April in which he recommended establishing a new civilian agency based on the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that would manage this country's space program. NACA waited for Congress to act before committing itself to the Air Force's proposal. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, was also anxious to expand its ongoing intermediate range ballistic missile projects into a program involving spaceflight. Under the leadership of Wernher von Braun and other German rocket specialists brought to the U.S. after World War II, ABMA had successfully developed several tactical missiles for the Army. The Redstone missile was sent on its first test flight in 1953. Building on this reliable booster, yon Braun's team added two upper stages with which to conduct their own nose cone reentry tests (Jupiter C). Adding to the stack again, ABMA offered the Juno I to the American International Geophysical Year (IGY) committee in 1955 as the best vehicle for launching this country's first artificial satellite. In competition with a project sponsored by the Naval Research Laboratory, the Army orbited the first American satellite (Explorer) in January 1958. With success on their side, von Braun angled for a manned spaceflight assignment, using proposals for a huge clustered-engine rocket as bait. According to specialists in Alabama, not only was orbital manned flight possible, it was a first step to manned lunar bases and space stations. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), established in February 1958 to oversee the various space projects and proposals, approved ABMA's scheme for the powerful rocket in August.t The Army, however, was not destined to manage its own manned space program. In Washington, planners of the new civilian space agency were assessing the possible value of yon Braun's rocket. 2 The Naval Research sounding rocket research Laboratory (NRL) near Washington in the U.S. since 1945. Refinements had been the home of of these small rockets

during the postwar years inspired a group of engineers and scientists to respond to the IGY call for a satellite. Although the Army, not NRL, launched the first orbiting payload, Project Vanguard did add to the country's growing pool of knowledge

* Chap. experts

4, pp.

112-13, was

discusses a lifting

Project

Dyna-Soar. vehicle. that

This

glider

design, X-20

which

hv/d been

promoted

by

at Langley, 1958,

body-type

It was designated the Redstone splash

in 1962. be used to launch a man of-

t During along ficials a steep declined

the Army

was also suggesting after in Project which Man

missile could

suborbital was not

trajectory, considered

he would Very one by the

down

in the Atlantic. renamed of Defense their

When plan

Air Force Project and

to get involved

High,

the Army Department

Adam. was not

The proposal funded.

a practical

or ARPA

94 about space. Within the

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Navy,

there

were

other

groups,

the

missile

contingent

among them, who were interested in even more ambitious programs. With the Air Force and NACA, the Navy contributed to the X-15 project, and the service supported aerospace medicine research) In 1958, the Navy added to the growing number of proposals for manned spaceflight. Their study of a "Manned Earth Reconnaissance" mission included plans for a cylindrical spacecraft with spherical ends, which could be transformed into a delta-wing inflated Project MER was not funded beyond a feasibility study. glider once in orbit.

NACA's

Response

to the Space

Age

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics met the space age introspectively. It had changed since its birth in 1915 from a strictly advisory group to a research organization and policy maker, but it was little known outside the military and the aircraft industry. The NACA laboratories' engineers conducted studies, carried out research, and delivered their reports, but it was not their job to apply the results. The Committee's leaders of the 1940s had been reluctant to commit the organization to a role in rocket propulsion research or the risky new field of astronautics, and it was not until 1952 that a move was made to seriously study flight in the upper atmosphere and space. One small group at the Langley laboratory, the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division (PARD), was already using rockets as a research tool on nearby Wallops Island, Virginia. Since 1945, PARD (originally the Auxiliary Flight Division) had been measuring the effects of hypervelocity flight and the resultant heating on models launched by small rockets: In California at the Ames Research Laboratory, aerodynamicists working with H. Julian Allen conducted wind tunnel experiments with missile nose cone models for the Air Force. They discovered that a blunt-bodied configuration rather than the sharp-nosed one being considered at Convair for Atlas would survive atmospheric reentry. These nose cone studies led Allen and his colleagues Alfred J. Eggers, Jr., and Stanford E. Neise to speculate on designs suitable for manned spacecraft of the future. In an important paper, the three men discussed ballistic, skip, and glide vehicles) As the Air Force Air Research and Defense Command's interest in manned spaceflight grew, so did the amount of spaceflight-related research at NACA, although it still remained low priority relative to aeronautics work. By 1957, however, an estimated 40 to 50 percent of NACA's assignments involved space research. Supporters of all three of the proposed general designs for a manned spacecraft existed at NACA, with the early favorite, especially at Langley, being a delta-wing fiat-bottom glider. Eggers borrowed from this configuration and the ballistic shape to design what came to be called a lifting bodya semiballistic vehicle with a certain amount of aerodynamic lift with a nearly flat top and a round bottom (the M-l). This design was further refined, and models were built and flight-tested at the Flight Research Center near Edwards Air Force Base, California.* PARD engineers led by Maxime A. Faget and Paul E. Purser stuck by their original studies,

* See chapter

4, pp.

110-24,

for

more

on

NASA's

lifting

body

program.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

95

which favored the ballistic shape. While the Langley researchers worked in their spare time on refining their suggestions for a manned spaceflight, the Soviets orbited the first two artificial satellites. NACA Headquarters in Washington reacted to Sputnik with a new committee: the Special Committee on Space Technology; its members were charged with finding ways in which NACA could participate more aggressively in upper atmosphere and space research. NACA was not the only body to form investigating committees in response to the Soviet Union's mechanical moons. A U.S. Senate committee chaired by Lyndon B. Johnson met to review America's prospects for a national space program. The Secretary of Defense established ARPA. And President Eisenhower instructed his new President's Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC) to study the legality and feasibility proposed of a federally funded space bill to Congress, space program. which reflected In mid-April, the president the advice of his scientific sent his commit-

tee and a White House Advisory Committee on Government Organization. It did not take the lawmakers long to revise and approve the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Passed on July 16, the act was signed into law on the 29th, but it took another month for the White House to assign the important manned spaceflight task to the new civilian National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Robert R. Gilruth, the first chief of PARD and Langley's assistant director when the space act was passed, was named to chair a NASA-ARPA Manned Satellite Panel in September. These experts, who met for the first time in late September 1958, would provide specific recommendations and a basic procedural plan for NASA's manned program.

96

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Events that Influenced NASA's

2-1. Program prior to the Agency's

Manned Spaceflight Establishment

Date May 7, 1945 The Langley Memorial Aeronautical Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) with 1946, by an operational this group, of Division means small Research which carried rocket (PARD). Station out

Event Laboratory created an located materials was R. Gilruth of the National Auxiliary Flight Island, other of this the Advisory Division, Virginia. investigations Aircraft until division In

at Wallops testing renamed was chief and

launchings, Robert

Pilotless

Research 1952. 1946 The Air

Force

awarded Although continued

a contract the Air

to Convair missile in-house.

to develop program

a long-range was cancelled

missile, the next

the MX774. year, Nov. 1948 Convair

Force's

its research

At Randolph Air Force Base, strong discussed "Aeromedical later under Armstrong the direction established of Hubertus

a panel under the direction of Harry G. ArmProblems of Space Travel." Three months a Department Strughold. missile program, Atlas. by an American a soundin June the Convair conof Space Medicine at Randolph

Jan.

1951

With tract

the reestablishment was first took reinstated; successful place flight the

of the Air Force proposed of AFB; attempt missile

was named

Sept.

1951

The team 1948.)

recovery

rocket-launched a monkey and

animals 11 mice had

at Holloman (The first

survived been made

ing rocket

at this experiment

Summer

1952

In response

to proposals

to study

hypersonic-class

research

aircraft,

NACA's

Committee on Aerodynamics moved to expand its research program to include altitudes of 19 to 80 kilometers at speeds of Mach 4 to 10 and to devote a modest Ames ducted sidered that effort to studying Laboratory experiments missile nose vehicle escape-velocity under flights. Specialists of H. Julian that team at NACA's Allen conAeronautical wind tunnel feasible for the leadership

with several configurations cones and spacecraft. Allen's survive atmospheric reentry

were conconcluded than a

a blunt-bodied one. the Army

would

better

sharp-nosed Summer 1953 In August, Redstone Redstone Aeromedical five years terested Space Lewis 1954-1955 At

fired

its first

research

and

development

model

of the at the than inof

missile and began to study nose cone reentry thermodynamics Arsenal. At Holloman AFB, the Space Biology Branch of Field to study Laboratory weightlessness studies AFB; the Navy Randolph AFB; Propulsion studies discussed vehicles: of from A design in the year. of the Air sinks were the began during at this the School a program parabolic time Wright that included Air would the last (Other more groups

flights.

in weightlessness Medicine, Flight

Department Center, NACA's and

Development Medicine;

Wright-Patterson

of Aviation

Laboratory.) conducted In a paper, three ballistic, basic skip, on Allen, designs and Hypervelocity the the Air Force, a joint proposed the impact they glide of reentry Jr., heating and Stanford for of Analysis on

Ames,

hypervelocity E. Neise future space

missiles.

Alfred

J. Eggers, considered ("A

appropriate 1954.)

Comparative

the Performance Dec. 23, 1954 Representatives memorandum craft cepted 1955-1956 At program. earlier

Long-Range NACA, for

Vehicles," and the

Navy had

signed been

a airac-

of understanding

establishing aircraft

hypersonic at Langley X-15 NACA group

research

The project Force, and

was designated and Navy,

by the tested studied

Air Force. materials the heat

the request

Army, ablatives.

suitable

for use as heat

The PARD

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

97

Table 2-1. Events that Influenced NASA's Manned Spaceflight Program Establishment (Continued) Event transfer characteristics by Allen of Ames. Early 1956 The Air Force began on variations letting of a basic blunt heat shield as suggested for feasibility studies of manned prior to the Agency's

Date

contracts

satellites; specifically, the Air Force was looking for a project that would take them beyond the X-15. In March, the Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) established two research projects, one to investigate a manned glide rocket research system and another to study a manned ballistic rocket (the final stage of an ICBM). The Command also promoted extensive human factors research at the School of Aviation Medicine, the Aeromedical Field Laboratory, and the Aeromedical Laboratory. 1956-1957 In cooperation with the ARDC, NACA engineers at Langley, Lewis, and Ames conducted manned spacecraft feasibility and design studies. The design most favored was a flat-top round-bottom configuration. At Ames, Eggers compared ballistic, skip, and glide vehicles in his search for a suitable design. Because of its great weight, he revised his original optimum glider design to include features from the ballistic and glider concepts, the result being a semiballistic vehicle, blunt, but with a certain amount of aerodynamic lift and a nearly flat top and round bottom (the M-1 lifting body design). Meanwhile, at Redstone Arsenal, the Army extended its studies of nose cone reentry by modifying and adding to the Redstone missile. The resulting multistage vehicle was called Jupiter C by designer Wernher von Braun and his colleagues in Alabama. In conjunction with its nose cone manufacturers, the Air Force was also investigating reentry heating. The ARDC's Division of Human Factors had concluded that from a medical standpoint, sufficient knowledge and expertise existed to support a manned space mission. April 1957 The Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) began studies of a large clustered-engine booster capable of generating 6 672 000 newtons of thrust. Atlas missile flight testing was begun. The USSR successfully orbited Sputnik 1, the first manmade satellite.

June 11, 1957 Oct. 4, 1957 Oct. 9, 1957

An ad hoc committee of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board urged the development of a second generation of ICBM's that could be used as boosters for spacecraft, proposed a manned lunar mission, and recommended that the Air Force launch reconnaissance, weather, and communications satellites as soon as possible.

Oct. 15-21, 1957

At a NACA conference at Ames, the three leading candidate configurations for manned spacecraft were discussed: (1) a delta-wing flat-bottom glider (favored by many at Langley); (2) a ballistic capsule (considered by PARD to be the quickest solution to finding a workable design); and (3) Eggers' M-l, which would weigh fi'om 1800 to 3400 kilograms (still too heavy for existing boosters).

Winter

1957-1958

The American Rocket Society called for a civilian space agency, and the National Academy of Sciences endorsed a plan for a National Space Establishment. At Langley, Maxime A. Faget, Paul E. Purser, and other members of PARD worked on refining a ballistic manned spacecraft design. Additionally, they started exploring the possibility of using a solid-fuel rocket for the research and development phase of a manned program.

Nov. 3, 1957

The USSR successfully orbited Sputnik 2 with a dog onboard. The ARDC was charged with preparing a comprehensive astronautics program for the Air Force. At a December 18-20 meeting of NACA's Committee on

98

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Events that Influenced NASA's Manned Establishment Date Aerodynamics, ticipation NACA Guyford Jan. 23, 1958 Senator gram. agency. Jan. 24, 1958 The tions, manned Jan. 29-31, 1958 ARDC's and plan weather for and in Special Stever Lyndon Their the upper

2-1. Spaceflight (Continued) Event Program prior to the Agency's

members atmosphere

called and on

for

increased, Technology

aggressive research. was On

NACA the with

para H.

spaceflight

22nd,

Committee as chairman. B. Johnson

Space

formed

summarized formed included

the establishing

findings

of

the

Senate prospace

Preparedness

Investigating

Committee

to review

the U.S.

space

17 recommendations

an independent

astronautics eventually 11 aircraft various invited was asked airplane

called a manned and proposals

for data

reconnaissance, capsules, base. outlined satellite manned

communicacapsules,

satellites,

recoverable

stations,

lunar

At a closed Force and

conference, NACA their

missile for

companies manned

for the Air vehicles. proflight on

Jan.

31,

1958

The Air gram. and

Force

formally

NACA

to participate both (Project

in its man-in-space a one-orbit manned a design based

The

Committee delta-wing of

to support glider). the

a boost-glide

research

Dyna-Soar,

Langley's Feb. 1958

flat-bottom Defense all created existing

The Secretary (ARPA) Eisenhower to study national suggested the the to

Advanced projects. Scientific in the

Research Advisory astronautical

Projects Committee ventures around

Agency D. and NACA. a (PSAC)

manage instructed feasibility science

space

President

Dwight

the President's program. a new the NACA Late

of government-financed civilian Missile, Force's technology or Thor. von held Force included ARDC space Committee and agency

space

month,

a PSAC

subcommittee was renamed

establishing February,

to be built

Also during Committee

on Aerodynamics

on Aircraft, the Air as the Atlas

Spacecraft

Aerodynamics. to and also ideas accomplish the propellant proposed Angeles in the that man manned of stage upper

March

1958

ARPA satellite Defense (Agena) spaceflight booster. Force, rocketry, ballistic

recognized flight authorized to be used program, On March NACA, capsule up and aeronautics,

responsibility permitted, a liquid ABMA The

as soon with

Department a manned for fields into Also

the Air which 10-12, industry offer

to develop

Braun's who Most

for a clustered-engine in Los Air of

a conference were for attendees

specialists the quickest

working getting that

or biotechnology. officially informed

agreed

a simple orbit. on the cooperate

would a detailed

means

On the 14th, in drawing

NACA

the Air Force development

it would plan. began wingless

manned

satellite

14th, a NACA Conference on High-Speed which Faget (PARD) presented a paper ballistic Faget, Winter-Spring 1958 configuration Benjamin for manned and spaceflight. James J.

Aerodynamics favoring the (The paper Buglia). devoted would front,

at Ames, at nonlifting by

was coauthored

J. Garland, and other

At Langley, ing out spacecraft human AFB the

PARD details and

research mission

divisions that

their

time

to work-

of a manned missile. impact

utilize working

the ballistic-type to determine the limit the

the Atlas tolerance deceleration. Laboratory

On another gravity, sled that

body's

to increased

it was discovered

at l-tolloman of human

on a rocket-driven

83g represented

tolerance for Acceleration specialists April 1958 When service the

Using centrifuges at the Navy's Aviation Medical and at the Air Force's Aeromedical Laboratory, that 8g represented to participate spaceflight project, the acceleration in the the Army's ABMA safety plans devised limit. for an interan Army-

determined Air Force Very "Man

refused High"

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

99

Table Events that Influenced NASA's Manned Establishment

2-1. Spaceflight Program (Continued) Event prior to the Agency's

Date

Navy proposal called Project Adam. Using a modified Redstone, von Braun and his colleagues wanted to launch a man in a sealed capsule along a steep ballistic trajectory, after which the capsule would land in the ocean and be recovered. April 14, 1958 President Eisenhower sent his proposed space bill (based largely on PSAC's advice and the White House Advisory Committee on Government Organization's suggestions) to Congress; special committees began hearings on the bill. Air Force Headquarters was sent detailed designs and procedures ARDC Ballistic Missile Division's "Man-in-Space-Soonest" scheme. NACA and the Air Force tabled their agreement ballistic manned spacecraft project. to work together for the

May 2, 1958

Mid-May

1958

on a

June 16, 1958

ARPA approved a revised Air Force Man-in-Space-Soonest proposal that called for using the Atlas rather than a proposed two-stage vehicle. However, only funds for life support system studies were granted. ARPA rejected the Army's Project Adam.

July 11, 1958 July 16, 1958

Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Eisenhower signed the act into law on the 29th. Eisenhower assigned the new space administration specific responsibility for developing and carrying out the mission of manned spaceflight. The Air Force Man-in-Space-Soonest project was cancelled, money earmarked for it being transferred to NASA. But the Air Force was allowed to proceed with development of Dyna-Soar in conjunction with NASA. On the 15th, ARPA provided the Army Ordnance Missile Command with the authority to develop the Juno V launch vehicle based on von Braun's plans for a large clustered-engine rocket. A NASA-ARPA Manned Satellite Panel (Gilruth of Langley, chairman) was formed to generate specific recommendations and a basic procedural plan for NASA's manned satellite project. The panel began holding meetings during the last week of the month. NASA officially began operations.

Aug. 1958

Sept. 1958

Oct.

1, 1958

100

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

Manned

Spaceflight,

1958-1968

From

the Langley

engineers'

studies

of reentry

configurations

grew Project

Mer-

cury, NASA's first entry in the manned space program.* Project Mercury would prove that one man could be safely launched into earth orbit in a ballistic-shaped spacecraft, that he could survive increasing lengths of time in the weightlessness of space, that his progress could be monitored by a global network of ground stations, and that he could return safely to a predetermined splash-down point where crews waited to recover him. Beyond earth orbit was the moon, orbiting space stations, perhaps manned exploration of the planets. Mercury was only a simple first step. 6 NASA officials were working steadily toward manned orbital flight in the spring of 1961, anticipating the first suborbital piloted missions that were scheduled to take place soon, when the USSR launched another "space first." Yuri A. Gagarin in Vostok 1 circled the earth on April 12. The U.S. was still 10 months away from its first orbital manned mission. NASA had tested full-scale models of the Mercury spacecraft during suborbital flights, had a team of astronauts in training, and had successfully flight-tested the Redstone and Atlas boosters, but a Russian astronaut had earned the title "first man in space." An American president would once again react to Soviet space feats with a countermove. The United States was the technological leader of the world, President John F. Kennedy asserted just weeks after the Gagarin flight, and NASA would prove it by landing a man on the moon and returning him safely by the end of the decadean ambitious goal for the young agency. 7 Project Apollo, NASA's proposed lunar enterprise, was thus given the administration's highest priority. Apollo would require great sums of money and most of the agency's attention during its first decade. Before John Glenn could make the first U.S. orbital flight aboard his Mercury Friendship 7 spacecraft in February 1962, NASA had already reorganized its headquarters management to reflect the increased commitment it had given Apollo. However, NASA did not leap from Mercury to Apollo. Project Gemini, the intermediate step, called for a spacecraft larger than Mercury to accommodate two passengers for longer missions. With more control over their spacecraft, Gemini astronauts would demonstrate rendezvous and docking with other vehicles while in orbit. These second-generation spacecraft circled earth in 1965 and 1966 on missions lasting from 4 hours to 13 days. The highly successful project gave NASA's operations people experience with tracking and supporting two manned spacecraft simultaneously and an appreciation for the mechanics of orbital rendezvous and extravehicular activity. It also gave von Braun's team in Alabama and the engineers at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston the time they powerful Saturn V launch vehicle and the complex Apollo needed to develop spacecraft. the

*At an important meeting at Ames in March 1958, Faget delivered a formal paper defining the ballistic-shaped manned spacecraft (Maxime A. Faget, Benjamin J. Garland, and James J. Buglia, "Preliminary Studies of Manned Satellites- Wingless Configuration: Nonlifting," in "NACA Conference on High-Speed Aerodynamics, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, Moffett Field, Calif., Mar. 18, 19, and 20, 1958: A Compilation of Papers Presented," pp. 9-34, reissued as NASA Technical Note D-1254, Langley Research Center, 1962).

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

101

Apollowithitscrew three of wouldnotbeboostedirectly d tothemoon.From earthorbit,Apolloandthefinalstage thelaunch of vehicle ouldbegin w thetrip to themoon. longtheway,thecommandndservice odule ouldpullaway A a m w from theSaturn stage, turnaround andreturn dockwithalunar to module, andthencontinuethejourney. romlunarorbit,thelunarmodule F would make thelanding with two of themen.After theastronauts hadcompleted theirlunartasks,themodule wouldreturnto theorbitingship.At theclose NASA's of firstdecade, theagency wasnearitslunargoal.In November 1967, Saturn a Vsuccessfully orbitedanunmanned spacecraft (Apollo 4). In December 1968, three Americans orbited the
moon aboard reach earth's Apollo natural 8. 8 NASA was no longer in a contest with the Soviet satellite; its race was with the calendar.* Union to

Managing

the Manned

Program

at NASA

Under NASA Headquarters's first organizational plan, manned spaceflight was assigned to Abe Silverstein's Office of Space Flight Development as part of the Advanced Technology Program (Newell D. Sanders, assistant director). Even before President Kennedy's decision in May 1961 to assign NASA the task of sending astronauts to the moon before 1970, agency managers had been moving to reorganize the Washington offices to correspond with four broad program areas: applications, advanced research and technology, space sciences, and manned spaceflight. It quickly became apparent that the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) under Director D. Brainerd Holmes would be responsible for NASA's major project of the decade, Apollo, to which Project Mercury and Project Gemini were stepping stones. Reporting to Holmes were directors for launch vehicles, propulsion, spaceflight, and flight missions, systems engineering, aerospace medicine, program review and resources management, and integration and checkout. In the spring of 1963, Holmes added to his network of managers. Two deputy directors, one for programs and one for systems, joined the team, along with a director for systems studies and a representative from the Air Force Systems Command. Holmes, who had been with RCA before joining NASA in November 1961, was totally committed to achieving the lunar landing goal. He was so committed that he and Administrator James E. Webb often disagreed over policy and budget matters, especially programs. when Webb believed that OMSF's demands threatened the agency's other In March 1963, Holmes testified that the administration's refusal to seek

supplemental funds for Apollo and Gemini had led to delays in Gemini's schedule. NASA's director of manned spaceflight returned to industry soon thereafter. When

*The existence of an actual race to the moon with the Soviets is still under debate. Most experts believe that any early discussions by Soviet spokesmen of manned flights to the moon and beyond were political in nature or at least premature and not based on the actual hardware under development. The Soviets relied on automatic spacecraft to explore the moon and the planets, devoting their manned program to increasingly sophisticated earth-orbital activities. During the early 1960s, however, it was the firm conviction of many Americans that success with Project Apollo would prove the technological, and thus the military, superiority of the U.S.

102

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

George E. Mueller became associate administrator for manned spaceflight on September 1, 1963, the management responsibilities of the program had grown considerably. To assist him, Mueller often had up to four deputies plus a manned spaceflight experiments board secretary on his staff. Also reporting to Mueller were a representative from the Air Force Systems Command and directors for field center development, program control, operations, space medicine, Gemini (until 1968), Apollo, advanced manned missions, mission operations (added in 1965), Apollo applications (added in 1965), and safety (added in 1967). This large management structure was operating at the close of the agency's first decade (see table 2-2 for details on OMSF's changing organization. 9 When President Eisenhower delegated authority for the country's manned space program to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Administrator T. Keith Glennan assigned the working level responsibility to Robert Gilruth. As assistant director of the Langley center, Gilruth had encouraged the small group of designer-engineers from the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division in their studies of the ballistic-shaped spacecraft. On November 5, 1958, Gilruth borrowed heavily from PARD to build a Space Task Group (STG) with which to manage Project Mercury, the first phase of the agency's manned program.* Charles J. Donlan was appointed assistant program manager. In addition to his duties as program manager, Gilruth was also assistant director for a new NASA center to be built near Greenbelt, Maryland. Until their new home was ready, the Space Task Group would stay at Langley. Gilruth's team reported directly to NASA Headquarters through George M. Low, chief of manned spaceflight.l° STG's size grew as Project Mercury matured. As specialists finished mission definition studies and began the advanced engineering work, the group's ranks reached 400 during the summer of 1959. One small cadre relocated in Florida at the Atlantic Missile Range to ready NASA's manned launch site, while another went to the midwest t_ oversee the work of the spacecraft prime contractor, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, in St. Louis. In Virginia, Gilruth divided his organization into three divisions: flight systems under Faget, engineering under James A. Chamberlin, and operations under Charles Mathews. This three-directorate system was intact in late 1960 when the manned spaceflight team learned they would not be moving to the Goddard Space Flight Center along with the unmanned space projects group. Instead, the STG was declared an autonomous organization. The events of the spring of 1961-Gagarin's orbital flight and Kennedy's declaration concerning a lunar

*Of the 36 original members of the STG from Langley, 14 were drawn from PARD (William M. Bland, Jr., Aleck C. Bond, Maxime A. Faget, Edison M. Fields, Jack C. Heberlig, Clairborne R. Hicks, Jr., Alan B. Kehlet, Ronald Kolenkiewicz, John B. Lee, Betsy F. Magin, Paul E. Purser, Herbert G. Patterson, Frank C. Robert, and Julia R. Watkins); 5 from the Flight Research Division (Robert G. Chilton, Jerome B. Hammack, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Charles W. Mathews, and John P. Mayer); 2 from the Instrument Research Division (William J. Bayer and Harry H. Ricker, Jr.), 2 from the Office of the Assistant Director (Charles J. Donlan and Robert R. Gilruth), 2 from the Stability Research Division (George F. MacDougall, Jr., and Charles H. Zimmerman), 1 from the Structures Research Division (Melvin S. Anderson), 1 from the Full-Scale Tunnel Research Division (Paul D. Taylor), 1 from the Dynamic Loads Division (William T. Lauten, Jr.), plus 1 each from the planning and fiscal offices (William C. Muhly and Ronelda F. Sartor), and 3 stenographers and 3 file clerks. Ten other specialists from the Lewis Research Center brought the total number of scientist-engineers to 38.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

103

landing-prompted ing family, From

NASA a group

officials of 20

to

find

a permanent locations Gilruth relocation

center for the

for

Gilruth's

grow-

prospective Texas, and The MSC

Manned his

Spacecraft people by south

Center, into

NASA temporary

chose quarters

Houston,

began

moving

in October.* plan for and

was completed unlike the STG style:

mid-1962. directorates for Meroperajoined

Gilruth's for cury, tions by two administrative, Gemini, (Donald new

management

was

not

engineering, and K. Apollo. Slayton), in dropped projects: for

operations and

activities; development

program (Faget),

offices flight Kraft) medical

Engineering and 1966: general science

crew were

operations and

(Christopher and met;

directorates were flight 2-3

applications were

operations. were added

Program to manage (1968).

offices future (See table

when

their

objectives applications

new and

ones

Apollo

(1966) MSC

advanced

missions changes.)

a summary

of STG

and

organizational

* During August 1961, a site selection team led by John F. Parsons (Ames Research Center) evaluated 20 cities in their search for a location that met 10 specific requirements for the new manned spaceflight center. These requirements included available facilities for advanced scientific study, power facilities and utilities, water supply, mild climate, adequate housing, at least 1003 acres of land, available industrial facilities, transportation, including water for shipping by barge, jet service airport, and local cultural and recreational facilities. Sites considered were Tampa and Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, and Bogalusa, Louisiana; Houston, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Victoria, Liberty, and Harligen, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Los Angeles, Berkeley, San Diego, Richmond, Moffett Field, and San Francisco, California; and Boston, Massachusetts. On September 19, it was announced that MSC would be constructed on 1000 acres donated by Rice University southeast of Houston. On November 1, the STG was officially redesignated the Manned Spacecraft Center, with Gilruth as director.

104

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Four Phases of

2-2. Spaceflight Headquarters* I 1961

Manned

Management,

NASA Phase Oct. 1958-Oct.

Administrator/Deputy Director, Assistant Manned Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Staff Chief, Space Flight

Administrator/Associate Development Advanced (Abe Technology

Administrator Silverstein); (Newell office D. renamed Space office Flight Programs Applications in 1960 and

Director, Flight Manned Manned Advanced

Sanders);

renamed

Programs Space

in 1960 Flight (George (Warren Systems Dale M. Low)

Satellites Manned (G. J.

J. North) (John H. Disher) office office G. Waugh); Phase lI 1962-1963 dropped dropped office in 1960 in 1961 added in 1961

Biotechnology Scientist Plans (Richard and

Smith);

Wisniewski); (Merle

Evaluation

Nov.

1961-Winter

Administrator/Deputy Associate Director, Executive Director, Deputy Aug. Administrator Manned

Administrator

Space

Flight

(D.

Brainerd

Holmes)

Assistant Launch Director, 1962

(Clyde Vehicles

Bothmer) and Propulsion and (Milton Propulsion W. Rosen) (Stanley M. Smolensky); office added

Launch

Vehicles

Executive Technical Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Executive Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Chief, Deputy Spacecraft

Assistant Assistant Director, Director, Director, Director, and

(John (Harvey Launch Vehicles

R. Schaibley; Hall) Vehicle (Richard (Adelbert Operations Missions (Low)

William

T. Ashley,

1962)

Engineering B. Canright;

(Eldon

W.

Hall;

Rosen, acting,

acting, 1962)

1962)

Smolensky,

Propulsion Launch Flight

O. Tischler) (Gus A. D'Onofrio; John K. Holcomb, June 1962)

Assistant Director, Director, Director, Director, Future

(Paul Apollo Manned Manned Human

E. Cotton) Spacecraft Satellite Spaceflight Engineering and Development Programs (Disher) Daniel D. E. Van McKee, Ness) 1962)

(North;

Operations (Fred Ireland)

(Harper

Projects, Systems

Plans,

Evaluations (Joseph F.

(Waugh, Shea)

1962);

office

dropped

in

1962

Director,

Engineering R. Quinn) (John

Executive Director, Assistant renamed Assistant Assistant

Assistant Systems

(Joseph Engineering

A. Gautraud) Vehicle and Spacecraft (Eldon W. Hall); office

Director, Design Director, Director, and

Systems

Engineering, in 1962 (Michael and

Performance Flight Systems

Yarymovych); Tracking (James

office H.

added

in Oct. Jr.)

1962

Communications

Turnock,

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table -2. 2 Four hasesManned P of Spaceflight Management, Headquarters* NASA (Continued)

105

Assistant Director, PracticesReliability E.O'Neill) Design and (James Director, Systems (William.Lee) Studies A Assistant Director, Evaluation (Douglas Studies R.Lord); renamed Studies office Systems Mission Planning 1962 then inearly and Program Planning in1962 later Assistant Director, Engineering (William.Taylor) Studies B Assistant Director, Factors Human (William A.Lee) Assistant Director, Science (vacant) Space Studies Director, Aerospace (Charles Medicine H.Roadman) Deputy Director, Aerospace (George Medicine M.Knauf); added 1962 office inJan. Executive (J.Robert Assistant Brown) Technical Assistant, Control Systems M.Mayo); dropped Program and (Alfred office in1962 Assistant Director, Analysis P.Nolan, office (James Jr.); renamed and Plans Programs in 1962 Assistant Director, Medical Operations (W.R.Turner; H.Stoddard, David 1962) Assistant Director, Advanced Technical Development B.Voris; (Frank Joseph Connor, 1962); officeenamed and r Test Evaluation in1962 Director, Program and Review Resources Management E.Lilly) (William Assistants, Managment L.Berry Juanita Hathcock) Program (Secrest and
Assistant Assistant Chief, Director, Executive Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Director, Program Integration Assistant Director, Director, Director, Plans and Resources (Rodolfo Support A. (William Diaz) P. Nagy) directorate added in Feb. 1962) P. Risso) Facilities Management and

(Alex

Checkout

(James

E. Sloan;

(Schaibley) Checkout Reliability Integration (Jack F. Underwood) (Richard H. Myers)

Assessment (vacant)

Phase

III

Spring Administrator/Deputy Associate Director, Executive Deputy Administrator Manned Space Flight (D. Brainerd

1963-Aug.

1963

Holmes)

Assistant

(Bothmer) (Low)

Director

(Programs) (Cotton)

Executive Deputy Special Deputy

Assistant

Director Assistant

(Systems) (Systems) Air

(Shea) (Bert Force A. Denicke) Command Systems (Osmond Command J. Ritland) (Harvey W. C. Shelton)

to Commander, Deputy Officer Space Launch

Systems Air

Assistant Executive Director, Director,

to Commander, (John Medicine Vehicles

Force

B. Chickering) (John and M. Talbot) (Donald H. Heaton)

Propulsion

106

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table

2-2.

Four Phases of Manned Spaceflight Management, NASA Headquarters* (Continued) Phase III (Continued) Spring 1963-Aug. 1963 Director, Director, Program Launch Review and Resources Management (Robert Hall) (Smolensky) (C. C. Lutman)

Vehicles and Propulsion (Ashley and Harvey

F. Freitag)

Executive Deputy Assistant Assistant Assistant Director,

Assistants Director, Director, Director, Director,

Launch

Vehicles and Propulsion acting)

Vehicles (Smolensky, Propulsion Launch (Tischler)

Operations

(John K. Holcomb) (Low, acting)

Spacecraft Assistant Director, Director, Director, Director,

and Flight Missions (Cotton, acting)

Executive Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Director, Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Deputy Executive Assistant Assistant Assistant Director,

Apollo Spacecraft Information Manned Manned

Development

(Disher) Factors (Ireland)

and Control

Systems and Human (Van Ness)

Spaceflight Satellites (Gautraud)

Operations (McKee)

Systems Engineering Director, Director, Director,

Communications

and Tracking

(Turnock)

Design and Performance Flight Systems Group

(Eldon W. Hall)

(Yarymovych) (Cole) A. Lee)

Systems Support

Systems Studies (William Director, Engineering

Studies (Taylor) Studies (vacant) (Lord) (vacant)

Director, Hum_.n Factor Director, Director, Aerospace Director, Assistant Director, Director, Director, Program Program

Planning Studies

Exploration Medicine Aerospace

(Roadman) Medicine Brown) Test and Evaluation (Stoddard) (Nolan) Management (Lilly) (Connor) (Knauf)

(J. Robert Development Medical

Operations

Plans and Programs Review and Resources Management

Assistants, Assistant Assistant

Program Director, Director,

(Berry and Hathcock) (Risso)

Plans and Resources Facilities (Diaz) Support

Chief, Program Director, Integration

Management

(vacant)

and Checkout (Schaibley) Checkout Reliability Integration

(vacant)

Executive Assistant Assistant Assistant

Assistant Director, Director, Director,

(Underwood) Assessment (Philip (O'Neill)

S. Selvaggi)

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT 2-2.

107

Table Four Management,

Phases of Manned Spaceflight NASA Headquarters* (Continued)

Phase IV Sept. 1963-1968 Administrator/Deputy Associate Administrator

Administrator Administrator, Manned Space Flight (George E. Mueller)

Associate

Deputy Associate Administrator, Manned Space Flight (Low, Nov. 1963-May 1964; James C. Elms, Sept. l%5-Sept. 1966; Edgar M. Cortright, Oct. 1967-Apr. 1968; Charles W. Mathews, May 1968) Executive Assistant (Cotton); (Everett office dropped in 1964 and Joe T. Dickerson); office added in 1964 and 1965; Frank

Special Assistants dropped in 1965

E. Christiansen (Management)

Deputy Associate Administrator A. Bogart, Sept. 1965) Deputy Associate May 1967 Administrator

(William B. Rieke, Nov. 1964-June

(Programs)

(David (Shea,

M. Jones, Apr.-July Flight

Nov.

1964); office

dropped

in

Deputy Associate Administrator (Technical) Apr. 1968; Charles J. Donlan, May 1968)

1%7; Harold Operations

T. Luskin, C.

MarchWilliams,

Deputy Associate Administrator, Manned Space Nov. l%3-Apr. 1964); office dropped in Apr. 1964

(Walter

Executive Secretary, Manned Space Flight Experiments Board (Denicke; William O. Armstrong, 1967); briefly during 1965 this function was assigned to the Advanced Manned Mission Program Office Deputy to Commander for Space, Manned Space Flight, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) (Ritland; Harry L. Evans, 1%6), directorate reduced in size in early 1%7 and dropped later that year Assistant Deputy to Commander for Space, Manned Space Flight, AFSC (Shelton); office dropped in 1964 but reactivated as Assistant Deputy to Commander for Space Systems in early 1967 to oversee reduced operations (Walter R. Hedrick) Executive Officer (Chickering); office dropped in 1964

Director, AFSC Directorate, NASA Program Support (John M. Coulter, 1964; Harry B. Allen, 1964); office added in 1964; redesignated Chief, NASA Programs Support Division in early 1967 Director, Gemini Program Support 1%6); office dropped in early 1967 (M. P. Yopchick; W. J. Fry, 1%5; Herman Dorfman, 1%7); office R. Burke, office

Director, Apollo and MOL Program Support (Dorfman, changed to Systems Officer, Apollo and MOL, in 1%7 Director, Advanced Manned Mission 1965; James E. Miller, 1966) Director, Program Support redesignated Systems Officer, Support (Coulter,

1965; James E. Miller, 1964; Allen, James

1964; John

(Lutman; Yopchick, 1%5; Program Support, in 1967 C. Almy, 1964; Support, in 1%7

E. Miller,

1965);

Director, Biomedical Support (Donald redesignated Systems Officer, Biomedical Director, Procurement dropped in 1966 Director, Manned Processes Support

H. Grady

Wise,

1%5);

office

(Alvin E. Greenhorn); (Freitag)

office added

in 1%5 and

Space Flight Field Center Development

108

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Four Management, Phases NASA of

2-2. Manned Spaceflight (Continued)

Headquarters*

Deputy 1968;

Director, V. John

Manned Lyle, Aug. Staff

Space 1968); (William in

Flight office

Field added

Center

Development 1963 called

(Smolensky;

Freitag,

acting,

in Nov. position

Director, and Chief,

Technical Technical Logistics in 1965 Manpower office renamed

F. Moore);

Executive

Assistant

in 1964-1965,

Staff,

1965-1967 office renamed Center Development Planning in 1964 and

Director, dropped Director, 1967); Director, Director, White,

(Smolensky;

(Freitag, Special (Van

acting, Operations office

1964-1965; in 1964 dropped Control 1968) 1963-1965; Maynard

Smolensky, and Special

acting, Staff

1966; in 1965

William

J.

Bolce,

Resources Manned Space

Ness);

in 1964 (Lilly; Bogart, acting, March 1967; Maynard E.

Flight R.

Program Kubat, P. Jan.

June

1967;

Jerald

Executive Director, office Director, Director, Director, Director, Director, Sept. 1965;

Assistant Facilities

(Albert Management

Little, (Diaz;

Anthony E. White,

Cannetti, acting,

1968) 1967; Harry Mitchell, 1968);

known Plans

as Facilities and

Programming (Norman

Construction Rafel) (Lilly, (Lilly, acting; acting,

in 1964-1967;

office

dropped

in 1968

Analysis

Programming Test Systems

Operations Requirements Analysis Flight 1968) (Harold (Charles

Bernard 1965); office

L. Johnson, office added operated in Nov. Bogart,

June only 1968

1964) briefly in 1965

Resources Manned White, Assistant Management in 1964 Procurement acting, Special Space June

E. Koenig);

Space Jan.

Management

Operations

(Bothmer;

Feb.

1965;

Cotton,

Executive Director, added Director, Cotton, Chief, Director, acting, Deputy fice

E. Pryor); and

office Personnel

dropped (William

in 1965 R. Sweeny; C. C. Coyne, 1965); office

Assistant

Management 1967; (Jay William Holmes); acting;

(M. P.

J.

Barkdull 1968) dropped Randolph 1967)

Kahao;

Charles

J. Bingman,

July

1966;

Davis, office W. June

Services Medicine James Space

in 1964 Lovelace, II, Apr. 1964; Jack Bollerud,

(Knauf, W.

Feb.

1966;

Humphreys, (Knauf,

Director,

Medicine

Apr.-Dec.

1964;

Bollerud,

June

1965-June

1967);

of-

dropped

in 1967 Program Coordination Science and (Herbert Technology S. Brownstein) (Sherman P. Vinograd); office called Professional

Assistant, Director, Services Director, Director, Picketing Director, in early Special

Medical

in 1963-1964 Medical Lunar held Gemini 1967 and Operations Receiving the post Program disbanded (Samuel in 1968 Gemini July Program 1966) (Richard Summerfelt, (Eldon C. Henry; acting, Anthony 1965) Dec. 1963-Nov. 1966) L. Liccardi, acting, 1964; J. Pemble (William E. Schneider; LeRoy E. Day, acting, Oct. 1965; (Knauf, Operations Special (Low, Assistant acting; acting; (John to Mueller, vacant, Pickering); Director, acting, 1965-1966); office Space office dropped in 1966 that year

added Medicine

in 1966;

earlier

1965-1968);

directorate

was downgraded

entirely H.

in 1968 Hubbard continued in this post until the directorate

Assistant

Hubbard);

was disbanded Deputy John A. Director,

Edwards, Program

Director, Field, Director,

Control A.

1965;

William

Systems

Engineering

W. Hall,

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

109

Table

2-2.

Four Phases of Manned Spaceflight Management, NASA Headquarters* (Continued)

Director, Director,

Test (Day;

Charles W. McGuire, (Edwards;

acting

1965-1966; Clarence July 1966)

C. Gay, Jr.,

1966)

Flight Operations

Hubbard,

Director, Reliability and Quality (Dwight C. Cain; Schneider, acting, wards, July 1966) Director, Apollo Program (Mueller, acting; (Phillips, Samuel C. Phillips, Oct. Jam-Oct.

1965; Day, 1965-1966; Ed1964) Feb. 1967; George

Deputy Director, Apollo Program H. Hage, Jan. 1968) Executive Deputy Assistant Director (Schaibley;

1964; Lee B. James, 1967)

Gilbert

L. Roth,

1967; Schaibley,

(Programs)

(Turnock);

office added in 1966 and dropped

in 1968

Deputy Director (Engineering) fice added in 1967 Special Assistant dropped in 1967 Special Assistant Mission Assistant Director Director (Operational (Allen

(Hage, Oct. 1967-Jan. Readiness) (Harold

1968; William E. Stoney, Sept. 1968); ofG. Russell); office added in 1966 and

Jones); office operated (Thomas

only briefly in 1967 office added in Feb. 1968

(Management) (Schneider);

E. Jenkins); in July 1967

office added

Assistant Mission Directors (Chester M. Lee, Aug. 1966-1968; and Thomas 1968); both men served as assistant directors in 1968 Director, Program Control (Phillips, James B. Skaggs, Jan. 1968) Director, Director, Test (Disher; acting, 1964; Milo L. Seccomb,

H. McMullen, July 1967;

1965; Kubat,

Melvyn Savage, (Williams,

Aug. 1965; Day, July 1966) acting; Holcomb, Nov. 1963) 1964; George C. White, added in Dec. 1967; the

Flight Operations

Director, Reliability Jr., Nov. 1966)

and Quality Control

(Turnock;

George A. Lemke, directorate

Director, Apollo Lunar Exploration (Lee R. Scherer); several assistant directorships were added during 1968 Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, 1967) Director, Director, Director, Director, Systems Flight Systems Development Lunar Lunar Lunar Science (R. J. Allenby) Sample Sample Program Program (Benjamin

(William T. O'Bryant)

Milwitsky)

(Verl R. Wilmarth) H. Thompson, 1964; Robert L. Wagner, 1968); office

Engineering

(Bellcomm)

(Thomas

Vice President, General Manager (Boeing) (George Stoner; C. A. Wilkinson, added in 1967; Wilkinson's title was Assistant Division Manager (Boeing) Washington Office (General Electric) (Jack E. Vessely); office added in 1968

Director, Advanced Manned Missions Program (Edward Z. Gray; George S. Trimble, Lord, acting, Oct. 1967; Cortright, acting, early 1968; Donlan, acting, May 1968) Executive Assistant (William A. LaRue) Advanced Manned Missions Program (Lord); office added office added in 1968 1965; Waugh, in 1965

Apr. 1967;

Deputy Director, NASA-USAF 1968

in Nov.

1966 in

Technical

Director, Advisor

MOL (Yarymovych); office added

in 1965 and dropped

NASA DoD Technical Director, Director, Program

(Hubbard);

Control

(Gray, acting,

1964; Walter C. Beckwith, office dropped

1967)

Special Manned

Space Flight Studies (Taylor);

110

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Four Management, Phases NASA of

2-2. Spaceflight (Continued)

Manned Headquarters*

Director, Director, 1965 Director,

Systems Manned

Engineering Space Flight

(Lord,

Eldon

W. Hall, Technology

Nov.

1966;

Brian D.

T. Howard, office

Dec. dropped

1967) in

Advanced

(William

Greene);

Vehicle

Studies Systems Orbital in March Mission

(Lester in 1968 Mission 1968 Studies spring 1968 Studies

K. Fero;

A.

Daniel

Schnyer,

March

1965);

office

renamed

Transportation Director, office Director, 1965; office Director, 1968 Director, Payloads Executive mer 1965, ministrator Director, Director, Wild, Director, Earth dropped Lunar dropped

Studies

(Yarymovych,

acting;

Maurice

J. Raffensperger,

1974);

(Thomas 1965; Philip

C.

Evans,

acting;

Franklin Sept. 1965;

P.

Dixon,

acting, May

Feb. 1967);

Thomas

E. Hanes, in March Mission

E. Culbertson,

P. Grosz,

Planetary

(Lord,

acting;

Dixon,

June

1964);

office

dropped

in March

Experiments in March Secretary, but for by 1968

(Lord,

acting;

Armstrong,

1967);

office

added

in

1965

and

renamed

Manned year's end Space

Space it was Flight

Flight moved

Experiments back to the

Board direct

(Denicke); purview

office of the

added Associate

in sumAd-

Manned

Supporting Mission winter 1968);

Development Planning office Spacecraft and added

(Eldon Operations in March office

W. Hall);

office

added Lord,

in Dec. acting,

1967 Apr. 1968; Jack W.

(Raffensperger; 1968 added D. in March Stevenson,

Manned

(Dixon); (Christensen;

1968 Feb. 1967); directorate added in

Director, Mission Jan. 1965 Executive 1968) Deputy dleton); Mission 1966); various Directors, offide

Operations

John

Assistant

(Joseph

W. Cover;

L. K. Abernethy,

acting,

winter

1967;

Archer

W. Kinny,

Mission added in

Operations 1966 and Jan.

(Carroll

H.

Bolender,

Schneider,

and

Roderick

O.

Mid-

dropped 1965-early

in mid-1967 1966; and Robert director Thompson, function June transferred 1965-early to the

Directors this office program

(Bolender, was dropped offices

in early

1966 and

the mission

Assistant sion Director, Chief, and Chief, dan,

Mission

Director in 1967; Support

(Apollo) function

(Chester was assumed

M.

Lee);

this

office

was briefly Office

part

of Mis-

Operations Operations

by the Apollo Brown) E. Miller);

Program

Requirements Support Systems

(B. Porter (William

Ground Control Flight 1967)

Operations Systems Crew

office

renamed

Information

in 1967 (Reuben P. Prochard, Jr.; Thomas U. McElmurry, 1965; John Pro-

Support

Director, Chief,

Systems Operations office

Analysis Planning added Control Apollo

(Bellcomm) (Chester 1965

(John M.

Hibbert); Lee, Aug.

office 1965-July

added

in 1967 Nolan, mid-1967 to

1966;

mid-1968); Chief, Director, Mathews, Program; Apollo Deputy

in Aug.

Program Saturn/ Dec. it was Applications Director,

(Abernethy); Applications May and 1968); expanded

office (Harold

added G. in

in mid-1967 Russell; added David in Apr. then M. renamed Jones, again acting, mid-1965; IB/Centaur 1967 to

1966;

Luskin, Program

directorate later

1965 as the Saturn

renamed

1965

and

in late

Saturn/Apollo

Applications

(Fero;

Disher,

Aug.

1965)

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

1 11

Table

2-2.

Four Phases of Manned Spaceflight Management, NASA Headquarters* (Continued)

Executive Assistant Director, Director, Director, Director, Director,

Assistant (Programs) Saturn Program

(Stephan

S. Levenson);

office added in mid-1966 only briefly in 1968 only briefly in 1968

(Hubbard);

office operated

IB/Centaur Control

(Russell); office operated (Field) 1965; Savage,

Test (Disher,

acting,

July 1966) Dec. 1966) 1966) Project acting,

Flight Operations Reliability, Quality,

(Taylor,

acting; Edwards,

and Safety (Field, acting; Haggai Cohen, Sept. Systems (Taylor; Culbertson,

Director, Apollo Extension Integration in mid-1967

May 1967); office renamed George added M. Anderson, in June 1967 in Nov.

Director, Systems Engineering (Bellcomm) 1966; Donald R. Hagner, 1967) Director, Deputy Manned Director, Space Flight Safety Manned (Jerome

(P. L. Havenstein; Lederer); directorate

Space Flight Safety (Philip

H. Bolger); office added

1967

*These four phases represent composites for each time period. Refer to Appendix A and other NASA historical publications for complete organization charts. Phase four (Sept. 1963-1968) includes many offices whose existence was short-lived within the 11 OMSF directorates; extra information has been included to indicate when these offices were added or dropped.

112

NASA HISTORICAL
Table Six Phases Spacecraft 2-3.

DATA

BOOK

Manned

of Space Task GroupCenter Organization, 1959-1968 Phase I 1959-Oct. 1961

Director

(Robert

R. Gilruth) Development Operations (Charles (Walter J. Donlan)

Associate Associate

Director, Director,

C. Williams)

Special Assistant Technical Executive

(Paul E. Purser) (James A. Chamberlin); (Raymond L. Zavasky) A. Faget) O. Piland); Piland's title was changed to Assistoffice dropped in 1960

Assistant Assistant

Chief, Hight

Systems Division (Maxime

Assistant Chief, Flight Systems (Robert ant Chief, Advanced Projects in 1960 Executive Assistant Engineer, Chief, Hight Systems Support

(J. T. Markley); (Aleck C. Bond); Administration

office dropped

in 1960

Mercury

office added in early 1960 Division (Andr6 in 1960 (Chamberlin); J. Meyer, office renamed M.

Chief, Engineering and Contract Engineering Division in 1960 Assistant Chief, Engineering Bland, Jr., 1960) Executive Chief, Engineer (Norman

and Contract

Administration

Jr.; and William

F. Smith); office dropped W. Mathews) (G. Merritt Preston)

Operations Chief, Chief,

Division

(Charles

Assistant Assistant Executive

Implementation

Plans and Arrangements (Chris C. Critzos);

(Christopher

C. Kraft, in 1960

Jr.)

Engineer

office dropped

Head, Astronauts Flight Surgeon Training

and Training (William

(Keith G. Lindell)

K. Douglas) B. Voas)

Officer (Robert

Important points regarding Phase I: The first organization chart drawn up for the Space Task Group was dated Sept. 1959, but it was functioning as an organization by Oct. 7, 1958. The third chart (Sept. 1960) gave Faget's flight systems division responsibility for Mercury and Apollo. Astronaut activities were directly under the office of the director. Reporting to the Flight Systems Division were the following branches: electrical systems, flight dynamics, life systems, systems engineering, and structures. Reporting to the Engineering and Contract Administration Division were branches for contracts and scheduling and project engineering. Four branches added to the Operations Division in 1960 managed mission analysis, flight control, recovery operations, and launch operations. Although an Apollo office was established in Sept. 1960, a manager for that office was not selected until the next major reorganization.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT
Table Manned Six Phases Spacecraft 2-3. of Space Task GroupCenter Organization, 1959-1968

113

Phase II Nov. Director (Gilruth) Director (Williams) (Purser) (Zavasky) 1961-1962

Associate

Special Assistant Executive Technical Assistant, Assistant

Assistant (Don T. Gregory) Human Factors Astronaut Program Project Program (Voas) Affairs Office (Ford Eastman); (Kenneth office added in June 1962

Special Assistant, Manager, Manager, Manager, Assistant Assistant Chief, Chief, Chief, Mercury Gemini Apollo Director, Director, Spacecraft

S. Kleinknecht)

Office (Chamberlin) Office (Charles W. Frick)

Administration Research Research

(Wesley L. Hjornevik) (Faget)

and Development Division

(Mathews)

Life Systems

Division (White) and Development Division (Bond)

Systems Evaluation

Chief, Space Physics Assistant Chief, Director,

Division (vacant) (Mathews; Operations (Preston) Division (Kraft) (Warren J. North) vacant, (Charles Jan. 1962) A. Berry)

Operations Medical Operations

Aerospace

Chief, Preflight Chief, Chief,

Flight Operations

Flight Crew Operations

Important points regarding Phase II: This phase represents the Space Task Group's reorganization as the Manned Spacecraft Center. Offices for the three flight programs stood alone outside the directorates. During this period, Kraft's Flight Operations Division in the operations directorate grew dramatically as the center readied for Mercury's first orbital missions. Astronaut training was part of flight crew operations in the operations directorate. An assistant director for engineering support with four chiefs assigned to him was carried on the operations directorate's organization chart during this period, but the positions were not filled.

1 14

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Six Phases Manned Spacecraft Center of

2-3. Task Group1959-1%8 (Continued)

Space

Organization,

Phase

III

Spring-Fall

1963

Director Deputy Deputy Special

(Gilruth) Director, Director, Assistant Development Mission (Purser) (Chamberlin) Factors (Voas) and Programs and (James Flight C. Elms) Operations (Williams)

Requirements

Engineering Assistant, Executive Technical Manager, Deputy Manager, Manager, Deputy Deputy Assistant Assistant Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Assistant Chief, Chief, Manager, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Flight Flight Preflight Center

Advisor Human Assistant Assistant Mercury Manager, Gemini Apollo Manager, Manager, Director, Director, Spacecraft Crew Systems Space

(Zavasky) (Gregory) Program Mercury Project Program Office Program (Kleinknecht) Office (Bland)

Office Office

(Mathews) (Robert (Robert Piland, Piland) L. Decker) acting; Joseph F. Shea, Oct. 1963)

Spacecraft Lunar

Module

(James

Administration Engineering Technology (Richard and and

(Hjornevik) Development (Faget)

(William Johnston)

E. Stoney)

Systems

Evaluation Environment Information and and Systems

Development acting) Control

(Bond)

(Faget, and

Director,

Systems

(G.

Barry acting)

Graves)

Instrumentation Computation Ground Crew

Electronic Reduction

Systems (Brock) (Paul

(Graves,

Data

Project (North)

Office

H.

Vavra)

Operations (Kraft)

Operations Operations Medical Astronaut

(Preston) (Berry) (Donald III: The K. Slayton) spring work. 1963 Crew, reorganization flight, preflight, was an attempt and medical to divide operations MSC's all fell

Operations Activities Phase

Coordinator, Important operational under

points

regarding from of the

activities

its developmental director.

the supervision

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

115

Table Manned

2-3. Group1959-1968 (Continued)

Six Phases of Space Task Spacecraft Center Organization,

Phase IV Nov. 1963-1965 Director Deputy (Gilruth) Director (Elms; George M. Low, Feb. 1964) (Purser) Advisor (Zavasky, (Gregory, Program (Chamberlin); Nov. office dropped in late 1964 P. Weiss, acting, 1965); office dropped in 1965 in

Special Assistant Senior Engineering Executive 1965 Technical Manager, Deputy Manager, Deputy Assistant Assistant Gemini Manager Apollo

1963-1ate 1964; Stanley

Nov. 1963-1ate 1964; Weiss,

1965); office dropped

Office (Mathews)

(Kleinknecht) Spacecraft Apollo Program Spacecraft Office (Shea) Program Office (Robert Piland; William A. Lee, 1965); posi-

Manager,

tion renamed

Assistant

Manager

in 1965 (Roll W. Lanzkroa); office replaced by Flight Projects

Chief, Ground Systems Engineering Division in 1965 Chief, Operations Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Assistant Assistant Deputy Program Reliability Planning Control (Lee)

(J. Thomas

Markley) (vacant; Owen G. Morris, 1964)

and Quality

Assurance

Systems Engineering Checkout Director, Director,

(Owen E. Maynard)

and Test (Bland) Administration Engineering (Hjornevik) and Development (Faget) (Graves); office dropped in 1965 in 1965

Assistant

Director,

Engineering

and Development (Bond);

Manager, Manager, Manager,

Systems Test and Evaluation Special Design Efforts

office added

(Chamberlin);

office added in 1965 (Robert Piland); office added in 1965

Engineering

and Development Planning (Thomas

Experiments W. Briggs);

Chief, Long-Range Chief, Chief, Chief, Information

office added in 1965

Systems (Vavra)

Crew Systems (Johnston) Instrumentation and Electronic (Robert Systems (Ralph S. Sawyer) C. Duncan) G. Thibodaux, N. Kotanchik) (Stoney) Piland); office added in 1966 Jr.)

Chief, Guidance Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Assistant Chief, Propulsion Structures Advanced

and Control

and Power (Joseph and Mechanics Spacecraft Program

(Joseph

Technology Office

Experiments Director, Astronaut

(Robert

Flight Crew Operations Office (Slayton, Operations

(Slayton) July 1964)

acting; Alan B. Shepard,

Chief, Aircraft

(Joseph S. Algranti) (North) (Kraft)

Chief, Flight Crew Support Assistant Director, Operations

116

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Six Manned Spacecraft Phases Center of

2-3. Task Group1959-1%8 (Continued)

Space

Organization,

Manager, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Manager, Space Manager, Important directorate (primarily Astronaut points pattern

Operations Flight Landing Mission Flight Center Center MSC Center Control and

Planning (John Recovery and (Henry Programs Office D.

and

Development

(Sigurd

A. Sjoberg)

Hodge) (Robert F. Thompson) (John P. Mayer) office added in 1%5

Planning Support Medical Medical Florida

Analysis

E. Clements); (Berry) (D. Owen

Coons) office dropped in Dec. 1964 when the Kennedy

Operations the duties Sands Missile

(Preston);

assumed White

MSC

Range a Nov.

Operations

(Martin

L. Raines) MSC settled were back expanded and into the threeelsewhere noticeably. Kraft, with

regarding (plus and became the

Phase Apollo). assistant

I V: With The

1963 reorganization, Mercury development crew flight and

administrative director

directorate). engineering for a new

personnel operations

reassigned

to Gemini Slayton

directorate

directorate,

his growing flight operations team, assumed fices were established to handle life sciences Two offices directed off-site operations

leadership of the operations directorate. Two separate ofmatters: center medical programs and center medical office. and at White Sands.

at the Cape

Phase 1966-1%7

V

Director

(Gilruth) Director Assistant Assistant, Planning Assistant Assistant Gemini Manager Apollo (Low, (Purser) Long-Range in early (Robert (M. Program Scott 1966 Piland); office added vacant, in Dec. May 1967 office dropped in Nov. in mid-1966 1966 Planning (Julian M. West); office briefly called Advanced George S. Trimble, Oct. 1967)

Deputy Special Special Spacecraft Technical Executive Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant

Carpenter;

1%6);

Office

(Mathews);

program

concluded

(Kleinknecht) Spacecraft Apollo spring (Lee; Service Program Spacecraft 1967; C. H. Office (Shea; Low, Office Apr. (Lee, 1%7) Jan. l%6-spring 1%7) added added in spring in Feb. 1%6 1%6; Donald attended Maynard, D. Arabian, to Checkout fall 1967) late and 1967); Test 1%7 1967 1967; Kotanchik,

Manager(s), Markley,

Program Kleinknecht, Bolender, fall

Jan.-mid-1966; Manager, Manager, Chief, Chief, Chief, called (Bland); Chief, Chief, Lunar

spring-summer 1967); office

Module and

Command Flight Systems Reliability, Projects

Module (Lanzkron);

(Kleinknecht); office Robert W. Bland, under spring Checkout dropped

office

Division

in spring spring 1966; office

Engineering Quality, and were Control Module Test

(Maynard; and Test

Williams, spring Bland 1967)

(Morris; 1966, 1966

Reliability the two Program Lunar

in early

while

a separate

combined (Markley; Project

in spring

McClintock, and

Engineering

(Morris);

office

added

in spring

1966

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

1 17

Table Manned

2-3. Group1959-1968 (Continued)

Six Phases of Space Task Spacecraft Center Organization,

Chief, Command in spring 1966 Chief, Mission Chief, Mission

and Service Module Operations Support (Maynard); Mardel);

Project

Engineering

and Checkout

(Lanzkron);

office added

office added

in spring 1966

(A.D.

office added in 1967 Quality, and Test

Chief, Test Division (Mardel); under Bland

office added in fall 1967 in addition to Reliability,

Manager, Apollo Applications Program Office (Low, acting; vacant, Apr.-Nov. Dec. 1967); office added in July 1966 and expanded in early 1967 Deputy Head, Head, Head, Head, Head, Head, Director, Director, Manager, Future Apollo Applications Missions (Harold Program Office (Thompson)

1967; Thompson,

E. Gartrell) B. Evans)

Mission Operations Program Control

(Wyendell (vacant) (Homer

Systems Engineering Test Operations Orbital Workshop

W. Dotts)

(W. Harry Douglas) Project (Kenneth F. Hecht)

Administration Engineering

(Hjornevik) and Development (Faget) with Special Design and Analysis to

Manager, Systems Test and Evaluation (Bond); office combined form the Design and Analysis Office in fall 1967

Manager, Special Design and Analysis (Chamberlin); office combined with Systems Test and Evaluation to form the Design and Analysis Office under Chamberlin in fall 1967 Manager, Chief, Engineering Advanced and Development Technology Experiments (Stoney) (Robert Piland); office dropped in spring 1967

Spacecraft

Chief, Crew Systems (Johnston) Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Instrumentation Information Power and Electronics Systems (Vavra) (Thibodaux) (Brock) C. Duncan; vacant, spring 1967; Robert A. Gardiner, (Sawyer)

and Propulsion

Computation

and Analysis and Control and Mechanics Planning

Chief, Guidance mid-1967) Chief, Chief, Structures Long-Range

(Robert

(Kotanchik) W. Briggs); office dropped office dropped in mid-1966 into the new Science

(Thomas

Chief, Experiments Program and Applications directorate

(Robert Piland); in Jan. 1967

and incorporated

Chief, Space Science (Robert Piland, acting; Kotanchik, fall 1966); office added in spring 1966 and dropped and incorporated into the new Science and Applications directorate in Jan. 1967 Director, Science and Applications (Robert Piland, established in Jan. 1967 and expanded in mid-1967) Deputy Director, Science and Applications (Robert Operations and Quality (Robert acting; Piland) Wilmot N. Hess, spring 1967); directorate

Manager, Manager, Manager,

Flight Projects Management Reliability

E. Vale) (Paul R. Penrod) Assurance (Earl K. Smith)

118

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Six Phases Manned Spacecraft Center of Space

2-3. Task Group1959-1968 (Continued)

Organization,

Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Director, Center

Space Lunar Lunar Test

Physics Surface and and

Division Project

(Jerry Office

Modisette) (John W. Small) (vacant; G. G. Persa Foster) R. Bell, fall 1967)

Earth

Sciences Office Office Office and

Division (Norman (Bruce (Fred Analysis

Operations Project Systems Plans and for and the

Applications Advanced Applications Research Programs

Jackson) Jr.)

T. Pearce, Office (Berry); months of

(vacant) office 1966) Office (Coons, acting; Edward L. Beckman, established in May 1966 (Berry was Chief,

Medical Medical

Operations first four

Chief,

Occupational

Environmental

Medicine

mid-1966) Chief, Chief, Director, Deputy Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Manager, Manager, spring Biomedical Medical Flight Director, Flight Mission Flight Landing MSC Lunar 1966 (James points White Crew Research Operations Operations Flight Support Planning Control and Crew Office Office (Kraft) Operations (Sjoberg) C. Dunseith, mid-1967) (Lawrence (Coons; F. Willard Dietlein) R. Hawkins, fall 1967)

(Clements; and (Hodge) Recovery Missile Laboratory part Jr.,

Lynwood

Analysis

(Mayer)

(Thompson; Range

Hammock, Operations (Joseph

July (Raines)

1966)

Sands

Receiving was briefly

Program acting

V. Piland,

fall

1966);

office when

dropped

in 1967; in

the laboratory

of the engineering

and development

directorate

it was established

C. McLane, regarding Phase

manager) 1966-1967 met period Low its final medical in one brought objectives might office. use research several important instituted 1966. changes some An Apollo directorate, to MSC. applicawhich

Important Management changes tions Charles centralized office

IT..- he T

of Project was established became center's the

Apollo office.

was assumed Project Gemini

by George how the agency

in 1967, who

organizational in the future.

in the program Berry

in Nov. the Apollo and

to investigate director sciences life

spacecraft

the assistant several

of a new interests

operations

Phase 1968

VI

Director Deputy Special Special Technical

(Gilruth) Director Assistant Assistant, Assistant Director (Trimble) (Purser; Johnston, mid-1968) (West)

Long-Range (Robert (Hjornevik)

Planning Piland)

Associate Director, Director, Manager,

Administration Program Apollo Control Spacecraft

(Philip and

H.

Whitbeck) (Dave W. Lang)

Contracts

Program

Office

(Low)

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

1 19

Table

2-3. Group1959-1968

Manned

Six Phases of Space Task Spacecraft Center Organization,

(Continued)

Manager, Manager,

Lunar Module Command

(Bolender) (Kleinknecht)

and Service Module (Maynard)

Chief, Systems Engineering Chief, Lunar Module Project

Engineering Module

(Morris) Engineering (Lanzkron; Aaron Cohen, mid-1968)

Chief, Command Chief, Program

and Service Control

Project

(J. G. McClintock)

Chief, Test (Arabian) Chief, Mission Chief, Mission Manager, Head, Deputy, Deputy, Head, Head, Head, Head, Head, Manager, Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Operations Support (Maynard); office dropped in mid-1968

(Mardel);

office dropped (Thompson) (Gartrell)

in mid-1968

Apollo Applications Future

Program Office

Missions Project

Lunar Module Command Mission Program

(Reginald

M. Machell) (James C. Shows)

and Service Module Office (vacant) (Evans)

Operations Control

Systems Engineering Test Operations Orbital Workshop

Office (Dotts) (Douglas) (Hecht)

Office

Project Office

Advanced Project Lunar

Missions Program (Joseph (Meyer)

(Hodge) P. Loftus, Jr.)

Engineering Exploration Projects Planning

Advanced Program

(Rene A. Berglund) (Dennis E. Fielder) (Faget); directorate reorganized April 1968 to include three

Director, Engineering assistant directors Manager, Assistant

and Development

Design and Analysis Director, Chemical

(Chamberlin) and Mechanical E. Smylie) (Thibodaux) (Kotanchik) Jr.) Systems (Bond)

Chief, Crew Systems (Robert Chief, Propulsion Chief, Structures and Power

and Mechanics

Chief, Space Environment Assistant Assistant Chief, Director, Director, Information Spacecraft Electronic Systems

Test (James C. McLane, Integration (Faget,

acting)

Systems (Robert (Vavra) (Gardiner, (Brock)

A. Gardiner)

Chief, Guidance Chief, Chief, Director, Deputy

and Control

acting)

Computation

and Analysis

Space Electronic

Systems (Sawyer) (Hess) (Anthony (Small) mid-1968) J. Calio)

Science and Applications Director, Lunar

Science and Applications Surface Project Office

Manager, Chief,

Space Physics (Modisette;

S. Freden,

120

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 2-3. SixPhases ofSpace GroupTask Manned Spacecraft Organization, 1959-1%8 (Continued) Center
Manager, Manger, Earth Resources Applications Group (Robert Piland) office dropped in mid-1968

Project

Office

(Jackson);

Chief, Lunar Manager, Manager, Director, Deputy Deputy Assistant Chief, Chief, Chief, Head, Director, Chief, Chief, Chief, Director,

and Earth Sciences Division (Bell) Systems (Pearce; Sciences Laboratory and Operations Research Jackson, mid-1968); office dropped acting) in late 1968

Advanced Mapping

(James H. Sasser, (Berry)

Medical Director, Director,

Research Medical Medical

and Operations (Coons)

(A. D. Catterson)

Requirements (Dietlein) (Dietlein;

Director, Biomedical Preventive Medical

Research Research Medicine Operations

Beckman,

mid-1968) Jr.; Walter K. Kemmerer, Jr., mid-1968)

(John J. Dreoscher, (Hawkins) Group (Slayton) (George

Biomedical Flight

Technology

G. Armstrong,

Jr.)

Crew Operations Office Operations

Astronaut Aircraft

(Shepard) Office (Algranti) Division (North)

Flight Crew Support Flight Operations

(Kraft) (Sjoberg) acting)

Deputy Director,

Flight Operations

Chief, Flight Control Chief, Landing Chief, Mission

Division (Eugene F. Kranz, Division (Hammock)

and Receiving Planning

and Analysis Division

(Mayer)

Chief, Flight Support Director, Manager, Lunar Exploration

Division (Dunseith) Working Group (Hodge); office added (Raines) in Sept. 1968

MSC White Sands Test Facility Operations

Important points regarding Phase VI: During 1968, Gilruth reorganized the center's administrative staff arm. Wesley J. Hjornevik, long-time assistant director for administration at MSC, became associate director, with directors for administration and program control reporting to him. An advanced program office was added to explore mission possibilities beyond the Apollo era. Faget got the help of three assistant directors in managing the multifaceted engineering and development directorate. * These six phases represent composites for each time period. Refer to appendix A and other NASA historical publications for complete organization charts (especially helpful for the early years is "Key Management Progression involving Project Mercury," app. 8, James M. Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology, NASA SP-4001 (Washington, 1963), pp. 215-21). These-six phases emphasize operational and developmental activities rather than administrative and staff activities. See the notes following each phase for a summary of the important changes for each time period.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT BUDGET

121

For general information on the NASA budget and the budget charts in this book, consult chapter 1, pages 7 to 11. Other charts that may assist the researcher interested in the cost of NASA's manned spaceflight program include budget tables in chapter 1 for Atlas, Atlas-Agena, Jupiter, Little Joe I, Little Joe II, Redstone, Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V, and Titan II; see chapter 4 for budget tables for Scout Reentry Heating Project, Project FIRE, lifting bodies, Project RAM, human factor systems, and X-15; chapter 5 provides budget information for manned flight tracking network operations and manned network equipment and components. For a more detailed breakdown of the flight project budgets, consult the NASA annual budget estimates. Review the bottom notes of the following charts carefully before making conclusions about totals for any particular project or year. The total cost of NASA's manned spaceflight programs and in particular the cost of the lunar landing, is a figure sought frequently by friends and foes of the agency. Because it was such a huge undertaking with a fixed deadline and because it demanded quantum state-of-the-art leaps in several fields (especially computerization and miniaturization), the costs were high. Totals for any one program are hard to determine, but NASA issued the following figures for its major manned ventures: Mercury, $392.6 million; Gemini, $1.283 billion; and Apollo, $25 billion ($21.35 billion through the first lunar landing in July 1969). If we add another $2.6 billion for Skylab and $250 million for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the grand total for the "expendable-generation" manned spaceflight program was $29.5 billion. _1 These totals include facilities, salaries, research and development, operations, and hardware (spacecraft and launch vehicles) expenditures. The following charts are concerned with only OMSF research and development monies (spacecraft, some launch vehicle costs, and supporting development).

122

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Total

2-4.

Manned Spaceflight Costs (in thousands of dollars) Authorization Programmed 46 84 130 563 1 483 2 2 3 3 2 713 949 002 024 809 416 428 596a 050 446 052 019 232 000 230

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... ...... 107 750 234 245 876 887 b 2 3 3 3 3 931 0i i 249 022 009 800 c 900 485 800 200

------2 3 3 3 2 817 011 219 022 871 100¢ 900 485 800 700

alncludes $124 330 000 for Project Mercury, and $6 266 000 for advanced manned spaceflight. b Includes $13 259 000 for Project Mercury, and $863 628 000 for advanced spaceflight. c The OMSF budget for FY 1964 was divided among manned spacecraft systems (see following charts), launch vehicle and propulsion systems (see chapter 1), aerospace medicine (request, $16 700 000; authorization, $11 000000), integration and checkout (request, $153 000000; authorization, $125 000 000); and systems engineering (request and authorization, $37 000 000). The budget was usually divided among the various flight projects (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and advanced programs).

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

123

2

_o
e_o

0

0

E

I

124

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table

2-6.

Total Mercury Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... ...... 107 750 a 74 245 a 25 439 c Authorization Programmed 46416 a 84 328 a 124 330 31,060 b ___d

107 750 a --13 259

aln the FY 1961 and FY 1962 budget estimates, the Mercury budget was in two parts: advanced technical development and flight research. bIncludes $16 460 000 for a "one-day mission," a Mercury mission of longer duration than the initial flights. At one time, four such missions were planned for 1963. MA-9, lasting more than 34 hours, was considered the Mercury one-day mission, but the designation was not widely used. CIncludes $12 180 000 for the "one-day mission" from the advanced manned spaceflight budget; see note "b" above. dNot included as an item in the FY 1965 budget estimate, however, it was estimated in the FY 1964 budget estimate that $3 342 000 and $17 957 000 would be programmed in FY 1963 for Mercury "one-day mission," respectively. No funds were programmed after FY 1963. and a

Table Mercury-Spacecraft (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... ...... 35 290 32000 12069

2-7. Funding History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 22 299 61 850 60474 a __d

--...... 7569 c

aThe Mercury budget was not itemized in the FY 1964 budget estimate; total programmed was $31 060 000, which included funds for a "one-day mission." blncludes $4 500 000 from the advanced manned spaceflight budget for a "one-day mission." ¢Does not include funds for a "one-day mission." dMercury was not included as an item in the FY 1965 budget estimate. It was estimated in the FY 1964 budget estimate that $21 299 000 would be programmed for Mercury for FY 1963, which included funds for a "one-day mission." No funds were programmed after FY 1963.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

125

Table Mercury-Operations (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... ...... 39 670 c 28 235 e 13 370 g

2-8. Funding History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 7a 3193 b 30 283 d f __i

--...... 5690 a

aFor tracking network operations and equipment. bIncludes $7 850 000 for recovery operations, $19 635 000 for network operations, and $750 000 for network operational implementation. Clncludes $24 670 000 for tracking network operations and equipment, and $15 000 000 for recovery operations. d Includes $25 254 000 for tracking network, and $5 029 000 for recovery operations. e Includes $353 000 for recovery operations, $145 000 for network operations, and $2 695 000 for network operational implementation. fThe Mercury budget was not itemized in the FY 1964 budget estimate; total programmed was $31 060 000, which included funds for a "one-day mission." glncludes $2 490 000 for flight operations, and $3 200 000 for recovery operations, plus $7 680 000 from the advanced manned spaceflight budget to support a "one-day mission." hDoes not include funds to support a "one-day mission." i Mercury was not included as an item in the FY 1965 budget estimate. It was estimated in the FY 1964 budget estimate that $21 299 000 would be programmed for Mercury for FY 1963, which included funds for a "one-day mission." No funds were programmed after FY 1963.

Table

2-9. History

Mercury-Supporting Development Funding (in thousands of dollars) Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 Request ----7140 c 2510 b

Programmed 3270 a 3419 b 2737 b ___d

alncludes $170 000 for biological and human engineering studies, and $3 100 000 for a Mercury development program. b For advanced technical development. c Includes $2 090 000 for biological and human engineering studies, $4 050 000 for a Mercury development project, $800 000 for advanced reentry configuration development, and $200 000 for reentry guidance and control system technical development. dThe Mercury budget was not itemized in the FY 1964 budget estimate. Total programmed was $31 060 000, which included funds for a "one-day mission." No funds were programmed after FY 1962.

126

NASA HISTORICAL
Table

DATA

BOOK

2-10. History

Mercury-Launch Vehicles Funding (in thousands of dollars) Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 Request ----25 650 11 500

Programmed 20 840 15 867 30 836 ___a

"The Mercury budget was not itemized in the FY 1904 budget estimate. Total programmed was $31 060 000, which included funds for a "one-day mission." No funds were programmed after FY 1962.

Table

2-11.

Total Gemini Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 203 306 308 242 40 Request ...... 200 a 300 400 100 600 306 308 242 40 --300 400 100 600 Authorization Programmed 54 959 288 090 418 900 308 400 ___b ___c

a From the advanced manned spaceflight budget. bNot included as an item in the FY 1968 budget estimate. However, it was estimated budget estimate that $226 611 000 would be programmed for Gemini in FY 1966. CNot included as an item in the FY 1969 budget estimate. No funds were programmed

in the FY 1967 after FY 1967.

Table Gemini-Spacecraft (in thousands Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Request ...... 131 350a 196 206 168 900 122 700 19 100

2-12. Funding History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 30 205 280 165 329 045 520 300 ___b ___c

----168 900 122 700 19 100

a From the advanced manned spaceflight budget. bit was estimated in the FY 1967 budget estimate for Gemini spacecraft. end funds were programmed after FY 1967.

that $107 211 000 would be programmed

in FY 1966

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table 2-13. Gemini-OperationsSupport and Funding History (inthousands ofdollars) Year
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Request ...... ...... 15 300 b 28 200 30 800 13 000 Authorization Programmed 239 a 3936 15 680 27 700 ___c ___d

127

--28 200 30 800 13 000

aFor supporting development. b Includes $700 000 for supporting development. c It was estimated in the FY 1967 budget estimate for Gemini support. dNo funds were programmed after FY 1967.

that $30 800 000 would be programmed

in FY 1966

Table Gemini-Launch (in thousands Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Request ...... 850 a 800 300 600 8500

2-14. Funding History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 24 79 122 115 391 109 700 400 ___b ___c

Vehicles

71 94 111 88

----111 300 88 600 8500

a From the advanced manned spaceflight budget. blt was estimated in the FY 1967 budget estimate for Gemini launch vehicles. CNo funds were programmed after FY 1967.

that $88 600 000 would be programmed

in FY 1966

128

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table 2-15. Total Apollo Funding History (in thousands of dollars)
Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 617 1 207 2 677 2 997 2 974 2 606 Request ...... ...... 160 000 a 164 b 400 500 385 200 500 c 2 677 2 967 2 974 2 521 ----1 147 400 500 385 200 500 d Authorization Programmed 100 ___b 75 618 1 183 965 2 272 2 614 2 940 2 922 952 619 985 600

2 556 030

aThe response bFrom

first the

request advanced was

for

Apollo manned

submitted that spaceflight in unobligated

to Congress NASA budget; funds 000 land

was there to by

for $29 on was no

500 item

000; the labeled

request "Apollo" the

was of the

increased 1960s.

in 1963 to on

to the presidential

mandate

a man

the moon

by the end

in the FY actual request

budget estimate. c$60 000 000 $2 546 500 000. dThe sum was Oct. 25, 1967.

available

finance the

Apollo,

bringing

further

reduced

to $2 496 000

Appropriations

Conference

Committee

Table Apollo--Spacecraft, Command (in Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 and

2-16. Service of Module Funding History

thousands Request

dollars) Programmed 100a

--...... 47 000 345 000 b 661 200 520 500 550 000 586 900 494 000

60 000 269 450 545 577 612 532 874 834 799 815

393 023

a For aFrom

general

spacecraft

design manned

and

engineering. budget.

the advanced

spaceflight

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

129

Table Apollo--Spacecraft, Lunar (in thousands Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

2-17. Module Funding of dollars) History

Request 5000 a 123 100b 230 000 189 000 270 000 388 300 373 100

Programmed -__ 13 000 135 000 242 600 362 615 539 272 402 688

a For lunar landing propulsion system development. b From the advanced manned spaceflight budget.

Table Apollo-Spacecraft, Other (in thousands Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

2-18. Costs, Funding of dollars) History

Request --400 a 200 400 840 400 200

Programmed 9869 81 512 195 701 189 464 258 386 238 513 238 989

49 140 235 298 225 169

aFrom the advanced

manned

spaceflight

budget.

Table Apollo-Operations (in thousands Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

2-19. Funding History of dollars) Programmed 8042 a 26 422 a 96 717 112 928 184 120 545 765

Request --16 000 72 900 a 74 245 a 154 405 229 000

a Includes

launch and space operations.

130

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Apollo-Supporting (in

2-20. Funding dollars) History

Development thousands of

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request 108 000 a --27 292 c 136 300 b 148 000 b 58 895 _ 52 000 d

Programmed 1257 53 984 b 106 679 b 73 825 a 51 400 d 54 300 d ---

alncludes $27 550 000

$63 900000 for high-speed engineering, 000 $25 000 systems

for

orbital tests. mission

flight control

tests, systems,

$16 and

550000 supporting

for

biomedical technology for

flight and

research,

and

reentry for

b For systems c Includes facilities. d Includes

development. and development

supporting and

development, supporting

and

$2 292 000

research

engineering

development.

Table Apollo-Launch Vehicles (in Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 and Engine

2-21. Development of dollars) Programmed 2200 a 977 276 179 Funding History

thousands Request

--99 664 b 135 000 a 1 522 1 656 500 300

757 1 263 1 434

1 542 857 1 373 580 975 565

1 518 400 1 289 200

a Most to Apollo b From

of the OMSF

launch

vehicle

and

propulsion

systems

budget

in the FY 1964 estimate

was devoted

launch vehicle and engine development. the advanced manned spaceflight budget.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

131

Table Total

2-22. History

Apollo Applications Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 41 900a 454 700

Year 1966 1967 1968

Authorization

Programmed 51 247 80 000 ___b

--347 700

aFrom the Apollo mission support request. bNot included as an item in the FY 1970 budget estimate. budget estimate that $253 200 000 would be programmed

However,

it was estimated

in the FY 1969

for Apollo applications

in FY 1968.

Table Apollo Applications-Space (in thousands

2-23. Vehicles Funding of dollars) History

Year 1966 1967 1968

Request ----263 700

Programmed 8500 37 700 ___a

alt was estimated in the FY 1969 budget estimate applications space vehicles in FY 1968.

that $86 000 000 would be programmed

for Apollo

Table Apollo Applications--Mission (in thousands Year 1966 1967 1968

2-24. Support of dollars) Programmed 2400 4700 ___a Funding History

Request ----50 300

alt was estimated in the FY 1969 budget estimate applications mission support in FY 1968.

that $28 200 000 would be programmed

for Apollo

132

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Apollo

2-25. History

Applications--Experiments Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ----140 700

Year 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 40 347 37 60O ___a

a It was estimated in the FY !969 budget estimate applications experiments in FY 1968.

that $I 39 000 000 would be programmed

for Apollo

Table Total

2-26. History

Advanced Missions Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 26 000 10 000 8000 8000

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Authorization

Programmed 11 391 21 200 26 000 10 000 6200 __-a

26 000 10 000 8000 2500

aNot included as a line item in the FY 1970 budget estimate. estimate that no funds would be programmed for the advanced

It was estimated missions program

in the FY 1969 budget in FY 1968.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table 2-27. Manned Spaceflight-Other Funding Costs History
(in thousands Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 Request --...... 31 084 c 1 418 100e of dollars) Authorization --...... 1 363 400f Programmed 6266 a 401 413 b d ---g

133

a From the advanced manned spaceflight $4 246 000 for aerospace medicine.

budget:

$2 020 000 for manned spaceflight

technology,

and

blncludes $5 164000 for manned spacecraft systems supporting research and technology, $386 153 000 for launch vehicle and propulsion systems, $7 854 000 for aerospace medicine, $1 250 000 for integration and checkout, and $992 000 for systems engineering. c From the advanced manned spaceflight budget: $11 764 000 for manned spacecraft technology, and $19 320 000 for aerospace medicine. dThe following are estimates as per the FY 1964 budget estimate (these categories did not appear as items in the FY 1965 estimate): aerospace medicine, $7 000 000; integration and checkout, $38 500 000; systems engineering, $26 500 000; mission control center operations, $10 500 000; supporting research and technology, $8 100 000; and launch vehicle and propulsion systems, $734 057 000. elncludes $21 100 000 for manned spacecraft systems research and technology, $21 800 000 for mission control center operations, $1 168 500 000 for launch vehicle and propulsion systems, $153 000 000 for integration medicine. and checkout, $37 000 000 for systems engineering, and $16 700 000 for aerospace

fThe authorization for launch vehicle and propulsion systems was $1 147 500, for aerospace medicine $11 000 000, and for integration and checkout $125 000 000. For other categories the authorizations were the same as the request (as per note "e" above). gThese several categories were assumed by the Gemini and Apollo budgets as per the FY 1965 budget estimate.

134

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK CHARACTERISTICS-PROJECT MERCURY

Project Mercury's goals were simply stated in 1958 when it was officially chosen as this country's first step toward manned spaceflight: (1) launch a manned spacecraft into earth orbit; (2) assess man's performance capabilities and his ability to function in the space environment; and (3) recover the pilot and spacecraft safely. In developing the ballistic-shaped spacecraft, NASA proposed to rely on existing technology and off-the-shelf equipment when practical and to follow the simplest, most reliable approach to system design.i2 These guidelines, of course, echoed the advice of engineers at the Langley Research Center who had been studying the feasibility of sending man into orbit in a nose cone-type spacecraft months prior to NASA's organization in October 1958 (see discussion above). Designer Maxime Faget and his colleagues favored the Air Force's Atlas missile for a Mercury launch vehicle, and suggested a test program for both the spacecraft and the booster that would guarantee that the hardware was "man-rated." Mercury was not the sleek, sophisticated-looking craft that most dreamers of manned flight would have designed. It was small (1 cubic meter in the crew compartment), a blunt cone with zero lift (2.1 meters at its widest, 3.4 meters nose to retrorocket), and at launch it perched atop a modified ICBM. If some thought it an ignoble way to fly-"the man in the can"-those same critics probably paled at the thought of reentering earth's atmosphere on their backs protected by a heat shield in preparation for a splash-down in the ocean (see figs. 2-1 and 2-2). But it was the only approach to manned flight that could be supported by existing launch vehicles. Boosters powerful enough to send "space planes" into orbit were still decades away. (See table 2-28 for a chronology of key Project Mercury events.) To prepare for the first orbital mission, originally scheduled for 1960, NASA personnel in the Space Task Group (redesignated the Manned Spacecraft Center in 1961 and moved from Langley Research Center in Virginia to Houston, Texas) devised a hardware test plan that called for ground simulations and flight tests. Mercury's heat shield and basic reentry attitude had to be proved, as did its environmental control system and other critical subsystems. In addition to evaluating changes made to the basic Atlas missile, propulsion experts were charged with designing a launch escape system that would carry the manned capsule away from a malfunctioning launch vehicle and a retrorocket system capable of supplying the impulse necessary to bring the spacecraft out of orbit for return to earth. Beyond laboratory and wind tunnel tests of these Mercury features conducted at the Langley, Ames, and Lewis centers, the Space Task Group relied on ballistic flights to qualify hardware. Rather than depend exclusively on the more expensive Atlas for test flights, NASA procured eight Redstone missiles from the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and awarded North American Aviation a contract to build airframes for a new Mercury test launcher, the Little Joe I.* Suborbital launches of Mercury spacecraft boilerplate models using Little Joe began in 1959 at Wallops Island. The spacecraft abort system was not qualified under maximum dynamic pressure with Little Joe un-

*NASA had originally planned to also include the Army's Jupiter missile in the Mercury test flight scheme but dropped the requirement in favor of exclusive use of Redstone for suborbital missions. The solid propellant Little Joe was used primarily to test the spacecraft abort system. (Seechap. 1 for more information on the Mercury launch vehicles.)

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

135

ESCAPE TOWER

7.9

ANTENNA SECTION

RECOVERY COMPARTMENT

3.34 PRESSURIZED

RETROGRADE PACKAGE _1.89

Figure 2-1. Mercury Spacecraft (dimensions in meters). The exterior shape of the Mercury spacecraft was conical, with a segment of a sphere for the heatshield and a cylindrical afterbody at the apex of the cone. Two crew access hatches were included, one for entrance and egress on the side of the spacecraft and the other for exit through the cylindrical section. A large window and an instrument panel were provided for crew monitoring of flight events and systems operation. Thermal protection was provided by an ablative heatshield on the blunt face and radioactive-type shingles on the afterbody. Environmental control was made possible in part by evaporative cooling in two separate circuits, one for the cabin and one for the astronaut's suit. A stabilization and control system with a three-axis gyro package erected by horizon scanners provided attitude references for the displays and the two automatic control modes. Attitude changes were effected through a redundant system of hydrogen peroxide-fueled reaction control engines. Three silver-zinc batteries were the source of electrical power. Reentry retrofire maneuvers were accomplished by three solid-fuel rockets. (See also tables 2-54 and 2-55 for more information on the spacecraft and its major subsystems.)

136

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

.5

_o__

I.l.I kl.I

c_
121 0 (.9 O0 ZZ_Z

mz_o
_-_ .Z
Z

I-...1

_Zto

z

i._ >-

_ <_'£,_ en II1
_.1

_
oO Z

",m
t.l.l --

x

_t_

z_5,x
uJ

_w o On. _0
_Zo3

z
O

a

to

I-rr"

o
CO kl_

o -1I--_J

I--w (D I-- ,,, I _Z,--r,.O
¢O c"q

b

°
_- ,,-- _oz ,'," _ _

o
w_

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

137

til April 1961 (Lj-5B). _3 From the Eastern Test Range (formerly the Atlantic Missile Range) in Florida, the first attempt to launch a Mercury production capsule in a qualification flight ended in a malfunction of the Atlas vehicle in February 1961 (MA-2). The first successful orbital test took place seven months later in September (MA-4), followed by an all-systems two-orbit test flight in November (MA-5). Redstone also malfunctioned during its first Mercury test in November 1960 (MR-l), but performed more satisfactorily one month later (MR-1A). Redstone boosters would send NASA's first astronauts into space on suborbital missions in 1961. (See table 2-29 for a list of Mercury development flights.) Manufacture of the spacecraft was assigned to McDonnell Aircraft Corporation in January 1959, one of 11 firms to submit proposals to NASA (see table 2-56 for a list of major contractors). STG personnel were assigned to the contractor's facilities in St. Louis, where they worked together to produce 20 Mercury spacecraft. The builders of the spacecraft had to allow for the incorporation of a life support system (100 percent oxygen supplied as a gas at a pressure of 258 mm mercury, with removal of carbon dioxide and humidity by lithium hydroxide canisters) and flight couches that conformed to each astronaut's body. The inclusion of redundant systems and manual as well as automatic controls where possible was another important requirement. April 1963.* 14 McDonnell delivered the last spacecraft to the launch complex in

Qualifications for astronauts to man Mercury spacecraft were first established in January 1959: a candidate had to be under 40 years of age, less than 180 centimeters (5'11'3 tall, in excellent physical condition, holder of a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, a graduate of test pilot school, and a qualified jet pilot with 1500 hours of flight time. From the files of 508 military test pilots, a NASA committee found 110 apparently qualified candidates, of which 69 were interviewed. Of these, 56 took a battery of written exams; 32 were left in March to undergo mental and physical testing. By April, the field had been narrowed to 7 men, who reported to the Space Task Group at Langley for training.t The astronaut training program in-

*This capsule was to have been used for MA-10, which was cancelled in June 1963. tThe NASA astronaut candidate evaluation committee was led by Charles Donlan, assistant director of the STG. He was assisted by Warren North, a test pilot-engineer, Stanley C. White and William S. Augerson, flight surgeons, Allen O. Gamble and Robert B. Voas, psychologists, and George E. Ruff and Edwin Z. Levy, psychiatrists. The Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the Aeromedical Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center, Dayton, Ohio, were used to conduct many of the physical tests during the evaluations; NASA specialists were supported by military medical personnel. STG Director Gilruth endorsed the final list of seven candidates and passed it to Abe Silverstein, director of space flight development, and Administrator Keith Glennan for final review in April 1959. The Mercury astronauts named later that month were M. Scott Carpenter (Lt., Navy), L. Gordon Cooper (Cpt., USAF), John H. Glenn, Jr. (Lt. Col., USMC), Virgil I. Grissom (Cpt., USAF), Walter M. Schirra, Jr. (Lt. Com., Navy), Alan B. Shepard, Jr. (Lt. Com., Navy), and Donald K. Slayton (Cpt., USAF). Medical personnel played an important part during astronaut training. They measured, monitored, or tested every bodily function, component, and product. To monitor the astronaut's body temperature (with a rectal thermistor), respirations (with a pneumograph on MA-8 and MA-9), heart action (with electrocardiographic electrodes), and blood pressure (with a unidirectional microphone and cuff during MA-7, MA-8, and MA-9) during flight, new biomedical sensors were developed. To supplement this data, the flight surgeon could also evaluate the astronaut's actions, his voice quality, and his answers to specific questions. Scientists and doctors were especially interested in determining man's physiological responses to weightlessness, acceleration and deceleration forces, radiation, and stress.

138

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

cluded classroom studies in rocket propulsion, space physics, and other astronautical sciences, briefings on spacecraft systems, time on fixed and moving simulators and trainers, sessions on a centrifuge, and egress and survival exercises._5. Approximately three months before each flight, the designated pilot and his backup began specific preparations for the mission. Crew members also were assigned to mission control and tracking network stations to serve as capsule communicators (cap coms), the voice links with the spacecraft. In addition, the astronauts worked with technicians from McDonnell Aircraft to ensure that the spacecrafts' form-fitting flight couches were suitable and with B. F. Goodrich, maker of the Mercury pressure suits. Systems, proccdures, and equipment were evaluated continuously by the engineers, astronauts, and manufacturers during training sessions. One other important aspect of the astronaut's life was medical maintenance and monitoring. Flight crew surgeons determined the astronaut's readiness for flight, monitored his health during the mission, and evaluated his condition upon recovery. _6 The Department of Defense cooperated with NASA during Project Mercury on several fronts. Their most visible role was as supplier of the launch vehicles (Atlas from the Air Force and Redstone from ABMA). The agency was totally dependent on military launchers for its early manned program. Launch operations and communications was another area in which the Air Force shared its expertise and facilities at Cape Canaveral. NASA's Mercury network was supplemented by military tracking stations and equipment. Recovery of the astronaut and his craft from the Atlantic was largely the Navy's assignment. Astronaut selection and training was also accomplished with the assistance of medical experts from the services. To coordinate the many operational activities that required Department of Defense support, the commander of the Atlantic Missile Range Test Center was designated DoD representative for Project Mercury operations by the Secretary of Defense. A Mercury Support Planning Office was staffed by officers from the services participating in Mercury.17 Before committing the Mercury spacecraft to a manned orbital mission, NASA further qualified the capsule with two manned suborbital flights. Sent on a ballistic trajectory by a Redstone launch vehicle on May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American space traveler. MR-3 was followed by Virgil Grissom in MR-4 in July. With this second successful Mercury-Redstone mission, Gilruth and his STG advisors decided against any further suborbital tets; they were ready for orbital operations. After three postponements due to bad weather, MA-6 took John Glenn to earth orbit on February 20, 1962. In a little less than five hours, Glenn accomplished the "standard" three-orbit Mercury mission. With MA-6, Project Mercury met its basic objectivesthe hardware had functioned properly and Glenn had suffered no harmful effects from his flight. Scott Carpenter completed another three-orbit mission (MA-7) in May, followed by a six-orbit shot (MA-8) by Walter Schirra in October, The last Mercury flight, MA-9, was also referred to as the "oneday mission." _a Gordon Cooper, surpassing the one-day goal with a 34-hour flight (22 orbits) in May 1963, brought the Mercury project to a close. (See tables 2-30 through 2-35 for mission details.) Relying on experiences with each successive flight, the manned spaceflight team had improved spacecraft systems and the biomedical equipment, modified the astronaut's suit and couch, and augmented the tracking net to cover MA-9's extra orbits. Procedures and hardware were evolving toward the next step in NASA's manned program, Gemini.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

139

As Project Robert STG name Houston,

discussed Mercury. Gilruth,

above, Even leader

the though of the

Space the group,

Task team

Group was

was located directly

established at Langley to NASA 1961 Manned chief and and

in 1958 Research

to manage Center, The a new in

reported operation

Headquarters. was assigned Center, of the

was and

declared

an independent home in

in January the

a permanent Texas. James

November,

Spacecraft chair

Chamberlin assumed in November Office. and changing for the Loyd S. He

as engineering a large 1961, was share Kenneth by and of

Capsule in

Coordination 1959. of the

Committee

the

project's

management became engineering (see also manager operatable

In a reorganization Mercury project information Three useful Program engineering, on the

Kleinknecht chiefs for

assisted data

tions, for

engineering organization reader

measurement

2-3

of STG-MSC). in Project James Project A M. Mercury Grimwood, are the and NASA NASA Results October followCharles SP-4201 SP-4001 of the 3-4,

sources

interested Jr., of

ing C.

NASA Alexander,

publications: This 1966); 1963); summary New

Swenson, A History

Ocean;

Mercury, Chronology, including SP-45 given

(Washington, (Washington, Fourth 1963). 1963, Manned The Mercury

Grimwood, and NASA, Flight, volume held

Project Mercury May

Mercury; Project 16,

Summary 1963, of papers

Orbital conference

15 and

NASA

(Washington,

is a compilation in Houston.

at the

Table Chronology Date Oct. 6, 1958 Langley Ballistic vehicles with the vehicles.

2-28. Mercury Event Events*

of Key Project

Research Center personnel opened negotiations with the Army Missile Agency (ABMA) to procure Redstone and Jupiter launch for a manned satellite project; on the 17th they began discussions Air Force Ballistic Missile Division regarding procurement of Atlas

Oct. 7, 1958 Oct. 21, 1958

NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan approved plans for a manned satellite project. A bidders conference was held concerning a Little Joe launch vehicle to be used for development testing of the manned capsule. Design work was completed by December 1. Preliminary specifications for a manned spacecraft were distributed to industry. Another set of specifications was mailed on Nov. 14 to 20 firms that wanted to be considered bidders. Deadline for proposal submission was December 11. The Space Task Group manned program. (STG) was officially formed at Langley to manage the

Oct. 23, 1958

Nov. 5, 1958 Nov. 14, 1958

NASA requested DX priority procurement rating for the manned project, which was accorded on April 27, 1959.

spacecraft

Nov. 24, 1958

The STG ordered one Atlas launch vehicle for a development launch of a boilerplate spacecraft model (Big Joe); nine Atlas vehicles would be required according to a December 8 memo. A total of 15 had been approved by FY 1962. The name "Mercury" was agreed on for the manned project. Eleven firms submitted proposals for a manned spacecraft. STG members began assessing them on the 12th; they forwarded their findings to NASA Headquarters on the 30th.

Nov. 26, 1958 Dec. 11, 1958

140

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date Dec. 29, 1958 NASA 1958). Jan. Jan. 5, 1959 9, 1959 awarded The first were a contract two of Key Project

2-28. Mercury Events* Event to North Joe I airframe were for choosing American (letter delivered proposal on for Aviation of intent May 28, for dated the design December and 31, (Continued)

construction Guidelines McDonnell the Mercury tions 1962, ment Jan. Jan. Feb. March March Apr. 16, 1959 29, 1959 began

of the Little established

airframes Corporation's was with

1959. and producing negotia6. By FY

astronaut

candidates. developing bid. Preliminary on February

Aircraft spacecraft on

chosen

as the winning being

the 14th,

a contract

signed

26 spacecraft of Defense

had been ordered. (DoD) officials Redstones for the met and Jupiters

Also on the 9th, met to coordinate two Jupiters it was Mercury time on for

NASA and Departrequirements for Mercury on April needs; 17th. spacecraft personnel on were was conplace. discuss to test took from the

spacecraft tracking. NASA ordered eight Army; The Navy the Little and requirement Joe test Navy

was dropped updated

on July recovery the

1, 1959. 14, 1959. a NASA-

program officials formally

was drafted; to discuss for the first model 1 lth, Missile for

12, 1959 8, 1959 31, 1959

NASA The ducted STG launch NASA tracking seven

committee first abort at Wallops officials held Mercury met requirements.

met

test of a full-scale Island. with On the Atlantic briefing on

of the Mercury a full-scale Range prospective announced the candidates (AMR)

pad-abort

2, 1959

a preliminary Also astronauts

bidders that

the Mercury of announced

network.J"

the 2d, been

it was made;

the selection

had

Apr. Apr.

12, 1959 19, 1959

publicly on the 9th. Training began on the 27th. A second full-scale beach abort was successful. The STG organized a Mercury Review Goodrich were made was Capsule Board, Coordination Paul E. Purser, as contractor 2, 1959, Rocket successful Central Office under James was the A. also

Chamberlin; formed. July 22, 1959 NASA pressure began place Aug. Sept. 21, 1959 Little 9, 1959 1960 selected suit. in May using Joe

a Capsule B. 1960. F.

chairman, for and pad-abort

Company issued another

Mercury test took

Specifications Also an escape rocket

on October

production

on the 22d,

by Grand

Company.

1 (L J-l)

beach-abort

unsuccessful.**

Oct. 4, 1959 Nov. 1959-Jan. Nov. Nov. Dec. Jan. May June July Sept. 4, 1959 8-Dec. 4, 1959 15, 1960 9, 1960 20, 29, 1960 1960 1960

Big Joe 1 was successful. L J-6 was successful. The LJ-IA 5, 1959 general was design work on the Mercury couch was completed. center of was completed. Support for

unsuccessful. layout "Overall of the Mercury Plan for control

Tentative design and L J-2 was successful. NASA approved an

Department came system

Defense

Project Mercury Operations"; DoD A beach-abort test was successful. Tests of the spacecraft 1 (MA-1) were tested had been suits environmental was suggested to determine and

approval control final changes

in March. were begun. a number 1963. of imThe suit

Mercury-Atlas Pressure provements

unsuccessful. adjustments; made by April

Nov. Nov. Dec. Jan. Jan.

8, 1960 21, 1960 19, 1960 3, 1961 31, 1961

evolved with the program. L J-5 was unsuccessful. Mercury-Redstone 1 fMR-1) MR-IA was successful. The STG was declared MR-2 was successful. was unsuccessful. NASA field element.

a separate

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table -28. 2 ChronologyKey of Project Mercury Events* (Continued) Event
MA-2 was successful. Also on the 21st, Jr., astronauts were selected John H. Glenn, training Jr.,

141

Date Feb. 1961 21, March8, 961 1 1 March 24,1961 Apr.12, 961 1 Apr. 5, 961 2 1 Apr. 8, 961 2 1 May 5,1961 May 1961 25, July 1961 21, Aug. 1961 Sept. 1961 13, Nov. 1961 l, Nov. 29,1961 Jan. 1962 15, Feb. 1962 Feb. 1962 20, May 1962 24, July 1,1962 Sept. 1962 18, Oct. ,1962 3

Virgil for the

I. Grisson, and Alan B. Shepard, first manned flight. LJ-5A was unsuccessful. A Mercury Soviet MA-3 LJ-5B MR-3, suborbital President to a manned MR-4, manned table 2-31). A site selection Redstone-Booster A.

to begin

Development Gagarin made

(MR-BD) an orbital

test flight

was successful. on Vostok 1.

cosmonaut Yuri was unsuccessful. was successful. piloted John by

Shepard, (see table landing

successfully 2-30). called before

completed

NASA's space

first

manned leading

mission lunar

F. Kennedy

for an accelerated

program,

the end of the decade. completed for a suborbital mission (see

by Grissom, team

successfully locations

evaluated as the best

a Manned

Spacecraft

Center;

Houston was chosen MA-4 was successful.

site in September. Spacecraft Center (MSC); Also Robert R.

The STG was redesignated the Manned Gilruth was retained as director. MA-5, Glenn Kenneth MA-6, bital MA-7, mission Relocation Donald MSC. MA-8, mission MA-9, mission K. the last unmanned was selected as pilot was of MSC development of the completed. first

test, was successful. orbital Project completed mission. Mercury NASA's

on the 29th,

Organization manned mission with

S. Kleinknecht by Glenn, (see table M. Scott 2-33).

was appointed successfully onboard, from 2-32). Carpenter group

manager.'_t first manned an or-

successfully Research of

completed Center astronaut completed completed flight

orbital

(see tabler

of the MSC Slayton

Langley

to the Houston activities an orbital an orbital program at

site was completed. was designated M. Schirra, Cooper, coordinator Jr.,

manned manned lasting 2-35).

by Walter 2-34)

successfully

May 15-16, 1963 June 2, 963 1 1 Oct. -4, 963 3 1

(see table

by L. Gordon more than

Jr., successfully concluding

34 hours,

the Mercury

(see table NASA

Administrator

James

E. Webb

announced

that

because McDonnell's

Mercury

had

accomplished its goals, spacecraft contract was A Project Mercury

MA-10 would not be flown. terminated the next day. conference was held

Mercury

summary

in Houston.

*For a more detailed calendar of events, NASA SP-4001 (Washington, 1963). table tFor further 5-24. **For further details details replaced on events on this James effectively that and

see James

M. Grimwood,

Project

Mercury: Space 2-29. Project chairman Flight

A Chronology, Network, see

led to the establishment other developmental

of the Manned flights, consult

table

_i'Kleinknecht manager. Coordination Chamberlin's

Chamberlin, had been making chief

who was reassigned of the engineering "project manager" him

to the new division and of Mercury.

Gemini

office

as

STG titles

of the Capsule

Committee,

142

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 2-29. Developmental Tests/Flights, Mercury Project

Launch Date Test/ (location) Flight Aug. 1959 LJ-1 21, (Wallops) Sept. 9,1959 (ETR) Oct. 4,1959 (Wallops) Nov. 4,1959 (Wallops) Dec. 4,1959 (Wallops) Jan. 1969 21, (Wallops) May 9,1960
(Wallops)

Objectives/Results Unsuccessfulabort When escape fired beach test. the rocket prematurely thecountdown, during thevehicle to an rose
altitude of 600 m and launch landed some of 600 m from a full-scale the launch site. Successful (suborbital) instrumented capto to Mercury boilerplate sule survived reentry spacecraft to an altitude of 160 km; heat of more than 5800 ° K. of a boiierpiate vehicle Mercury airframe (suborbital) and motor,

Big 1 Joe LJ-6 LJ-1A LJ-2 LJ-1B
Beach (Mercury spacecra_ 1) abort

:Successful check

launch

the integrity

of the launch

verify launch operations, and to test the destruct Suborbital test of the abort maneuver under high load conditions (repeat of L J-l). Maneuver was

system. aerodynamic not tower accomduring

plished at the desired Successful suborbital

pressure. test of

spacecraft-escape

high-altitude abort. Entry tion on a rhesus monkey Successful monkey system Successful beach (Miss was Sam) abort

dynamics and the effects (Sam) were also studied. test (repeat The evaluation and recovery first of L J-l)

of acceleraa rhesus

with

onboard.

Mercury of

helicopter the escape

recovery system, in an offwas due launch and the back

also

exercised. system, operations

performance

parachute-landing

the-pad abort. McDonnell's used in the test. Launch of a Mercury production to launch vehicle failure. Unsuccessful test of spacecraft The did not booster escape rocket conditions. spacecraft Premature

production capsule

spacecraft

July

29,

1960

MA-I (spacecraft LJ-5 (spacecraft 4) 3)

was unsuccessful most severe

(ETR) Nov. 8, 1960 (Wallops) Nov. (ETR) Dec. (ETR) Jan. (ETR) 3, 1961 19, 1960 21, 1960

abort

under

ignited

prematurely,

I_R-I (spacecraft MR-1A (spacecraft MR-2 (spacecraft 2) 2)

detach from the vehicle until impact. cutoff caused the vehicle to settle after barely leaving the ground. The

down

on the pad

Mercury

capsule was reused Successful suborbital Suborbital 5) (Ham) flight onboard.

in MR-IA. reentry

test (repeat

of MR-l). with chimpanzee carried the cap-

of fully Although higher and

operational excessive farther

Mercury booster

velocity

the spacecraft Feb. (ETR) March (Wallops) March 24, 1961 1961 1961 1961 21, 1961 18, 1961 MA-2 (spacecraft LJ-5A (spacecraft MR-BD MA-3 (spacecraft LJ-5B (spacecraft MA-4 8) 14A) 6) Second 14) under

than

programmed,

sule and passenger were recovered after their 16-rain. flight. Successful suborbital test of Mercury-Atlas configuration. unsuccessful most severe attempt conditions. to test spacecraft escape flight of abort rocket the system ignition Redstone,

Premature

was again Successful qualifying Orbital failure; Successful pressure Successful

the cause of the failure. booster development test the vehicle for manned

(ETR) Apr. 25, (ETR) Apr. 28, (Wallops) Sept. 13,

missions. due to launch was proved. maximum network vehicle dynamic (reused

capsule test was unsuccessful the abort and recovery system test of abort system under

(reuse capsule one-orbit

from LJ-5A). test of the tracking

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

143

Table Developmental Launch Date (location) (ETR) Nov. 2, 1961 (ETR) Test/ Fright (spacecraft MA-5 (spacecraft 8A) 9)*

2-29. Project Mercury

Tests/Flights,

Objectives/Results spacecraft from MA-3). Successful two-orbit flight to test all Mercury systems; a third orbit was not completed due to an abnormal roll rate. A chimpanzee (Enos) passenger was recovered in good condition.

*Spacecraft 10 was used at McDonnell's St. Louis facility in an environmental test; 12B had been scheduled for a manned one-day mission which was cancelled (12B was not delivered); 15B had been scheduled for a manned one-day mission also, which was cancelled after the successful MA-9 (15B not delivered); 17 was delivered to Cape Canaveral in April 1963 to be used as parts support for planned oneday missions; 19 was not delivered when the manned orbital mission for which it was scheduled was cancelled after the successful MA-8.

Table Mercury-Redstone Date of launch (ETR pad #): Spacecraft designation: Unofficial spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimensions (m):

2-30. Characteristics

3 (MR-3)

May 5, 1961 (5) Mercury capsule 7 Freedom 7 7

Mercury-Redstone 1832.5 conical

Crew: Backup crew: Cap com: Max. alt. (km): Range (km): No. of orbits: Length of mission:

width at base, 2.1 length, 3.4 Alan B. Shepard, Jr. John H. Glenn, Jr. Donald K. Slayton (Mercury 187.42 487.26 suborbital 00:15:22 Control Ctr.)

Mission events (date, time, ground elapsed time): launch May 5 9:34:13 a.m., EST main engine shutoff 9:36:35 00:02:22 capsule separation 9:36:45.5 00:02:32.5 initiation of retrofire 9:38:57 00:04:44 splashdown 9:49:35 00:15:22 Distance traveled (km): 1006 Time in weightlessness: approx. 00:04:00 Landing point: 27°13.7'N, 75°53'W (5.6 km from target) Recovery ship: USS Champlain (crew onboard in 15 min.) Mission objectives: During a suborbital flight, evaluate Mercury astronaut's advance the qualities of the capsule and its systems. Results: Mission was performed as planned.

performance

and

144

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Mercury-Redstone

2-31. Characteristics

4 (MR-4)

Date

of launch

(ETR

pad

#):

July

21,

196t

(5) 11

Spacecraft Unofficial

designation: spacecraft

Mercury Liberty

capsule Bell 7

designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimensions _"
_lll].

Mercury-Redstone 1824.4 see t_hlo
- ....

8

2-30

Crew: Backup crew: (km):

Virgil Glenn Shepard 190.76

1. Grissom

Cap com: Max. alt.

(Mercury

Control

Ctr.)

Range (km): No. of orbits: Length Mission launch main engine shutoff of mission: events (date,

487.08 suborbital 00:15:37 ground elapsed July 21 7:20 7:22:22 7:22:32.4 7:24:45.8 7:35:37 (km): 1014 00:04:54 27°32'N, USS Evaluate part The 75°44'W pilot's (9.3 (crew reaction km from target) in 20 min.) and his performance loss of egress as an integral during activated The in the 18 and No. 4 being

time,

time): a.m., EST 00:02:22 00:02:32.4 00:04:45.8 00:15:37

capsule separation initiation of retrofire splashdown Distance traveled Time

in weightlessness: point: ship: objectives:

Landing Recovery Mission Results:

Randolph

onboard

to spaceflight the the left flight

of the flight system. only event that marred operations while sank after when Grissom Grissom

was the side for

the capsule hatch after helicopter. on July

recovery prematurely spacecraft

explosive

was waiting

the recovery the mission

it. He was recovered to launch weather. Report for

water 3 or 4 minutes. Two attempts 19 were scrubbed due to inclement Reference: STG, "Postlaunch Aug. Memorandum 6, 1961.

Mercury-Redstone

(MR-4),"

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

145

Table Mercury-Atlas Date of launch (ETR pad #): Spacecraft designation: Unofficial spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimensions (m): Crew: Backup crew: Cap corns: Apogee/perigee No. of orbits: Period: (km):

2-32. Characteristics

6 (MA-tO

Feb. 20, 1962 (14) Mercury capsule 13 Friendship Atlas 109-D 1934.7 see table 2-30 Glenn M. Scott Carpenter Shepard (Mercury Mission Ctr.), Grissom (Bermuda), Walter M. Schirra, Jr. (California), L. Gordon Cooper, Jr. (Muchea) 261.14/161 3 01:28:29 04:55:23 7

Length of mission: Mission events (date, time, ground elapsed time): launch Feb. 20 9:47 a.m., EST main engine shutoff 9:48:09.6 spacecraft separation 9:51:03.6 initiation of retrofire 2:20:08 p.m. splashdown 2:42:23 130 355 Distance traveled (km): 04:38:00 Time in weightlessness: Landing point: Recovery ship: Mission objectives:

00:02:09.6 00:15:13.6 04:33:08 04:55:23

Results:

Reference:

21°26'N, 68°41'W (74 km from target) USS Noa (crew onboard in 20 rain.) Evaluate performance of man-spacecraft system in a three-orbit mission, evaluate effects of spaceflight on astronaut, obtain astronaut's evaluation of spacecraft's operational suitability. Three launch attempts were cancelled because of inclement weather on Jan. 27 and 30 and Feb. 14. Only two mechanical problems bothered Glenn on MA-6; a yaw attitude control jet apparently clogged, forcing him to use the manual system; and a faulty switch indicated that the heat shield had been prematurely released when it had not. MSC, "Postlaunch Memorandum Report for Mercury-Atlas No. 6 (MA-6), Part I-Mission Analysis," March 5, 1962.

146

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Mercury-Atlas

2-33. Characteristics

7 (MA-7)

Date

of launch

(ETR

pad

#):

May

24,

1962 capsule 7

(14) 18

Spacecraft Unofficial Launch designation:

designation: spacecraft

Mercury Aurora Atlas

vehicle 107-D 1925.1 see table Carpenter Schirra Grissom (Mercury Control (Guaymas) Or.), Shepard (California), Slayton 2-30

designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimensions Crew: Backup crew: weight shape, (m): (kg):

Cap coms: Apogee/perigee No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch main engine shutoff spacecraft initiation splashdown Distance Time Landing Recovery Mission Results: traveled point: ship: objectives: (km): separation of retrofire of mission: events (date, time, (km):

(Muchea), Cooper 268.55/160.84 3 01:28:32 04:56:04.8 ground May elapsed 24 7:45 time): a.m.,

EST 00:02:06.6 00:05:09.9 04:32:36.5 04:56:04.8

7:47:06.6 7:50:09.9 12:17:36.5 12:41:04.8 130 933 approx. 19°27'N, USS Same 04:30:00 63°59'W (crew (400 onboard km

in weightlessness:

from

primary exercise

target) and evaluate on: were May Atlas the flight: scanner, point. for Mercury-Atlas No. 7 15, 1962. found flight performance May of the

Pierce

in 3 hr.)

as for MA-6, tracking of MA-7 with

plus further

Mercury Launch problems heater Three circuitry and

net (see table 3-32). met with three postponements May control were with km 17 (modifications system), device the pitch and in the during horizon Report June the predicted

7 (checkout

Atlas),

to be necessary with the control failure fuel system). of the usage,

to the parachute temperature anomalies associated 400 "Postlaunch Part a landing

deployment

19 (irregularities random excessive

experienced beyond

Reference:

MSC, (MA-7),

Memorandum Analysis,"

I-Mission

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table 2-34.
Mercury-Atlas Date of launch (ETR pad #): Oct. 3, t962 8 (MA-8) (14) 16 Characteristics

147

Spacecraft Unofficial

designation: spacecraft

Mercury Sigma Atlas 7

capsule

designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup Cap crew: weight shape, (m): (kg):

113-D

1961.6 see table Schirra Cooper Slayton (Mercury Mission Sentry Ctr.), Quebec), Grissom Carpenter (Hawaii), Glenn (California), 2-30

coms:

Apogee/perigee No. of orbits: Period: Length

(km):

Shepard (Coastal 283.04/161 6 01:28:55 09:13:11 time, ground Oct. elapsed 3 7:15 time): a.m.,

(Guaymas)

of mission: (date, shutoff

Mission events launch main engine

EST 00:02:08.6 00:05:17.9

7:17:08.6 7:20:17.9 4:06:30 4:28:11 247 748 09:30:00 174°28%V (crew performance effects astronaut (7.4 km p.m.

spacecraft initiation splashdown Distance Time Landing Recovery Mission

separation of retrofire traveled (km):

08:51:30 09:13:11

in weightlessness: point: ship: objectives:

approx. 32°06'N, USS Evaluate evaluate tional

from

target) system and during a 6-orbit evaluate extended in attaining spacecraft control also mission; addiorbital the was jets were No. 8 network

Kearsarge

onboard

in 45 min.) orbital of spaceflight their during on astronaut; its systems; for was MA-8 obtain

of man-spacecraft capsule

of extcnded evaluation forces, and

and support flight. Results: The correct modified only Reference: MSC, (MA-8), during mounted only

establish

suitability the mission The

difficulty suit slightly manual

experienced temperature for operations; Memorandum to allow

pressure

adjustment. two

the use of low-thrust high-frequency Report Oct. 23, for 1962.

reaction antennas Mercury-Atlas

to improve "Postlaunch Part

communications. Analysis,"

I--Mission

148

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 2-35.
Mercury-Atlas 9 (MA-9) 1963 capsule (14) 20 Characteristics

Date

of

launch

(ETR

pad

#):

May

15,

Spacecraft Unofficial

designation: spacecraft

Mercury Faith Atlas 7

designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup Cap crew: weight shape, (m): (kg):

130-D

1964.4 see table Cooper Shepard Schirra (Mercury Control Ctr.), (Hawaii) Grissom (Guaymas), Glenn (Coastal Sentry Quebec), 267.1/161.48 22 01:28:45 34:19:49 time, ground May elapsed time): EST 00:02:12.4 00:05:05.3 p.m. 33:58:59 34:19:49 Carpenter 2-30

coms: (kin):

Apogee/perigee No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch main

of mission: events engine (date, shutoff

15 8:04 a.m., 8:06:12.4 8:09:05.3

spacecraft initiation splashdown Distance Time 1 1

separation of retrofire

May

16 6:02:59 6:23:49

traveled

(km):

939 385 approx. 27°20'N, USS tions Evaluate suitability 34:00:00 176°26'W (crew of effects to one (8.1 l-day km from orbital for assess attempt a computer Because using from manual target) flight on astronaut; of net. MA-9 at the on May 14; a ground tracking circuit, stato do No. 9 Cooper Bermuda short ship. Mercury-Atlas evaluate modificaof onhoard in 45 rain.) mission; obtain astronaut's evaluation

in weightlessness: :ling point: wery ship: objectives:

Kearsarge made was led

Mission

spacecraft previous and

of spacecraft; problem

effectiveness to launch anomaly of

Results:

There support tion

to postponement. the atmosphere 6400 meters "Postlaunch Part I-Mission

a possible controls, recovery for 24, 1963.

reentered Reference: MSC, (MA-9),

the first- astronaut

so; he landed

the prime Report June

Memorandum Analysis,"

MANNED Table Project Experiment Mercury

SPACEFLIGHT 2-36. Flight Experiments Mercury-Atlas 7 8

149

6 Astronaut observations x

9

Light visibility observations Ground flare visibility Air glow observations Flashing light experiment Photography studies Infrared weather photography Dim-light photography Horizon definition photography Zero g liquid behavior Tethered inflatable balloon Radiation studies Ablative materials investigation

x x x

x

x x x x x x x x x x x x

CHARACTERISTICS-

PROJECT

GEMINI

Long the on Space paper

before Task to the

the Group

first and

American at McDonnell design were specific prowess that

astronaut Aircraft would the lend

was

boosted

into

orbit,

engineers changes missions.

at

Corporation it to longer,

were more

making useful

Mercury engineers

In late the hibit given What were it for space would 2-37 for At designers changes The

1961,

these

given mission

opportunity goals. President

to fit their Kennedy's expedition to a broad have on

"improvements decision to range the moon

in to exhad

abstract" American NASA effect not sent

to a set of technical a revised would to the

through for of finding

a manned answers

timetable days directly

of questions. If a spacecraft

several moon trajectory, an vehicle of Aircraft, advanced Mercury for major

weightlessness but relied on

a crew? in earth

maneuvers would

orbit and

to prepare docking Gemini (See table in

a translunar be?* be 19 Could NASA's a chronology McDonnell had to the two

how

complicated perform tasks these

rendezvous his

astronaut for key

outside and other

spacecraft?

investigating events.) contractor to

unknowns.

NASA would would would hardware. a more

for

the

Mercury a minimum its mission

spacecraft, number lifetime. a second II, as this during NASA of

craft

in mind.

One which that

require extend provide

basic

spacecraft, modifications and would retain

second

called more design

space

for

crewman, upgraded reentry,

consumables, was it called, would

experiment also its be

Mercury

Mark spacecraft

controllable ballistic

although

predecessor's

shape.

When

*Besides direct ascent and earth orbit rendezvous modes for reaching the moon, one other possibility, lunar orbit rendezvous, gained wide support among NASA personnel in 1962 and was later chosen as the best solution. See the discussion of the Apollo program elsewhere in this chapter for more information.

150

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Headquarters the scheme rendezvous

approved a development plan for Mercury Mark II in December 1961, had expanded to include subsystems that would allow the spacecraft to and dock with a target vehicle and perform a controlled touchdown on

land rather than on water. Perhaps the most significant change, however, was the modular approach to spacecraft subsystems. To save weight and space in Mercury, hardware had been fit into the spacecraft as best as it could be, with components of one subsystem often interspersed among others. Removing or testing one component could lead to the removal and retesting of many. In the new design, a system could be dismantled, changed, or verified as a distinct part without disturbing its neighbors. McDonnell's new contract with NASA called for 13 spacecraft (see fig. 2-3 for spacecraft details). To launch the larger, heavier (3500-kilogram class) "Gemini," the new spacecraft's name as of January 1962, the Air Force would contribute its Titan missile. More powerful than Mercury's Atlas launch vehicle, Titan used hypergolic fuel, which was less dangerous on the pad, precluding the need for an escape rocket (instead, ejec-

5.74 -_----ADAPTER(2.286)MODULE .... = = ( ADAPTER MAT)NG SECTION (.34) _ i ] I SECTION _-_ _RE-ENTRY(3.545)MODULE CONTROL SECTION| SYSTEM | RE-ENTRY SECTtON ABLATIONSHIELD / SECTION ] I

_1

!

I _jL_

FAIRING_

--

10o SLOPE

Ftgure 2-. General Arrangement of the Gemini Spacecraft (dimensions in meters). The conical Gemini spacecraft had two major assemblies: the adapter module, which was jettisoned in two parts before reentry; and a reentry module. Heat resistant titanium and magnesium were used to fabricate the spacecraft, with externally-mounted shingles (Rene 41 on the conical section; beryllium on the small end) giving extra protection. The vehicle's primary protector during reentry was a silicone elastomer ablative heatshield on the large blunt end of the reentry module. Two access hatches were provided in the cabin section (reentry module), each fitted with windows. Spacecraft attitude was controlled with eight Ill-newton thrusters and translation along any axis by s_ 445-newton thrusters and two 378-newton thrusters. Four retrograde rockets for reentry deceleration were located in the retrograde section of the adapter module. Electrical power was provided by silver-oxide batteries and a fuel cell built by General Electric (see also tables 2-54 and 2-55 for more information on major spacecraft systems). From P. W. Malik and G.A. Sourly, Project Gemini; A Technical Summary, NASA CR-1106 (Washington, 1968), p. 5.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

151

tion seats and parachutes would take Gemini crews away from malfunctioning boosters). The Titan II ICBM, however, was still in the development stage, with the first of 33 research and development flights taking place in March 1962. The Air Force and the Martin Company, prime contractor for the Titan, spent months massaging the design to rid it of its problems. Its tendency to oscillate longitudinally (called the pogo effect) made the missile unsafe for manned use, as did its potential second-state combustion instability and a number of other minor design flaws. Troubles with the launch vehicle forced mission planners to substitute unmanned flights for the first two missions to verify further the Gemini launch vehicle.* By the spring of 1964, Titan was ready. 20 The mechanics jective when lunar of rendezvous and docking became Gemini's most important oborbit rendezvous was chosen over direct ascent or earth orbit

rendezvous for the Apollo mission mode. One rendezvous and docking maneuver would take place shortly after leaving earth orbit enroute to the moon; a second would be required in lunar orbit. NASA chose another Air Force vehicle to serve as Gemini's target in orbital exercises. Agena, a second stage manufactured by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company for the Air Force, would be launched into orbit where it would be available for maneuvers. suitable because it had the capability to restart restarts for Gemini); its propulsion system could vehicles while they were docked Agena was considered especially its engines (NASA required five thus be used to maneuver the two details). Gemini was pro-

(see fig. 2-4 for spacecraft

*For

more

information

on

the

Titan

vehicle,

see

chap.

1.

AFT AI-rlTUDE CONTROL GAS TANKS_

SECTION N

_SHRkOUD

"BOOSTER

ADAPTER

Figure 2-4. Gemini Agena Target Vehicle. The Gemini Agena Target Vehicle (GA TV) was 10.28 meters long with launch shroud and booster adapter intact, Z92 meters long in orb#. Its diameter was 1.52 meters. Total thrust from its primary propulsion system and two secondary engines was 73,000 newtons. Equipment added to the standard Agena D upper stage for the Gemini program included a docking collar, compatible radar transponder, strobe lights, secondary propulsion system, ground control equipment, and a multi-restartable engine (see also chap. 1 for more information on the Agena vehicle as an upper stage).

152

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

vided with an orbital attitude and maneuvering system (OAMS), a series of thrusters, by which the crew could adjust its attitude and orbit. Agena and the spacecraft maneuvering system budget and late. And difficulties were the source of many problems; they were over with target vehicles continued throughout most of

the operational phase of the program. 2t Land landings were a goal Gemini officials had to abandon. Paraglider, a stowable, flexible wing (similar in shape to a hang glider), presented too many design problems. It was a totally new concept for which Gemini did not have the necessary time and money. North American Aviation, the contractor for paraglider, was instructed to downgrade its development plan for the wing in February 1964. Gemini would rely on a system The extravehicular activity of parachutes for water landings as had Mercury. (EVA) planned for Gemini astronauts was ap-

plicable to Apollo operations and to any advanced orbital program that NASA might consider for the future. Astronauts could be asked to retrieve experiment packages from other vehicles or be forced to make inspections or repairs to their craft. And biotechnicians assigned to Apollo needed more data on the environmental control requirements for space suits and portable life support systems. Because of hardware delays, EVA was not conducted until the second Gemini flight (GT-4). Astronauts found this activity more fatiguing than experts had predicted, and throughout the program hardware improvements were affected to make EVA easier. *22 The final Gemini program plan included 10 manned missions, two crewmen per flight. To supplement the seven original Mercury astronauts, NASA added nine men to the corps in September 1962 and another 14 in October 1963.t Training exercises for the missions included classroom studies and many sessions in the dynamic crew procedures simulator, which provided crew members with high-fidelity simulations of the several phases of the missions (launch, rendezvous, experiments activity, reentry). Crew training for EVA was conducted in a one-g environment in mockups of the spacecraft, in altitude chambers, and on air-bearing platforms. NASA astronauts also trained in Air Force zero-g test aircraft. Limited use was made of underwater neutral bouyancy training for the last Gemini crews. As was the case with Mercury, Gemini astronauts worked closely with engineers, technicians, operations people, and physicians during the program. 23 Gemini manned operations filled two years. Following two unmanned flights (see table 2-38) to prove the integrity of the launch vehicle and spacecraft, the first two Gemini pilots took part in Gemini-Titan 3 (GT-3) in March 1965. Virgil Grissom and John W. Young piloted their craft on a short three-orbit mission. The new spacecraft was judged fit. On GT-4 in June, James A. McDivitt and Edward H.

*There were two classes of EVA. One was called "standup" and did not involve leaving the spacecraft. The crew member opened the hatch and performed various tasks while still in the cabin. "Umbilical" EVA involved leaving the spacecraft, tethered to it by a life line. One modification to Gemini that made EVA easier was the addition of more restraint straps and handholds outside the spacecraft. Handheld maneuvering units were tested on GT-4 and GT-IO. These gas-expulsion devices could produce up to 8.89 newtons of thrust. An astronaut maneuvering unit devised by the Air Force was carried on GT-9A but not evaluated because the crew member conducting EVA was bothered by visor-fogging and overheating. This backpack unit had pitch, roll, and yaw controls, with 20 newtons of thrust. See the section on the Apollo program for more on astronaut selection.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

153

White, II, spent four days in orbit and conducted the first extravehicular activity. They were followed two months later by Gordon Cooper and Charles Conrad, Jr., in a seven-day mission. The first attempt to conduct a mission with the Agena target vehicle failed when the target did not go into orbit in October 1965. In its place, a dual manned spacecraft mission was performed in December. GT-7with Frank Borman and James A. Lovell, Jr., aboard rendezvoused with GT-6A manned by Walter M. Schirra, Jr., and Thomas P. Stafford. In addition to their successful joint exercise, the GT-7 crew set an endurance record of more than 13 days in space. The docking of GT-8 and an Agena target vehicle in March 1966 was marred by a spacecraft thruster malfunction. Astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and David R. Scott had to undock and use their reentry thrusters to control their rolling spacecraft; this led to an early return to a secondary landing area. In May, another Agena failure led to a backup mission plan. Stafford and Eugene A. Cernan in GT-9 attempted to dock with a contingency target (an Augmented Docking Target Adapter built by McDonnell and launched by an Atlas), but its launch shroud failed to jettison, leaving the docking cone covered. Cernan performed tasks outside the spacecraft for more than two hours, and GT-9 accomplished rendezvous maneuvers. Crewmen Young and Michael Collins conducted the first completely successful docking mission aboard GT-IO in July 1966. During the next mission two months later, GT-11 and an Agena target docked during Gemini's first orbit. Conrad and Richard F. Gordon, Jr., then maneuvered the docked vehicle into a high-altitude orbit. The last crew, Lovell and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., in GT-12, also docked successfully with their target.* Gemini missions became almost routine for the press and public; for the launch and test teams at Cape Kennedy and for the mission controllers in Houston it never became routine, but it did become operational (see tables 2-39 through 2-48 for mission details). The lengthy missions planned for Gemini and the spacecraft's increased payload capacity prompted NASA officials to sponsor an experiments program for manned spaceflight missions. The agency solicited proposals for investigations that required crew participation from universities, other government agencies, private research groups, and its own field centers. Once the Gemini Experiments Office (part of the Gemini Project Office, later called the Experiments Program Office and moved to the science and applications directorate at MSC) had determined an experiment's suitability and had identified missions that could accommodate it, the Manned Space Flight Experiments Board at NASA Headquarters made a specific flight assignment, t Implementing approved experiments into the mission plan and into the spacecraft hardware was MSC's task. A total of 52 different experiments was flown on Gemini, many on more than one mission. Of the 52, 17 were classified scientific, 27 technological (in support of spacecraft development or operational techniques), and 8 medical (in addition to routine medical monitoring). The Department of

pleted

* Gemini crews completed 9 docking exercises. Manned also Medicine crew Space Office, Flight and

10 rendezvous

maneuvers

using

7 different

rendezvous

modes.

They

com-

i The Apollo, Space the flight

Experiments submitted In turn, and flight

Board, by MSC, the Gemini

organized the Office Research Experiments to determine

in January of Space and Office

1964 Science

to support and and transmitted recovery

Gemini them operations,

and the to

collected Experiments support,

proposals Office. medical,

Applications,

the Office

of Advanced operations

Technology a proposal's

Gemini

consulted

feasibility.

154

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Defense

was the largest

contributor

outside

NASA

with

15 investigations,

all in the

technological category. GT-12 carried the largest number of experiments, and the crew spent 30 percent of its flight time performing them. The various photography experiments, of which at least one was flown on all missions but the first, provided investigators and the public with the extensive series of "space photographs," more than 2400 images. 24 (See table 2-49.) Because of Project Gemini's use of two Air Force launch vehicles, the Air Force played a larger part in project management than the service had in Mercury. In addition, the Navy and the Air Force supported launch, tracking, and recovery operations. After several months of dispute over DoD's role in Gemini, a January 1963 joint agreement established a NASA-DoD Gemini Program Planning Board to coordinate the two groups' activities. 25 At NASA Headquarters for most of the project's lifetime, George E. Mueller, associate administrator for manned spaceflight, also acted as Gemini program director. Mueller was assisted by Special Assistant Samuel H. Hubbard and by directors for program control, systems engineering, test, flight operations, and reliability and quality. At the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, James Chamberlin served as Gemini's first manager. Chamberlin had worked with the technical people at McDonnell in St. Louis when NASA first considered upgrading the Mercury design. In 1964, when Gemini, plagued by several major hardware problems, started running over budget and behind schedule, Charles Mathews took over the manager's job and reorganized the program office. Personnel from MSC monitored progress at the Martin Company in Baltimore (Titan II), at Lockheed in California (Agena target vehicle), at McDonnell in St. Louis (Gemini spacecraft), and at the Cape. Kenneth Kleinknecht, Mathews' deputy in the Gemini Project Office, was supported by managers for program control, spacecraft management, and vehicles and missions. (See also tables 2-2 and 2-3.)

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

155

Table Chronology Date May 25-26, 1959 During Research project. two for Aug. 12, 1959 its first Ctr.) meeting, considered of Key

2-37. Project Gemini Event Events*

a NASA an enlarged (STG) over the

committee for Mercury

chaired craft Panel would vehicle. was also that

by Harry could

J. Goett support the Flight spacecraft

(Ames of

possibilities

a post-Mercury

manned

spaceflight a crew

Ideas included three days. Task of STG with would McDonnell Group's advances improve

The Space Division spacecraft tractor, tions that

New Projects that the Mercury

instructed lead The Mercury studying

Systems con-

to initiate Aircraft

a program Corporation, vehicle.

to a second-generation possible modifica-

Apr.

5, 1960

The STG issued the addition of designers techniques ment for also would a lunar

specifications by which to modify the Mercury a reentry control navigation system). Besides wanted to include orbital controls was later as an objective and McDonnell so that seen for

spacecraft (e.g., reentry control, rendezvous require-

orbital

be possible. mission and between

(Rendezvous included NASA

as a necessary Gemini.) personnel

Apr.

14, 1961

Following regarding McDonnell two versions

discussions

in February to on susadim-

an advanced for improving

Mercury design, NASA issued a study contract the Mercury. Their work would be concentrated spacecraft: one with that more minor would radical changes that would

of an advanced

tain one man for 18 orbits; and a second vanced missions with two men, requiring proved May 8, 1961 Mercury concept came to be called

be capable of more modifications. The 11.

Mercury

Mark

Personnel from the Martin Company, manufacturer of the Titan missile system for the Air Force, briefed NASA officials on the Titan and its possible applications to the future for a Titan-boosted manned program. During Mercury-type vehicle. descent on land July, of Martin submitted spacecraft, a proposal the STG

May

17, 1961

To

allow

for

a controlled of work (conducted Ryan

a manned

issued a statement The design study tion, Nov. Nov. 1, 1961 21, 1961 Inc., and development STG NASA was

for a design at Goodyear

study of a "paraglider" Aircraft Corp., North became phase one

landing system. American Aviaof a paraglider

Aeronautical

Co.)

program. redesignated a letter the Manned Spacecraft American the final Center (MSC). with was phase II-A of on Mark a twoand contract approved The plan missions orbital awarded

issued

contract

to North program; Robert

to proceed

the paraglider development February 9, 1962. Dec. 7, 1961 NASA man by Associate version a modified Administrator plan Titan prepared II; with land Flights McDonnell contract would Force of which the Air (primarily was issued the official Project Gemini as manager. the Marshall 11 Agena Systems Division

C. Seamans in October. capable would

a Mercury called for

II development

by the STG spacecraft

of the Mercury

of longer conduct vehicle

to be launched rendezvous by an Atlas

the spacecraft an Agena landing would was Space Martin) Mark a letter

docking booster. project Dec. 15, 1961 NASA spacecraft. spacecraft, Dec. 26, 1961 MSC Titan launch Jan. 3, 1962 "Gemini" the Jan. 31, 1962 MSC Force 15th, Chamberlin

maneuvers A controlled objective. awarded one

B target

placed spacecraft

in orbit

of the returning begin in 1%3. for contract not signed Systems to begin

was an additional of 12 Mark for 1I 13

the development April testing). to authorize necessary with Mark at contract

The final

until Division the A letter

2, 1963 (it called its launch to modify Martin II program. with

be used

for ground work

directed

vehithe for 15 On James

cle contractors vehicles became a

II for the Mercury

I1 program. designation Office

on January

19, 1962. of the Mercury was established that MSC,

notified Space

Space

Flight

Center and Atlas

it should for

procure Gemini.

through The Air and

the Air Force

B target

vehicles

boosters

awarded

a letter contract

to Lockheed

Missiles

156

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of

2-37. Key

(Continued) Project Gemini Events*

Date Space volved Company in the for 8 modified

Event Agenas on cycle the first development of a Gemini _igued and and II a Gemini DoD May until full-scale flights mission, 1. Marshall January test was 1963, launch place, actively when inMSC 11

Atlas-Agena

procurement conducted research and

March

16,

1962

assumed the responsibility. The Air Force successfully ICBM. In all, 33 Titan From NASA for

of a Titan

took

the last on suc-

April 9, 1964. cessful. March 27, i962 Air Plan was Force that and

the standpoint official_ the Titan

22 would and

be judged

Operational would play

Managcmcnt DoD from vehicles

outlined

the roles

NASA

in the program.

responsible

Atlas-Agena

B launch

March April May

31, 1962 4, 1962 1962

development through launch and for range and recovery support. The Gemini spacecraft configuration was formally frozen. MSC awarded B. F. Goodrich a contract for the development Gemini Tests Tests pressure suits. The first suit was delivered on November

of 6.

prototype

began at Ames Research ran through July. North system for their

Center to evaluate a half-scale American also began drop tests paraglider. North American

paraglider wing. of the emergency was authorized would be used

parachute

half-scale

July

1962

to begin phase During Gemini to carry ejection NASA Agena North

II-B of the paraglider program launches, ejection seats rather away from a malfunctioning

on June 20. than escape rockets booster. Simulated

astronauts

off-the-pad more versatile

Aug. Aug. Aug. Sept.

2, 1962 14, 1962 15-16, 17, 1962

tests began in July at the Naval Ordnance and Air Force officials decided to substitute D stage American review for use as the Gemini target vehicle. began flight tests of the half-scale of McDonnell's engineering of nine crew would system Gemini for and more mockup astronauts program

Test Station. the uprated,

paraglider of

test

vehicle. spacecraft the original Apollo, provide the the center

A formal was held MSC group lunar NASA and

the Gemini

in St. Louis. the selection The flight program, a contract computer control for tests team to supplement for at MSC Business and Apollo. would Gemini Machines The be at Houston. test vehicle model and also under were unsucrequested 24 at for exexand to in Houston. computing seven. training

1962

announced of exploration awarded

be managed Gemini Apollo

Oct.

15, 1962

to International

grouted-based mission

Dec.

1962

Deployment flight cessful. A NASA modifications. North American. formed to be A newly periments An

of the half-scale paraglider inspected the full-scale test paraglider Experiments during trainer Panel and was met

advanced Scientific

development proposals first

Dec.

17, 1962

to solicit The defining manage pilot

performed

Gemini

Apollo.

Gemini

Jan.

17, 1963

periments were approved NASA and DoD officials sibilities meeting, agreement checkout, and Feb. gave launch, of budget establishing 8). While and DoD

in February 1964. signed a second agreement a NASA-DoD NASA would Gemini continue in addition of failures Program to

Gemini Board the

respon(first the vehicle test vehi-

Planning training,

program,

a part flight

in spacecraft operations, and a series

development,

preflight

to its role as launch with the paraglider

March

1963

provider. Because

problems

cle, the paraglider development until the 10th rather than the concept March May 21, 1963 1963 Guidelines Gemini Under testing completely were missions; a new a half-scale tests and established for tow took relying

plan was revised: 7th mission. Some exclusively plan vehicle. at the was on the readied Additional Flight

paraglider would not be used officials favored dropping the water-landing activity North ground-tow Center in January system, method. during American activity in California certain began and in 1964.

for conducting a paraglider test place

extravehicular landing

an operations

contract

helicopter-tow

Research

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table (Continued) 2-37. Chronology Project ofKey Gemini Events* Date

157

June3, 963 1 1 Aug. 25,1963 Oct. 963 1 Oct. 8, 963 1 1 Oct. 1963 26, Dec. 1963 22, Jan. 1964

Event August, September, and October.Ames, tunnel ofa half-scale At wind tests vehicle conducted and were inJuly August toverifyesign d changes. Inadesign engineering inspection in August, American requested 30 North was tomake modifications full-scalevehicle. tothe test The contract Gemini forthe spacesuit was awarded David larkomtothe C C
pany. A prototype completed 4. suit was delivered the first Gemini in July. spacecraft. It arrived at Cape Canaveral and sent McDonnell on October

North American it to Ames for Another

completed wind tunnel were

the first full-scale tests. added to

prototype at MSC.

paraglider

wing

14 astronauts

the team

The first Titan launch vehicle for Gemini arrived launch vehicle were mechanically mated on March Charles Mathews was appointed been acting manager since March MSC director. North cle; on American only water began development were manager 19 when

at the Cape; 5, 1964.

spacecraft

and having to the

of the Gemini Project Office, Chamberlin became an advisor

flights of the full-scale completely from satisfactory. schedule; the Gemini could

paraglider In February, Gemini one, not

test vehiNASA would rely in and was first exerwas paraglider

6 of the all plans landings. development Gemini.

25 tests While and

eliminated hardware time for

for paraglider

the concept qualification test

was still judged

a sound

apparently

be completed vehicle flights). make the was

Apr8,1964 Apr.13, 964 1 Oct. 964 1 Jan. 9, 965 1 1 March 1965 23, June,1965 3 Aug. 1965 21, Oct. 25,1965 Dec. 4,1965 Dec. 1965 15, Feb. 23-24, 1966 Feb. 1966 28,

A successful spacecraft planned It was manned

unmanned was conducted 2-38 that flight.

orbital from for Virgil

(Gemini-Titan Test on this and other and John

1) of the launch Range Young (ETR). would for developmental

the Eastern Grissom network

No recovery

(see table announced Gemini

details

The manned cised.

spaceflight

tracking

as configured

Gemini

A successful unmanned suborbital launched from ETR. The spacecraft GT-3, James duration days The twice system; next as manned by Grissom and White GT-5, The was crew and

test (GT-2) of the reentry systems was recovered from the Atlantic. successfully (see table II, in GT-4 demonstrated 3-39). conducted activity (see Charles guidance as part the first After 2-40). Jr., table and

Young, mission H. White,

the integrity longfour lasted

of the spacecraft A. McDivitt mission. mission, long. landing of activities,

in a three-orbit Edward

demonstrated splashed with Gordon (see evaluated

extravehicular down the Cooper table 2-41). D target vehicle and

(EVA). Conrad,

the crew

in the Atlantic rendezvous

navigation mission

on the 29th a Gemini-Agena

An attempt

to orbit

of the GT-6

was unsuccessful separation. The investigate In addition and for the to

because of launch of GT-6 failure. further A.

an engine malfunction shortly after stage was postponed and a review board formed to long-duration at the controls, the spacecraft flight, acted made GT-7, with Frank target table

demonstrating Lovell, Jr.,

Borman vehicle 2--42).

James GT-6A.

as a substitute its landing (see

After

14 days,

Walter M. rendezvous 16th Elliott A mid-program

Schirra, Jr., and and stationkeeping 2-43). conference Jr., were and killed was when

Thomas maneuvers held their

P. Stafford with GT-7.

on GT-6A The mission

accomplished ended on the

(see table M. See,

at MSC. II, the two astronauts crashed chosen for the St. T-38 jet trainer in the fog near

Charles

A. Bassett,

ninth mission, Louis.

158

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 2-37. ChronologyKey of Project Gemini Events* Event Inthefirstmission tosuccessfully theAgena vehicle, A. utilize target Nell
Armstrong stage. forced their and David of after The R. Scott 27 minutes mission was docked thruster and use their GT-8 spacecraft however, control landing vehicle decided vehicle, took to the Agena the system crew to control place in the for use an was D was Because to undock spacecraft. a spacecraft malfunction, the reentry early;

Date March6, 966 1 1

terminated

May 1966 17, June ,1966 1 June,1966 3

Pacific Because with built

some 10 hours into the flight of a short in the servo control did target McDonnell. docking target not achieve orbit. adapter, In

(see table 2-44). circuit, the target its place, NASA

planned to

GT-9 by

launch which

augmented The alternative

docking

a backup

to the successfully,

Agena but their docking

was launched

the launch

of GTmission. when the

9A was postponed by a ground equipment failure. In GT-9A, Stafford and Eugene A. Cernan began Because the launch it, they exercise target and shroud could were was still attached to the

rendezvous adapter

crew reached and an EVA

not dock. Several secondary accomplished. Landing took and GT-IO were docked both their

rendezvous place on

objectives the 6th (see from

July 1966 18, Sept. 1966 12, Nov. 1, 966 1 1 Feb. 1967 1-2,
*For J. (Washington, a more detailed Project 1969).

table 2-45). An Atlas-Agena ETR. Pilots

vehicle Michael

successfully spacecraft

launched with

Young

Collins

the Agena Conrad vehicle and

about six hours An Atlas-Agena and Richard

later. The mission ended on D and GT-II were launched Jr., docked their

the 21st (see successfully. with

table 2-46). Astronauts the target

F. Gordon,

spacecraft

met all mission objectives. In the last Gemini mission, and Edwin E. Aldrin, and

The mission ended on the 15th (see table 2-47). an Atlas-Agena target vehicle and GT-12 with Lovell Jr., EVA was aboard were were launched during Splashdown 1st, and the afternoon. place summary on

Rendezvous,

docking,

accomplished. on the

took

the 15th (see table 2-48). The Gemini Project Office conference calet_lar Gemini was held of events, Technology at MSC.

abolished

a two-day

see James and

M. Grimwood Operations; A

and Barton Chronology,

C. Hacker NASA

with

Peter

Vorzimmer,

SP-4002

Table Developmental Launch (location) April (ETR) 8, 1964 GT-I (Gemini vehicle Jan. 19, 1965 (ETR) GT-2 (GLV (Gemini 1) launch 1) (spacecraft 2) Date Flight

2-38. Project Gemini Objectives/Results

Flights,

Successful spacecraft spacecraft ed; reentry

orbital structural

test

of

the

Titan and

II

launch launch

vehicle, vehicleplann launch). heating landing

spacecraft

integrity, (no

compatibility and

recovery 3 V2 days test

operations after

disintegration reentry recovered

2) Successful rate;

suborbital was

at maximum parachute

spacecraft

after

in the Atlantic.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

159

Table Gemini-Titan Date of launch (ETR pad #): Spacecraft designation: Unofficial spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimensions (m): March 23, 1965 (19) Gemini 3 Molly Brown GLV-3 3225

2-39. 3 (GT-3)

conical with a cylindrical rendezvous-recovery section fitted to the nose of the cone and a trapezoidal retrorocket-equipment section fitted to the cone's base max. width, 3.05 min. width, 0.82 length, 5.74 Virgil I. Grissom, John W. Young Walter M. Schirra, Jr., Thomas P. Stafford L. Gordon Cooper (Cape), Roger B. Chaffee 225.8/161.3 3 01:28:12 04:52:31 time, ground elapsed time): March 23 9:24 a.m., EST 9:26:32 9:29:54 1:57:23 p.m. 00:02:32 00:05:54 04:33:23 04:52:31

Crew: Backup crew: Cap corns: Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length of mission: Mission events (date, launch main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation of retrofire splashdown Distance traveled Landing point: Recovery ship: Mission objective: Results: Reference: (km):

(Houston)

2:16:31 128 748 22°26'N, 70°51'W (111 km from target) USS Intrepid (crew onboard in 70 min.) Evaluate ability of Gemini spacecraft to support crew of two; conduct orbital maneuvers; manually control reentry; execute three experiments. There was one brief hold on the day of launch while a sensor on an oxidizer line was adjusted. The mission was carried out as planned. Gemini Mission Evaluation Team, "Gemini Program Mission Report GT-3," MSC-G-R-65-2, Apr. 1965.

160

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Gemini-Titan

2-40. Characteristics

4 ( GT-4)

Date of launch (ETR Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle

pad

#):

June 3, 1965 Gemini 4 GLV-4

(19)

designation: Spacecraft weight Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup crew: shape, (m):

(kg):

3574 see table James Frank Clifton 2-39 Edward A. Jr. H. Lovell, (Cape), White Jr. Grissom (Houston) I1 Jame_

A. McDivitt, Borman, C.

Cap coms: Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation of retrofire splashdown Distance traveled EVA time: Landing Recovery Mission point: ship: objective: (km): of mission: events (date, time,

Williams,

281.9/162.2 62 01:20:54 97:56:12 ground June 3 (4 + days) time): a.m., EST 00:02:32 a.m. 00:06:06 97:40:01 97:56:12 10:15:59 10:18:31 June 10:22:05 7 11:56:00 12:12:11 2 590 561 00:36:00 27°44'N, USS imately with titude system; Wasp four Demonstrate environment; second and 74°11'W (crew and days; stage (81 km onboard evaluate evaluate of launch 11 experiments. hold because was experienced erector tower of a fuel shortage reentry by White. Team, July "Gemini 1965. Program Mission Report memory during after launch while a problem with was investigated. was not made No attempt because entry was made exercise. from target) systems for a period and of approx. to space at-

elapsed

in 57 min.) spacecraft effects EVA; system vehicle; conduct to operate of prolonged demonstrate exposure capability of crew

demonstrate maneuvering

stationkeeping as backup

rendezvous of orbital rocket

to retrograde

execute vehicle

Results:

One

76-minute

the launch to rendezvous Also, tent The Reference: alteration EVA

the stationkeeping

a computer-controlled of the computer's Evaluation was performed Mission IV," MSC-G-R-65-3,

of an inadverwas performed).

(a rolling

Gemini Gemini

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

161

Table Gemini-Titan Date of launch (ETR Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup Cap crew: at 349.8/161.9 120 01:29:35 of mission: events engine (date, shutoff Aug. 29 time, 190:55:14 ground Aug. (7 + days) weight shape, (m): see table Cooper, Neil A. Grissom 2-39 Charles Armstrong, (Cape); (kg): pad #): Aug. 21, 1965 Gemini 5 GLV-5 3605

2-41. Characteristics

5 (GT-5) (19)

Conrad, Elliot McDivitt,

Jr. M. See, Jr. E. Aldrin, Jr., Armstrong (Houston)

coms:

Edwin

Apogee/perigee insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch main orbital initiation splashdown Distance Landing Recovery Mission traveled point: ship: objectives:

elapsed time): 21 8:59:59 a.m., 9:02:33 9:05:55 7:27:42 7:55:13 a.m.

EST 00:02:34 00:05:56 190:27:43 190:55:14

insertion of retrofire (km):

5 371 990 29°44'N, USS days; Demonstrate evaluate pod; attempt evaluation environment; 69°45'W (270 (crew km from target) in 89 min.) of spacecraft and navigation exposure for a period system with of crew of eight radar to space

Champlain

onboard

and evaluate rendezvous evaluate on execute

performance guidance effects

of prolonged

17 experiments. August 19 was postponed cryogenic with pod; the fuel cell the due to weather that crew precluded rendezvoused was successful. Mission Report conditions the miswith a rendezvous fuel for the fuel cell. During

Results:

A launch sion, with

and problems problems the radar

with loading developed evaluation vehicle.

instead

"phantom" Reference: Gemini Gemini

target

Otherwise,

the mission

Mission Evaluation V," MSC-G-R-65-4,

Team, "Gemini Oct. 1965.

Program

162

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table GeminiDate of launch (ETR pad #): Titan

2-42.

7 ( G T- 7) Characteristics (19)

Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup Cap crew: weight shape, (m): (kg):

Dec. 4, 1965 Gemini 7 GLV-7 3663 see table Borman,
VV titre,

2-39 Lovell Ml_hae,
Cu..,_

corns: at

Alan

L.

Bean

(Cape);

See,

Eugene

A.

Cernan,

Charles

A.

Bassett

I1

(Houston) Apogee/perigee insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation splashdown Distance Landing Recovery Mission traveled point: ship: objective: (km): 25°25'N, USS of retrofire Dec. of mission: events (date, time,

328/161.5 206 01:29:23 330:35:01 ground elapsed 2:32:39 2:36:11 18 8:28:07 9:05:04 9 200 459 70°7'W (crew (12 km from target) Wasp onboard in 33 min.) a.m. (13 + days) time): p.m., EST 00:02:36 00:06:08 329:58:04 330:35:01

Dec. 4 2:30:03

Conduct a long-duration performance; execute

flight of 14 days, evaluating spacecraft and crew 20 experiments; serve as a target for GT-6A rendezmaneuvers. took place minor hardware on December problems 15-16. on this The crew ex-

Results:

vous and stationkeeping Rendezvous with GT-6A perienced flight, failure, a number including trouble of

long-duration

difficulty with with two attitude also table Evaluation

the fuel cell, an onboard tape recorder thrusters, and difficulty with experiment "Gemini 1966. Program Mission Report

Reference:

equipment. (See Gemini Mission Gemini Vii,"

2-43.) Team, Jan.

MSC-G-R-66-1,

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

163

Table Gemini-Titan Date of launch (ETR pad #): Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimension (m): Crew: Backup crew: Cap coms: Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period:

2-43.

6A (G T-6A ) Characteristics

Dec. 15, 1965 (19) Gemini 6 GLV-6 3546 see table 2-39 Schirra, Stafford Grissom, Young see table 2-42 260/161.5 16 01:28:42

Length of mission: 25:51:24 (1 + day) Mission events (date, time, ground elapsed time): launch Dec. 15 8:37:26 a.m., main engine shutoff 8:40:03 orbital insertion 8:43:25 initiation of retrofire Dec. 16 9:53:24 a.m. splashdown Distance traveled (km): Landing point: Recovery ship: Mission objectives: Results:

EST 00:02:37 00:05:59 25:15:58

Reference:

10:28:50 25: 51:24 723 883 23°35'N, 67°50'W (13 km from target) USS Wasp (crew onboard in 66 min.) Rendezvous with GT-7, performing a number of orbital maneuvers; execute three experiments. On October 25, the launch of GT-6 was cancelled when the Agena target vehicle (GATV 5002 and TLV 5301) with which the spacecraft was to rendezvous and dock failed to go into orbit. NASA officials revised their plans for the spacecraft and elected to use it in conjunction with GT-7, a long-duration mission scheduled for December. GT-7 would act as a target for GT-6A rendezvous maneuvers. A launch attempt on December 12 failed because of a minor launch vehicle hardware problem. The next attempt on the 15th was successful. Rendezvous with GT-7began about 6 hours after launch (at one point the two spacecraft were within .3 meters of one another). The crew remained inside the spacecraft during recovery operations. Gemini Mission Evaluation Team, "Gemini Program Mission Report Gemini VI-A," MSC-G-R-66-2, Jan. 1966.

164

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Gemini-Titan

2-44. Characteristics GATV: March 16, 1966 (14)

8 ( GT-8)

Date Launch

of

launch vehicle

(ETR

pad

#):

March Gemini

16, 1966 8

(19)

Spacecraft

designation:

GATV-5003 TLV-5302 8097

designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimensions
Crcw:

GLV-8 weight shape, (m): see table 2-39 (kg): 3788

cylindrical diam., 1.52 in orbit, 7.92

Armstrong, crew: at 271.7/159.8 7 01:28:50 of mission: events (date, launch engine shutoff time, 10:41:26 ground elapsed March 16 Conrad, R. Walter

David Richard

R. Scott F. Gordon, (Cape), Jr. Lovell

length

Backup Cap

coms:

Cunningham

(Houston)

Apogee/perigee insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission GATV launch main orbital initiation splashdown Distance Landing Recovery Mission Results: traveled point: ship: objectives:

time): a.m., EST 00:02:34 00:06:06 10:04:47 10:41:26

10:00:03 11:41:02 11:43:36 11:47:36 9:45:49 10:22:28

insertion of retrofire

p.m.

(km):

292 015 25°14'N,

136°0'E

(2 km

from

secondary

target) vehicle; execute 10 experiments

USS Mason Rendezvous during There

(crew onboard and dock with mission; delay

in 3 hr.) Agena target conduct in launching EVA.

a three-day was a one-day

the spacecraft

due

to minor

prob-

lems with spacecraft and launch vehicle docked with the GATV 6 hours, 34 minutes of problems after regained which with had the spacecraft 30 their an early begun control minutes. spacecraft landing

hardware. GT-8 successfully after Gemini liftoff. Because the crew yaw using and the was roll reentry landing Mission forced rates. area Report to The in

system, The by increasing

undock combination crew system, Reference:

approximately control prompted of

spacecraft-target

vehicle control

to encounter

in a secondary Program

the Pacific. No Gemini Mission Gemini VIII,"

EVA was performed. Evaluation Team, MSC-G-R-66-4, Apr.

"Gemini 1966.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

165

Table Gemini-Titan Date of launch (ETR pad #): Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg): Spacecraft shape, dimensions (m): Crew: Backup crew: Cap coms: Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length of mission: Mission events (date, ATDAlaunch launch 9A

2-45. Characteristics ATDA: ATDA TLV-5304 1088 cylindrical diam., 1.52 length in orbit, Armstrong, Lovell, Gordon 3.41 (Houston) June 1, 1966 (14)

(GT-9A)

June 3, 1966 (19) Gemini 9 GLV-9 3750 see table 2-39 Stafford, Cernan Lovell, Aldrin Aldrin (Cape, Houston); 266.7/158.7 45 01:28:47

72:20:50 (3 + days) time, ground elapsed time): June 1 10:00:02 a.m., June3 8:39:33 a.m. 8:42:05 8:45:40 June 6 8:26:17 a.m. 9:00:23 2 020 741 02:07:00

EST 00:02:32 00:06:07 71:46:44 72:20:50

main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation of retrofire splashdown Distance traveled (km): EVA time: Landing point: Recovery ship: Mission objectives: Results:

27°52_, 75°0'W (.7 km from target) USS Wasp (crew onboard in 52 min.) Rendezvous and dock with a target vehicle; conduct EVA; execute seven experiments; test the Air Force astronaut maneuvering unit. GT-9 was postponed when TLV 5303 with GATV 5004 malfunctioned on May 17. In its place, a substitute target was used for GT-9A; the Augmented Target Docking Adapter (ATDA) was launched by an Atlas on June 1; however, GT-9A was not launched on the same day as planned due to a guidance system computer problem. After a brief hold, the spacecraft was launched on the 3d. Upon maneuvering with the target, the crew discovered that the launch shroud protecting the ATDA had not been jetissoned, precluding any attempts to dock. Instead GT-9A performed a number of rendezvous maneuvers, including a Simulation of lunar module rendezvous (Apollo). During EVA maneuvers, Cernan's visor became fogged, and he was unable to test the Air Force maneuvering unit. The crew remained inside their spacecraft during recovery operations. The original crew for GT-9, Elliott M. See and Charles Bassett, were killed in an airplane crash on February 28, 1966. The backup crew was named to the prime crew positions.

Reference:

Gemini Gemini

Mission Evaluation Team, "Gemini IX-A," MSC-G-R-66-6, July 1966.

Program

Mission

Report

166

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Gemini-Titan July 18, 1966 Gemini 10

2-46. Characteristics GATV: July GATV-5005 18, 1966 (14)

10 (GT-IO) (19)

Date

of

launch

(ETR

pad

#):

Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft weight (kg):

GLV3763

10

TLV-5305 8097 2-39 Collins and 2-44

Spacecraft shape, dimension (m): Crew: Backup Cap crew:

see tables Young, Bean, Cooper 268.7/159.8 43 01:28:47 70:46:39(2+ time, ground July elapsed 18

Williams (Cape, Houston), Aldrin (Houston)

coms:

Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission GATV launch of mission: events launch (date,

days) time): p.m., a.m. EST 00:02:33 00:06:12 p.m. 70:10:24 70:46:39 00:39:00; standup, 00:50:00)

3:39:46 5:20:26 5:22:59 5:26:38

main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation splashdown Distance traveled EVA time: Landing Recovery Mission point: ship: objectives: (km): of retrofire July 21

3:30:50 4:07:05

1 968 823 01:29:00 (umbilical, 26°45'N, 71°57'W USS Guadalcanal Rendezvous rendezvous duct various EVA; and practice took place

(6 km from target) (crew onboard in 28 min.) dock with using docking about an the Agena target target vehicle's execute GT-IO vehicle; propulsion conduct systems; dual conevaluate more fuel

maneuvers docked

maneuvers; systems. 6 hours after

15 experiments; liftoff. Because

spacecraft

Results:

Docking was used remained tage which retrieved

than planned docked with

during the first rendezvous exercise the spacecraft the GATV for 39 hours so that it could take advanpropulsion with March Team, Aug. package since system GATV 1966. from 1966. for 5003 During GATV docked from 5003. Program Mission Report the umbilical maneuvers. GT-8 EVA, The Collins

of the target also been had

vehicle's rendezvoused in orbit

spacecraft

mission,

an experiments Mission X," Evaluation MSC-G-R-66-7,

Reference:

Gemini Gemini

"Gemini

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

167

Table Gemini-Titan Date of launch (ETR pad #): Sept. 12, 1966 Gemini 11 GLV-11 3798

2-47. Characteristics GATV: Sept. GATV-5006 12, 1966 (14)

11 (GT-11) (19)

Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew: Backup Cap crew: at weight shape, (m): (kg):

TLV-5306 8097 2-39 Gordon William (Cape), A. Anders Bean (Houston) Young, and 2-44

see tables Conrad, Armstrong, Williams 276.3/159.6 44 01:28:59

corns:

Apogee/perigee insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission GATV launch main orbital initiation splashdown Distance EVA time: point: ship: objectives: Landing Recovery Mission traveled

of mission: events launch engine shutoff (date, time,

71:17:08 (2+ days) ground elapsed time): Sept. 12 8:05:01 9:42:27 9:45:00 9:48:28 Sept. 15 8:24:03 8:59:35 565 (umbilical, 70°0'W (crew and 00:33:00; (5 km onboard dock with from standup, target) 02:10:00) a.m. a.m., EST 00:02:33 00:06:01 70:41:36 71:17:08

insertion of retrofire (km):

1 983 02:43:00

24 ° 15'N, USS Guam

in 24 min.) an Agena target vehicle during the first orbit;

Rendezvous conduct conduct demonstrate

docking practice, a tethered-vehicle automatic was oxidizer was postponed

including docked maneuvers test during EVA; execute reentry. twice; tank of the of on September the GLV; on and the the GATV orbit astronaut line. "Gemini 1966. 9 due on GLV.

at a high altitude; 11 experiments; to a small the 10th On leak went the as leak to day planned put 40½ km) in a of the

Results:

The the

mission first-stage there

due around system

suspected launch, command with the hours two

malfunction pilot's spacecraft hatch.

autopilot hold under way, The

a 16-minute Once first-orbit into

due to a suspected mission

a successful into the

docking. a high-altitude EVA,

propulsion (1373.3/289.5 Gordon

mission. with

During

tethered reentry Mission

the two was suc-

spacecraft cessful. Reference: Gemini Gemini

together Mission XI,"

a 30-meter Team, Oct.

Automatic Program

Evaluation

Report

MSC-G-R-66-8,

168

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Gemini-Titan Date Launch of launch vehicle GLV-12 weight (kg): 3763 (ETR pad #): Nov. 11, 1966 Gemini 12 12

2-48. Characteristics GATV: Nov. GATV-5001 TLV-5307 8097 11, 1966 (14)

( GT-12)

(19)

Spacecraft designation: Spacecraft

designation:

Spacecraft shape, dimension (m): Crew: Backup crew: Cap coms: Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission GATV launch of mission: events launch (date, time,

see tables Lovell,

2-39 Aldrin

and

2-44

Cooper, Cernan Stuart A. Roosa 270.6/160.8 59 01:28:52 94:34:31 ground Nov.

(Cape);

Conrad,

Anders

(Houston)

(3 + days) time): p.m., EST 00:02:35 00:06:07 p.m. 93:59:58 94:34:31 02:06:00; (5 km onboard from standup, target) conduct EVA stationkeeping; including three perhigh03:24:00)

elapsed 11 2:07:58 3:46:33 3:49:08 3:52:40

main engine shutoff orbital insertion initiation splashdown Distance EVA time: point: ship: objectives: Landing Recovery Mission traveled (km): 05:30:00 24°35'N, USS of retrofire Nov.

15 1:46:31 2:21:04

2 574 950 (umbilical, 69°57'W (crew

Wasp

in 30 min.)

Rendezvous and dock with an Agena target vehicle; times; practice docking; accomplish tethered-vehicle form altitude docked exercises with use place were the GATV propulsion maneuvers; docking took controlled about cancelled reentry 4 ¼ hours when technique. into flight

system,

Results:

Initial docked

the mission. controllers

High-altitude noted fluctua-

maneuvers

tions in GATV's was photographed the EVA Reference: Gemini Gemini fuel cell and

primary propulsion on the 10th orbit. the orbital attitude

system; instead an eclipse of the sun The crew experienced problems with and maneuvering system. Aldrin's

went

as planned,

as did reentry. Team, Jan. "Gemini 1967. Program Mission Report

Mission XII,"

Evaluation MSC-G-R-67-1,

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT
Table 2-49.

169

Project

Gemini

Flight

Experiments Results1" Gemini-Titan

No* M-I M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 M-8 M-9 MSCMSC-2 MSC-3 MSC-4 MSC-5 MSC-6 MSC-7 MSC-8 MSC-10 MSC-12 T-1 T-2 'D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 D-9 D-10 D-12 D-I 3 D-14 D-15 D-16 S-1 1 Cardiovascular lnflight Inflight Body Bone

Experiment conditioning

3

4

5 X

6A

7 X X X X

8

9A

10

11

12

exercise phonocardiogram fluid bioassays demineralization balance sleep otolith study

X X X

X X

P

X

X

X X P

Calcium Inflight Human

analysis function charge spectrometer X X X X X

X

Electrostatic Proton Triaxis Optical Lunar Beta

electron

P X P X X

magnetometer communication UV spectral reflectance

N X P X

spectrometer spectrometer photography limb photography measurement X X N N

Bremsstrahlung Color 2-color Landmark Reentry Manual Basic Nearby Mass patch earth's

X X

contrast

communications navigation object object sightings

X X N N X X N X X X N X X X P N X N N N X N X X P X N X X X X

photography photography

determination radiometry navigation

Celestial Star

occultation

Surface Space

photography object radiometry in spacecraft navigation attitude maneuvering visibility polarization intensification evaluation photography control unit

Radiation Simple

Ion-sensing Astronaut Astronaut UHF-VHF Night Power Zodiacal image tool

light

170

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 2-49. Project Gemini Flight xperiments E (Continued) Results* Gemini-Titan

No*

Experiment

3

4

5

6A

7

8

9A

10

11

12

S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-I I S-12 S-13 S-26 S-29 S-51 S-30 S-64 N/A

Sea urchin Frog

egg growth

P P X X X X X X X X X N collection N N X X N X X X X X N N X N (contingency by crew) p X P X X X X P X X X X N X X X X X X

egg growth and terrain weather top _ro-g on blood X

Radiation Synoptic Synoptic Cloud Visual Nuclear Agena Airglow

photography photography

spectrometer

acuity emulsion micrometeorite horizon

photography collection camera

Micrometeorite UV astronomical Ion wake

measurement region vapor photography

Librations Sodium Dim light

cloud

photography/orthicon

Sunrise Eclipse

UV photography photography added

experiment

*The spaceflight; S = scientific. tX

letter MSC

prefixes = Manned

to

the

experiment Center;

numbers T=

correspond

to D=

the

following: of

M=manned Defense; and

Spacecraft successfully partially

technological;

Department

= experiment

performed performed not performed

P = experiment N = experiment

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

171

Characteristics-The

Apollo

Program

NASA's first 10-year plan, drawn up by the headquarters fice in late 1959, scheduled manned circumlunar missions orbiting space stations for the late 1960s. Manned exploration

Program Planning Ofand permanent earthof the moon's surface

was reserved for the next decade, when the "super boosters" considered necessary for lunar landing missions would be operational. Advanced planners forecast that a direct-ascent flight from earth to the moon would require more than 50 million newtons of thrust; Atlas, which was being readied for Project Mercury, was capable of only 1.6 million newtons (see the discussion of Project Mercury elsewhere in this chapter). Furthering the development of large rocket engines and establishing a national space vehicle program that would provide increasingly powerful boosters were critical first steps to the moon. 26 In 1959, NASA proposed to develop four boosters that would fulfill all the agency's heavy-payload needs during the coming years. Nova, the most powerful and the least defined of the four, would boost man directly to the moon.* From the Army Ballistic Missile Agency came another scheme for lunar missions that did not require a vehicle in the Nova class. Instead of launching the lunar spacecraft in one package in a direct ascent to the moon, Wernher von Braun suggested assembling a vehicle in earth orbit from propulsion and spacecraft components put there by boosters much smaller than the proposed Nova. From orbit (in zero gravity), it would require far less thrust to send a spacecraft on its way to the moon. The clustered-engine booster von Braun had in mind was Juno V. Working in-house with proponents of both lunar mission modes, NASA designers began conceptualizing an advanced spacecraft that would take man beyond earth.t (See table 2-50 for a listing of key program events.) In July 1960, manned spaceflight officials held the first of several conferences at which they acquainted industry with NASA's plans for circumlunar missions and "Apollo," the designation given the agency's advanced spacecraft. Apollo would be designed mission. to support three Three contractors astronauts for up to 14 days on a lunar reconnaissance were chosen that fall to prepare feasibility studies for

such a spacecraft. Meanwhile in Alabama, von Braun's rocket team was transferred to NASA and instructed to continue development of its family of clustered-engine rockets, which had been redesignated Saturn. New studies suggested that multistage Saturns might be powerful enough for NASA's lunar program. Judged by some to be an unneccessary complication, a third method for reaching the moon had surfaced that year at the agency's Langley Research Center. Direct ascent and earth orbit rendezvous both assumed landing the entire spacecraft package on the moon, along with the large amount of propellant that would be required to lift the returning spacecraft off the moon. Rather than fly this very heavy configuration, Langley researchers suggested a much smaller two-part spacecraft. From orbit around the moon, crewmen in a lunar module would separate from the main spacecraft and land on the moon; when surface operations were completed they would return to the

* The were ware 1"STG

four

vehicles launchers.

were were

Vega For

and

Centaur, information, designer center

which

were

upper 1. Faget.

stages, Jack

and Saturn Heberlig drafted

and

Nova, the first

which hard-

multistage guidelines

more

see chap. Maxime spaceflight.

engineers for

led by Mercury command

the Apollo

172

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

orbiting ship, leaving behind the craft's landing legs. Before their return to earth, the crew would jettison the module. While such a scenario would require a more modest launch vehicle than Nova and only one launch rather than the multiple launches characteristic of earth orbit rendezvous, it also demanded the precise coordination of two vehicles far from earth. If the crew should miss in their attempt to rendezvous, the returning lunar module could just drift off into space, warned the opponents of lunar orbit rendezvous. .27 Days after the Martin Company, General Electric, and the Convair/Astronautics Division of General Dynamics submitted Apollo feasibility studies to NASA, President John Kennedy made a speech that dramatically affected the agency's plans for lunar missions. 2s Before Congress on May 25, 1961, the president called for an accelerated space program that would land a man on the moon before the end of the decade, a program that would prove America's technical prowess to the world. NASA was still nine months away from orbiting a man about earth, and Apollo was in its earliest stages of definition. To accomplish a manned landing by 1969 would require an enormous effort and a huge purse. Reacting to Kennedy's challenge, NASA assigned several new committees and working groups the task of evaluating the three mission modes proposed for a lunar landing. 29 Although the agency went ahead with its plans to invite 12 firms to bid for the Apollo spacecraft contract, the vehicle's final configuration would depend on what route it would take to its destination and by what means. _ It was quickly determined that NASA would not have time to develop a Nova-class launch vehicle. Apollo would have to depend on a three- or four-stage version of Saturn. As for mission mode, this left earth orbit rendezvous as the clear favorite at NASA Headquarters and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama, while the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, the new home and designation of the Space Task Group, began to see the practicality of lunar orbit rendezvous. Of the five teams that submitted proposals to design and manufacture the Apollo command and service modules, NASA chose the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation. ** The day before the decision was announced on November 27, 1961, the manned spacecraft team had expanded the Apollo contract statement of work considerably to include all major spacecraft subsystems. North American would have to employ a small army of subcontractors to provide many of Apollo's 2 million functional parts (see fig. 2-5 for a description of the Apollo spacecraft and table 2-56 for a list of contractors). On January 15, 1962, two new offices were opened at the Manned Spacecraft Center. In addition to the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office (ASPO), NASA

* A fourth

mission

mode

suggested

by personnel

at the Jet Propulsion there

Laboratory by unmanned

involved landers.

assemblLunar

ing on the moon an earth-return vehicle from components deposited surface rendezvous was not seriously considered for Apollo. _The for lead-time ** The the CSM, first contract item that NASA let for Apollo and was to the Instrumentation system. of which signed mission on Aug.

Laboratory that this mode was chosen. called

of MIT system

(Aug.

1961)

the development

of a guidance would contract

navigation regardless American,

It was recognized

was a long

be required with North and

definitive

14, 1963,

for

11 mockups

of

15 boilerplate

models,

11 spacecraft.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

173

LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM 10.06

| 3.63

COMMAND MODULE

6.88

SERVICE MODULE

25.88

SPACECRAFT LM ADAPTER

8.53

| x\ I I

! | I I

INSTRUMENT

UNIT

.91

Figure 2-5. Apollo Spacecraft (dimensions in meters). This drawing represents the Apollo stack at launch. The launch escape system (3 solid-propellant motors) was included to propel the command module to safety in the event of an aborted launch. If it were not required, the LES was jettisoned shortly after launch. The command module, equipped with 3 couches, served as the crew compartment and control center. A forward docking ring and harch allowed the spacecraft to dock with the lunar module (stowed in the spacecraft LM adapter during launch). The command module was capable of attitude control about 3 axes (with its I0 reaction control system engines) and some lateral lift translation in the atmosphere. Made from aluminum, the command module had 2 hatches and 5 windows. Thermal protection during reentry was provided by ablative heatshields of varying thicknesses. The service module provided the primary propulsion and maneuvering capability for the spacecraft. Most of the consumables (oxygen, hydrogen, propellant) was also stored in this module. Prior to reentry, the crew jettisoned the service module. Inside the spacecraft LM adapter, the lunar module was stowed. The instrument unit, part of the launch vehicle, contained guidance, navigation, and control equipment. (See also tables 2-54 and 2-55 for more information on major spacecraft subsystems and spacecraft characteristics.)

174

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

established a Gemini Project Office in Houston to manage a Mercury follow-on program that would prove useful to Apollo (see discussion of Gemini elsewhere in this chapter). The two-man Gemini flights scheduled to begin the next year would demonstrate that man could tolerate lengthy stays in a weightless environment and that two spacecraft could rendezvous and dock. Having abandoned direct ascent as a method for reaching the moon, NASA would have to rely on rendezvous, either in earth orbit or lunar orbit, and it was an unproven operation. Much of Apollo's hardware would represent a new generation of spacecraft components, but many of Apollo's operationsin space and on the ground-would be tested during Gemini. Although work on many of the Apollo CSM's subsystems was under way in early 1962, the spacecraft builders had to wait until that summer to finalize the vehicle's external configuration. After months of campaigning by John C. Houbolt and others from the Langley Research Center, Apollo managers were finally convinced that lunar orbit rendezvous offered them the best chance of meeting the 1969 deadline for a landing.* One Saturn V (a three-stage vehicle previously designated Saturn C-5) would boost the Apollo stack, including a lunar module (LM, pronounced lem) stowed aft of the CSM (see fig. 2-6 for a description of the LM). Early along the translunar held the lunar craft, path, turn the CSM would separate from the adapter around, and dock nose first with the LM. section that They would

travel to the moon in this docked position. From lunar orbit, the LM with two crewmembers would make the trip to the surface, while the remaining astronaut continued to orbit in the CSM waiting for the LM's return. The LM's ascent stage would bring the two lunar explorers back to the CSM. Before entering a trans-earth trajectory, the crew would jettison the lander module. The service module would be abandoned before reentry, and the three would make a water landing in the command module. In July, the Manned Spacecraft Center invited 12 companies to submit plans for the Apollo lunar module. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation was judged the winner in November. Research and development flights for Apollo and its Saturn launcher stretched from October 1961 to April 1968 (see table 2-51). Little Joe II, a booster designed specifically for the Apollo test program, was used to evaluate the launch escape and abort system. Scout and Atlas-Antares launch vehicles put payloads into suborbital trajectories to test Apollo's reentry configuration and its heatshield. In July 1966, the two-stage Saturn IB, suitable for launching earth-orbit missions, was judged acceptable. Saturn V's first test came in November 1967, when it orbited an unmanned CSM (Apollo 4). Apollo mission plans in 1967 called for incremental steps beyond the research and development flights. In low earth orbit, a crew would first assess the CSM's performance (C mission), then the combined performance of the CSM and the LM (D mission). In high earth orbit, a crew would again put the CSM and the LM through their paces (E mission). Only then would Apollo astronauts journey to the moon in a circumlunar mission (F mission). Lunar landing was the last goal (G mission). Such a scheme would demand near-capacity operations during 1968 and 1969 at NASA's new launch facilities on Merritt Island at the Kennedy Space Center.

*MSC the smallest determined

engineers size for that this

favored lunar orbit the landing module, mode would cost

rendezvous because it promised the highest payload efficiency, and the least compromise on spacecraft design. Headquarters 10 to 15 percent less than direct ascent or earth orbit rendezvous.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT
DOCKING S-BAND STEERABLE ANTENNA RENDEZVOUS RADAR ANTENNA S-BAND IN-FLIGHT (2)
k

175

WINDOW

DOCKING DROGUE ASSEMBLY

ANTENNA

DOCKING TARGET

ANTENNA

J

RCS THRUST CHAMBER ASSEMBLY CLUSTER LANDING GEAR ASCENT (4) 3.75

WINDOW

FORWARD HATCH FORWARD

STATE DESCENT' STAGE

'r 6.9

3.23 LANDING PAD (.95 DIAM) LADDER EGRESS PLATFORM

DESCENT ENGINE SKIRT

Figure operate

2-6. only to the

Apollo in space, vicinity being designed orbit During to

Lunar

Module

(dimensions couM by ignore the Apollo Un ungainly

in meters). looking vehicle module crewmen the LM's served stage descent most

Because was and and on

the lunar The

module demanded two-stage

(LM)

wouM

its designers of the moon of the two

the aerodynamic command

streamlining the result. service the top the surface and a for module

by behicles spacecraft points LM ascent fashion. functioned when for the the gain LM's system control for more des-

that flew carried of interface

in Earth's

atmosphere. the where surface apex to land

(CSM)--the of the stages platform heavy of attitude

conical

command Apollo CSM, the The

surface ascent the launch and descent

stage---was From as it was ascent long lunar time stage. after a unit.

of the three released by the CSM years them

in a controlled astronauts,

it was to the

descent provided with each for

operations, orbiting two of than was ascent around total faces; to nearly

the ascent

as a home

return

stage the LM, troublesome, for

It took were

more

to design (1 large system stage). 1,500 The skin stage with The of

its makers critical, stage: and for

fighting

weight

a configuration newtons thrust, in quads of the LM's came with angular

approved. propulsion the ascent weight 55 percent).

components at 43,900 engines than cent

its entines--18

engine

propulsion accounted

at 15,500 Propellant kilograms ascent

newtons," (propulsion

16 smafl

clustered 70 percent along but

these systems

the variable-thrust cylindrical thermal-micrometeorite

engine

stage

was basically by a mylar

(4.29-meter

diameter) shield. tanks. The Four

its aluminum

was encased supported crushable descent

cruciform structure of the descent legs, the struts of which were filled of landing, were capped by footpads.

the descent engine and 4 propellant aluminum honeycomb for absorbing stage was also constructed of aluminum tunnel the LM stage (Apollo

the shock

alloy. A ladder attached to one of (0.81-meter diameter) was provided ascent time 11). stage. in March For more After 1969 the surface (Apollo

the legs gave the for crew transfer were LM

crew access to the surface. A docking between the command module and and on table the crew a manned took 2-55. returned Apollo place

operations A 9); on the first spacecraft

completed lunar see

via the ascent mission in July for 1969

to the CSM,

the LM

was jettisoned.

was included manned systems,

the first

landing

information

176

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

At North American, work was under way on two versions of the command and service module: Block I for earth-orbit operations and Block II for lunar missions. The prime contractor's greatest problem was ensuring the compatibility of thousands of interfaces, those points at which two or more components were joined. Grumman's greatest difficulty was weight gain on the lunar module. Development of propulsion units for the CSM and the LM was another stumbling block. When schedules started to slip and hardware problems failed to disappear, NASA expressed its dissatisfaction with North American. In early 1966, the agency converted both North American and Grumman's contracts from cost-plus-fixed-fee to costplus-incentive-fcc in an attempt to improve performance at the firms. By early 1967, hardware and software schedules were keeping better pace with NASA's mission plans. Ground personnel and astronaut training had begun; the new mission control center in Houston was in operation. Long-duration missions and rendezvous and docking had been proved during Gemini flights. Unmanned Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter spacecraft were sending much needed data on the lunar surface to Apollo technicians and scientists. Apollo's first crew, Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee, was due to fly an earth-orbital mission in February. Tragically, however, a fire claimed the lives of these astronauts and forced the agency to review its lunar exploration program meticulously. In a simulated countdown of CSM 204 on January 27, 1967, arcs from electrical wiring in an equipment bay on the command module started a fire (no single ignition point was identified); in the 100 percent oxygen atmosphere the crew died in minutes of asphyxia. Faced with its first tragedy, the agency convened an Apollo 204 Review Board to investigate, which in turn established 21 task panels to scrutinize every aspect of the accident, from the configuration of spacecraft during the test to the disposition of the surviving service module. Led by Floyd L. Thompson, the board in its final report, submitted in April, called for a number of significant hardware design, test operations, and flight plan changes. Redefinition of the Block II CSM was also demanded. Tests in 100 percent oxygen environments had already been forbidden.* Specific recommendations included the restriction of combustible materials in the command module, simplifying crew egress procedures, testing for fire safety on full-scale mockups of a reconfigured CSM, and an in-depth review of the environmental control system. For five months, a NASA team oversaw Block II work at North American. 3° Apollo began to fly in November 1967 with the first "all-up" orbital test of the Saturn V (Apollo 4), followed by an equally successful orbital trial of the lunar module (Apollo 5). The second Saturn V-launched mission (Apollo 6) did not meet its objectives, however, because of several launch vehicle malfunctions. Apollo 7, now slated to carry the first crew into earth orbit, passed its flight readiness review in early October 1968. Walter Schirra, Donn F. Eisele, and R. Walter Cunningham were at the controls of the Block II CSM on October 11 when it was put into orbit by a Saturn IB. During the 1 l-day mission, the spacecraft performed admirably, allowing the crew to complete all their test objectives (see table 2-52). Months before this first flight, George Low, Apollo spacecraft project manager at MSC, made a deci-

*Future tests would be performed at 60 percent oxygen-40 percent nitrogen levels; launch operations would also be conducted using this ratio; 100 percent oxygen would be reserved for flight operations.

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

177

sion to accelerate the schedule if the first flight were successful. If NASA wanted to reach the moon before 1970, it would have to sacrifice some of the intermediate steps. Apollo 8, the second manned mission, would orbit the moon. On William December A. Anders 21, 1960, Apollo 8 with aboard, was boosted along Frank Borman, James Lovell, and its translunar path. After 69 hours of

flight, the crew reached their destination, the first men to travel to the vicinity of the moon. After some 20 hours in lunar orbit, Apollo 8 returned to earth for a December 27 splashdown in the Pacific (see fig. 2-7 and table 2-53). Apollo 8, a milestone mission, was the last flight in NASA's first decade. NASA's corps of astronauts grew considerably during the Apollo years. The first addition to the original seven Mercury pilots was on September 17, 1962, when nine men plemented joined the by another group to fly Gemini 13 on October, 18, and Apollo missions. They were sup1963. Prompted by the scientific com-

munity, four scientist-astronauts (two physicists, one physician, and one geologist) were signed on in June 1965 for lunar landing flights. The largest single group of pilot-astronauts (18) joined NASA on April 4, 1966. Another seven were chosen on August 4, 1967 to fill support and backup crew slots. .31 There were three Apollo crew positions for each mission: commander, command module pilot, and lunar module pilot. The prime and backup crews followed the one spacecraft that had been assigned for their flight through its testing program at the factory and through preparations at the launch site. This kept the crew up to date on modifications that were made to spacecraft hardware. In addition to "living with their spacecraft," the astronauts had to train for their specific missions on simulators and trainers, keep physically fit, and maintain proficiency in flying jet aircraft. To help them coordinate these many activities, each crew had a support crew assigned to it. As they had during Mercury and Gemini, Apollo astronauts acted as "capsule communicators" at mission control during the flights, serving as voice links between spacecraft and ground control. In a 1962 summer study conference sponsored by NASA and the National Academy of Sciences, face Apollo astronauts scientists concluded that the most important tasks that would once they reached the moon would involve educated observa-

tions of natural phenomena, the collection of samples, and the installation of monitoring instruments. From these general guidelines, an Ad Hoc Working Group on Apollo Experiments built its recommendations for Apollo science: (1) the examination geological of physical and geological mapping; (3) investigation properties in the area near the spacecraft; (2) of the moon's interior; (4) studies of the lunar

atmosphere; and (5) radio astronomy from the surface. Evaluating proposals for experiments, developing an Apollo lunar surface experiments package, integrating experiments with spacecraft hardware, and preparing special facilities on earth in which to examine lunar samples kept a cadre of scientists and engineers busy for years before the first Apollo landing. Apollo 7 and 8, which were basically engineering missions, did not carry scientific equipment, with the exception of biomedical

* On August

13,

1969,

a final

group transferred

of four from

astronauts the USAF

was added Manned

to the NASA Orbiting

team

as Apollo (MOL)

suppro-

port crew members. These men gram, which had been cancelled.

Laboratory

178

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT

179

sensors and cameras.* In fact, until the first landing and return were accomplished, enthusiasm for mission science took a decided second place to concerns for engineering and operational matters. The success of the post-1968 missions, however, "stimulated a more vigorous interest in the solar system and established the study of the moon as a modern interdisciplinary science. ''32 A November 1961 agency-wide reorganization put George Low in charge of spacecraft and flight missions in the NASA Headquarters Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF). Reporting to Low was John H. Disher, assistant director for Apollo spacecraft development. When George MueUer took over as associate administrator of manned spaceflight in 1963, he kept hold of the Apollo program reins until its growth demanded a full-time program director. General Samuel C. Phillips was chosen as director in October 1964, a post he would keep for many years (see table 2-2). Houston's Manned Spacecraft Center was responsible for executing the program. The Apollo Project Office added in September 1960 grew in importance with a 1961 reorganization (see table 2-3). Charles W. Frick was MSC's first Apollo manager. Joseph F. Shea, assisted by Robert Piland and William A. Lee, saw the program through its formative years (1963-1966). When George Low took over as manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office at MSC in April 1967, he faced the aftermath of the Apollo 204 accident and a compromised flight schedule. Apollo's circumlunar mission in 1968 was testimony to Low's ability to make bold decisions. Every NASA center made some contribution to Apollo, but MSC, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Kennedy Space Center were the major participants (see also chapter 5 for a discussion of the roles the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory played in Apollo tracking and data acquisition). In late 1964, MSC's Florida Operations Office was absorbed in a reorganization of KSC; Kurt H. Debus as director of launch operations managed Apollo's activity at the Cape.t Marshall, provider of the launch vehicle, was directed by von Braun, who as leader of the Saturn team, had a very personal interest in Apollo.t "33 Apollo managers geared their activities to correspond with a series of reviews, inspections, and certifications that served as key checkpoints for spacecraft design and hardware production. The six steps were preliminary and critical design reviews, flight article configuration inspection, certification of flight worthiness, design certification review, and flight readiness review. This last two-part review confirmed the readiness of hardware and facilities for each mission. 34 Cooperating with NASA officials at each of these checkpoints was a legion of contractor and subcontractor employees whose job it was to ready the spacecraft for launch. North American Aviation (later called North American Rockwell) led the command and service module team, Grumman the lunar module team (see table 2-56 for a listing of contractors).

*Apollo photography; photography. i'Other White Sands

7 carried Apollo

experiments 8 carried

S-005, S-151,

synoptic cosmic ray

terrain detector,

photography, and the

and crew

S-006, conducted

synoptic lunar

weather mission

launch Test also

sites Facility.

that

were

used

during

the

Apollo

testing

program

were

Wallops

Station

and

** Marshall Orleans, ana.

supervised Test

Apollo Facility

support

activities and

at the

Michoud Computer

Assembly Facility,

Facility Slidell,

in

New

the Mississippi

at Bay St. Louis,

the Slidell

Louisi-

180

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table 2-50.
Chronology Date Dec. 3, 1958 An Army-NASA agreement of which to NASA of Key Apollo Program Event established that the Army Ordnance Missile was a part, Events*

Command (AOMC), was to be responsive Jan. 19, 1959 NASA awarded North large-class single-chamber posed Feb. Apr. 5, 1959 1959 Nova launcher). Group Steering long-range

Wernher von requirements

Braun's rocket team for launch vehicles.

American rocket

Aviation, Inc., a contract to develop a engine, called the F-I (to be used in the profor the first time on March 3.

The F-1 was static-fired of Lunar Committee planning Center, Exploration on and the

A Working A Research assist with

was established Space research. met for Flight

by NASA. was organized by time Harry on to J. May

Manned basic group

Chaired the first

Goett of Ames 25 -26. June 8, 1959 The Army,

Research

in developing predicted

a plan that

for the

establishing first landing

manned could take

lunar place

outposts in 1965.

(Project June 18, 1959 NASA Saturn

Horizon),

authorized the AOMC to study possibilities for using the proposed launch vehicle for lunar missions. These studies were discussed at a Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight

meeting of NASA's later that month. Aug. 12, 1959 The Strass, assigned Space met Task for

Group's the that first work

(STG) time Alan

New

Projects future to begin

Panel, manned on an a program

chaired programs. advanced that

by

H. The

Kurt panel and lead to

to discuss B. Kehlet

recommended panel a second-generation velocities. Kehlet September Dec. 31, 1959 A Saturn sue March 15, 1960 The 28. Vehicle

start

immediately

capsule would

member

three-man capsule presented his initial

with a potential for near-lunar return findings at a meeting of the panel on

Team of

led by Abe C-I.

Silversteln

recommended

that

NASA

pur-

development Army Ballistic

the Saturn Missile

Agency's program C. Marshall for

Development were Space the Team design design with Flight

Operations Center

Division (MSFC). spacecraft.

(von

Braun's ty was Apr.-May May 25, 1960 1960 STG STG This capable July 25, 1960 "Apollo" program, space July 28-29, 1960

group) named

and the

the Saturn George

transferred

to NASA;

the facili-

personnel formed team of

wrote

guidelines Vehicle preliminary crew

of an advanced Robert for O. Piland

an Advanced would carrying make

as leader. vehicle

studies

an advanced

several

members. for NASA's advanced lunar landing manned and spaceflight a permanent

was chosen which station.

as the name plans

included

for a manned

The first to acquaint cumlunar

of a series of NASA-Industry industry missions. Headquarters, of and selected Dynamics - to prepare were manned determine prepare three with the agency's

Program plans

Plans

Conferences spacecraft

was and

held cir-

for advanced

Oct.

17, 1960

At NASA Low, lunar chief

a small spaceflight,

working to

group establish weights, plan.

was formed ground specify rules launch

by George for vehicle

M. re-

manned

landings,

spacecraft a development

quirements, Oct. 25, 1960 NASA General Company These

contractors-Convalr/Astronautics General studies from 14 who Electric submitted Company, manned proposals

Division and

of

Corporation, feasibility chosen

Martin 9

of an advanced

spacecraft. on October

companies

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table 2-50. ChronologyKey of
Date in answer assessment Nov. 1960 Technical discussions design. Dec. 10, 1960 Personnel native modes lunar Later house Nine to a request and for Apollo Program Events* (Continued)

181

Event proposals issued board on September 13. Technical

panels Liaison among groups

an evaluation were

judged by STG

the proposals. to coordinate advanced work and

Groups center were

established

employees formed. Center earth Aircraft rendezvous. 10. Landing a position submitted orbit

involved

with

spacecraft

at Langley ascent discussion rendezvous month this formed plans and of lunar mode under

Research were mode orbit

briefed orbit

STG

members and direct

on (Other

an

alterThe an inagain

to direct orbit that study

to the moon: reduced

lunar

rendezvous. vehicle and power

mission

rendezvous launch

ascent.) requirements. funded met

Grumman

Engineering Langley

Corporation

STG personnel

to discuss Jan. 9, 1961 A newly first future budget time

on January Lunar

Manned how

Task paper on

Group on the

led by Low subject

met for

for

the 1962

to consider hearings.

the objective report,

of a lunar

landing

fit into the agency's FY 7, suggested that direct a

to prepare Their

February

manned lunar landing could be accomplished ascent or earth orbit rendezvous (Saturn C-2, Jan. 19, 1961 MSFC awarded contracts missions. its first draft of general to Douglas orbit Aircraft rendezvous

during the 1960s using three or four stages). Company mode and Chance

Vought lunar and

Corporation interplanetary May 5, 1961 STG

to study

the earth

for manned

completed

requirements

for

the

Apollo

spacecraft. May 15-17, 1961 The Martin Company, studies before of an GE, and Convair/Astronautics spacecraft. Kennedy a lunar called landing for before new long-range of the submitted their final

feasibility May 25, 1961 In a speech goals for decade. June 10, 1961

advanced

Congress, program,

President including

the space

the end

The Lundin Committee, established by NASA the day completed a study of vehicle systems that could support ings. The committee a lunar preferred vehicle earth orbit using rendezvous two or three

of Kennedy's speech, manned lunar landas a means Saturn C-3 for putting

together Another ed that July 18-20, 1961

package,

launches. 2, conclud-

study group, the Fleming Committee, appointed a lunar landing was feasible before 1970. Apollo Technical Apollo contractors. of E. Defense Golovin, for Conference was held

on May

A NASA-Industry of 300 potential A NASA-Department by such invited spacecraft Task

for representatives

July 20,

1961

(DoD) was a direct

Large established ascent

Vehicle to

Planning study to the large moon.

Group, vehicle

directed systems July 28, 1961 NASA Apollo Aug. 1961

Nicholas as those

needed

mission due on

12 companies prime Group that

to submit

proposals

October

9 for

the

contract. for Study of Manned orbit Lunar Landing mode by Rendezvous the earliest of Langley

An Ad Hoc Techniques

reported

the earth

rendezvous

offered

possibility for a lunar landing. Meanwhile, John C. Houbolt made another presentation on lunar orbit rendezvous to STG.

182

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Key Apollo

2-50. Program Events* (Continued)

Date

Event

Oct.

27,

1961

Saturn

SA-1

(first stage

with

a dummy

second

stage)

was launched 2-51

successfulfor details

ly. The booster was a cluster of eight H-1 engines. (See table on this and other Apollo-Saturn developmental flights.) Nov. 15, 1961 In a letter made Nov. 20, 1961 to NASA for Associate Administrator orbit rendezvous W. Rosen, Space Robert mode director Flight for

C. Seamans, Apollo.

Houbolt

his case

the lunar

A working propulsion direct posed ascent Nova.

group mode

led by Milton for a lunar

of launch promising,

vehicles that using

and the

in the Office

of Manned landing

(OMSF),

reported

was the most

the pro-

Nov.

28,

1961

NASA American

chose

the

Space to design

and and had board

Information build

Systems

Division Apollo

of

North panels teams: Missile

Aviation

the two-module

spacecraft.

North America's proposal and a source evaluation General Dynamics/Astronautics

been selected by technical over those submitted by Avco Corporation; General

assessment four other Electric

and Space Laboratories;

Vehicle Department-Douglas-Grumman-Space McDonnell Aircraft Corporation-Lockheed Aircraft day, substantially. Company-Chance the Apollo spacecraft letter North contract Office new American's on August (ASPO) Vought; contract and

Technology Aircraft the Martin had on

Corporation-Hughes Company. been December Jan. 15, 1962 An Apollo Spacecraft manager. Jan.-June 1962 Grumman techniques. Feb. 6, 1962 Houbolt and Charles to the conducted expanded

On the previous 12, the definitive Spacecraft Cemer

statement

of work was signed

14, 1963. was established with Charles at the Manned W. Frick as

Project

(MSC),

STG's

designation,

another

in-house

study

of

lunar

orbit

rendezvous

W. Mathews Manned approved with which

of MSC Flight for

made

a presentation Council.

on lunar

or-

bit rendezvous March 1962 NASA test General ture March 2-3, 1962

Space plans

Management the development

Headquarters vehicle Dynamics/Convair on

of a Little spacecraft and

Joe systems.

11

launch

to verify

various

Apollo

was awarded 11. Headquarters, for Apollo. lunar

a contract

to design

manufac-

the vehicle

May

At a meeting a possible (three stages).

at NASA mission

orbit

rendezvous require

was reviewed Saturn

as C-5

mode

It would

a single

Apr.

11,

1962

Kennedy (DX) for

assigned procurement

the Apollo action. made

program

the

highest

national

priority

category

Apr.

16,

1962

MSC

representatives presentations SA-2 von for with Braun Apollo. Space rendezvous.

a lunar made

orbit

rendezvous

presentation in May. launched orbit

at MSFC;

additional Apr. June 25, 1962 Saturn MSFC's adopted June 22, 1962 The lunar agency module them

were

at Headquarters stage the was lunar

a water-filled recommended

second that

successfully. mode be

7, 1962

rendezvous

Manned orbit

Flight

Management Other NASA

Council officials

announced agreed, and

that on

it favored July 11 the

announced capable to the

that this mode had been of landing two men on the command and service

selected moon's

for Apollo. surface and

A lunar returning

orbiting

module

would

be required.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT
Table Chronology Date of Key Apollo 2-50. Program Events* Event (Continued)

183

July

25,

1962

MSC lunar Nine NASA testing

invited 11 firms to submit excursion module. new astronauts were plans stages. added for

proposals

due on September

4 for an Apollo

Sept. Sept.

17, 1962 26, 1962

to NASA's

flight the

team. Test Facility for

announced the Saturn

constructing

Mississippi

Nov.

7, 1962

NASA over

selected eight other

Grumman firms.

to build A definitive

the

lunar

module. was

Grumman on March

was chosen 11, 1963.

contract

signed launched

Nov.

16, 1962 1963

Saturn The

SA-3 MSC

with

a water-filled Surface surface an Apollo trajectory

second

stage was Panel, met Planning and produce

successfully. and evaluate

Feb.-March

Lunar for

Experiments investigations, Mission analyses,

formed for

to study the first

proposals Feb. 27, 1963 NASA design, manned March Sept. 28, 1963 Saturn

lunar

time. mission for all

established coordinate missions. SA-4

Panel

to develop plans

contingency

was launched

successfully Criteria

(last

first-stage was for

test established

of Saturn

I).

4, 1963

At MSC, engineering,

a Manned design, lunar module

Spacecraft and

Board

to determine systems.

procedural mockup

standards

spacecraft at Grumann. for Gemini

Sept. Oct. Oct.

16-18, 18, 30, 1963 1963

1963

The

first

review

was held for training

NASA NASA Saturn Saturn Apollo's Abort-l).

selected cancelled I vehicles. IB. launch

another

14 astronauts

and

Apollo.

plans for four manned earth orbital missions launched by The first manned Apollo test flight would be powered by a

Nov.

1, 1963

escape

system

was successfully

tested

at White

Sands

(Pad

Jan.

29,

1964

Saturn stage

SA-5 put into

with

a powered

second

stage

was launched

successfully

(second

orbit). 14 more heating astronauts for Gemini and Apollo. vehicle, was carried out

Feb. Apr.

3, 1964 14, 1964

NASA FIRE

selected 1, a reentry

test of an Apollo-shaped

successfully. Apr. 28-30, 1964 A mockup module July May 28, 1964 8-9. orbital flight of an Apollo boilerplate model with a Saturn 1 (A-IOI) review (CSM) of the held Block I (earth orbital) Apollo a second command review and service on

was

at North

American;

followed

The first took place A-I02

successfully. took place successfully. mission) go-ahead review Apollo CSM mockup was held. on November II CSM. for Apollo; training these in the NASA 23.

Sept. Sept.

18, 1964 30, 1964

Test

A review gave North

of a Block American

II (lunar a formal

for manufacture of the Block

Jan. June

6-8, 29,

1965 1965

NASA NASA newest sciences

held

a preliminary

design

announced astronauts (only four

the selection were became review and chosen

of six additional because of their

astronauts academic

active). of the lunar control, module was conducted instrumentation and guidance, and operations. by five teams: and electrical crew radar;

Nov.

1965-Jan.

1966

The critical structures power; systems;

design and

properties; mission

communications, navigation and

stabilization and

compatibility

184

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Key Apollo

2-50. Program Events* (Continued)

Date

Event

Nov.

30,

1965

The first of two Apollo mission of General Precision to MSC. The critical design to with North review

simulators

was shipped

from

the Link

Group

Dec. Dec.

6-17,

1965

of the Block President

I1 CSM J. L.

(mockup Atwood,

27A)

was

held. Program the firm's S-II

15, 1965

In a letter Director progress stage.

American

Apollo with and

Samuel

C. Phillips the manufacture

expressed

NASA's

dissatisfaction spacecraft

of the Apollo

the Saturn

Jan.

14, 1966

Grumman's lunar cost-plus-incentive-fee; the 21st. A suborbital out; an Apollo

module

contract was converted from cost-plus-fixed-fee North American's contract was likewise changed

to on

Feb.

26,

1966

launch CSM orbital Uprated suborbital

vehicle served launch Saturn

development as payload vehicle

test

of

the

Saturn

IB was

carried

(AS-201). test of the Saturn (AS-203). successfully Apollo Roger mission, (AS-202). AS-204, The IB (for a

July

5, 1966

A successful time called

development

I) was conducted

Aug. Oct.

25,

1966

A second

test of the Saturn that the crew

IB was launched manned

19, 1966

It was announced would be Virgil earth-orbital flight Mission

of the first for

I. Grissom,

Edward

H. White, February

II, and

B. Chaffee.

was scheduled Planning Board

12, 1967. at MSC Complex module, next day met for the first time.

Jan. Jan.

23, 1967 27, 1967

A Lunar

established

During a pre-launch test of AS-204 at Launch Space Center, fire swept through the command members formed was (Grissom, to investigate White, and Chaffee). Floyd all The 1, MSC

34 at the Kennedy killing all three crew a review director board was and in high-

the accident; to stop

L. Thompson,

of Langley,

appointed

chairman.

On February

instructed manned

contractors testing

other government agencies oxygen environments. Feb. 5, 1967 The Apollo wiring halation suggestions Apr.-Aug. 1967 A and group. Nov. 9, 1967 Apollo 4, the first The were "all-up" command expected NASA 204 Review oxygen gases.

MSC-related

Board bay The and

submitted

its final had

report. had died

Arcs

from

electrical the fire; due in to in-

in an equipment of toxic

on the command the crew report board's

module included changes. Block on detail

started

the 100 percent

atmosphere

of asphyxia a number

of significant

for hardware task team testing,

operational with

charged and

overseeing input Astronaut

II Frank

CSM

redefinition overall quality led the

worked

at North

American

to provide scheduling.

design,

reliability

Borman

orbital

test

of the Saturn

V vehicle,

was conducted severe con-

successfully. ditions that Jan. 22, 1968 Apollo payload, S-IVB unmanned March 6-7, 1968 Design Apollo

module's reentry on a lunar-return test flight with instrument was that

simulated trajectory. included lB.

the most

5, the first was stage, and lunar certification flight) and

development launch module vehicle flight

a lunar The put into

module lunar orbit.

in the module,

launched

successfully

a Saturn unit were

A second

cancelled. be flown on the first manned

reviews of CSM 101 (to LM-3 were held at MSC.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table -50. 2 ChronologyKey of Apollo Program Events* (Continued) Date Apr.4,1966 Aug. -17, 9 1968
The Saturn V-launched Apollo

185

Event
6 mission did not meet The CSM its primary was put into objectives orbit and

because of launch vehicle recovered from the Pacific. In a series was decided of top-level that the

malfunctions.

meetings second

initiated

by ASPO mission

Manager (Apollo

George

Low,

it

manned

Apollo

8) would

be a

lunar-orbit mission made in late 1967 flight, decade knowledge space. public The until but Low of and

if all went well on the Apollo 7 earth did not call for a lunar mission until others would argued have that to if they seek as and were soon orbit

orbital flight. Plans the fourth manned the control was end-of-thefirsthand in not deep made

to meet as thermal mission

deadline decision

they for

possible

communications, a December 12. review ready manned Schirra, the 204 to pilot

navigation,

1968 lunar

November

Oct. ,1968 3
Oct. 11-22, 1968

The flight readiness hicle being declared Apollo Astronauts the controls had orbit, been 7, the first

for Apollo 7 was held for the mission. Apollo Donn F. fire and the second The flight, Eisele, the death flight). broadcast Block was and

at KSC,

with

crew

and

ve-

conducted R. Walter of the crew, During from their their

successfully Cunningham these nearly three and

with at men in per-

Walter (before scheduled made

11 days by a Saturn

the crew

a live television

spacecraft

formed all their test objectives. IB (see table 2-52). Dec. 21-27, 1968 Apollo 8 became the first manned man, James Lovell, and William orbited 2-53. the satellite for 20 hours.

II CSM

was launched

spacecraft to circle the moon. Frank BorAnders reached the moon in 69 hours and Splashdown was in the Pacific (see table

186

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Developmental Launch Date Flight/Test Tests and

2-51. Flights, the Apollo Program

Objectives/Results Successful C-I); dummy launch second launch in dummy (Project launch vehicle stage. vehicle second Highwater). vehicle second development stage test (Saturn (Prodevelopment stage test (Saturn into the development test (Saturn

Oct. (ETR) Apr. (ETR)

27,

1961

SA-1

25,

1962

SA-2

Successful C-1); water

was released

ionosphere Nov. (ETR) 16, 1962 SA-3 Successful C-I); ject March (ETR) July 20, (Wallops) 1963 Scout ing Reentry Experiment Heat(R-3) 28, 1963 SA-4 water

in dummy

was released

Highwater). launch vehicle Saturn development stage. test due of to Apollo launch heatvehicle test (Saturn I)

Successful final

test of the

I booster reentry was

Unsuccessful shield material;

suborbital the failure

malfunction. Aug. (White 28, 1963 Little Joe I1 (LJ-II) Successful booster; Apollo Apollo Nov. (White 7, 1963 Sands) Pad plate Abort-1 spacecraft (boiler6) Successful with vehicle Jan. (ETR) 29, 1964 SA-5 Successful vehicle orbit. Apr. (ETR) 14, 1964 FIRE 1 Successful reentry Antares 13, 1964 Sands) 28, 1964 Apollo (BP-12) Apollo (SA-6) A-101 (BP-13) A-O01 Successful CSM Orbital model suborbital vehicle vehicle reentry test of an Apollo-shaped km/hr; an Atlaswas flight it carried spacecraft; test vehicle. test of Apollo model launch of the escape spacecraft system (no (LES) launch qualification a dummy plans called test payload of that Little the LJ-II Joe I1 an as an

Sands)

simulated

for using

a boilerplate required). launch (Saturn

vehicle

development second

test stage

of was

Block put into

1

I); a powered

at speeds launched LES

of 40 000 FIRE 1. test, using

May (White May (ETR)

suborbital model.

the

LJ-II

and

a

boilerplate

compatibility and a Saturn

test 1; reentry

of an Apollo boilerplate took place on June 1 after

54 orbits. Aug. 18, 1964 R-4 Successful materials. Apollo (SA-7) A-102 (BP-15) Successful boilerplate demonstrated; orbits. Dec. (White May (White 19, 8, 1964 Sands) 1965 Sands) Apollo (BP-23) Apollo (BP-22) A-003 During system, tioned launcher. May (ETR) 22, 1965 FIRE 2 Successful reentry suborbital vehicle reentry test of an Apollo-shaped a planned the LJ-II and lifted high-altitude vehicle the spacecraft test of the Apollo the LES of the clear abort funcA-002 Successful test of the Apollo LES using L J-11. orbital compatibility test of an Apollo suborbital reentry test of Apollo heatshield

(Wallops) Sept. (ETR) 18, 1964

model and Saturn I; the LES was also reentry took place on Sept. 22 after 59

malfunctioned;

defective

at speeds

of 40 000

kin/hr.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT
Table Developmental Launch June (White Jan. (White Feb. (ETR) Feb. (ETR) July (ETR) 5, 1966 26, 1966 AS-201 (CSM-009) AS-203 29, Date 1965 Flight/Test Pad Abort-2 Successful pad; A-004 no test launch Tests and Flights, 2-51. the Apollo Program (Continued)

187

Objectives/Results of the LES vehicle was to function required. test of the Apollo LES, usfrom the launch

Sands) 20, 1966 Sands) 9, 1966

(BP-23A) Apollo

Successful ing

medium-altitude

an LJ-II. suborbital reentry test of heatshield

R-5

Successful materials. Successful (Saturn Successful (Saturn the capability fragmented S-IVB IB);

suborbital the orbital stage was during command

launch module

vehicle was

development recovered. test on stage test restart

launch Saturn

vehicle I); data

development were returned unit; the engine S-IVB differential

IB, or Uprated

and the instrument demonstrated; a 4th-orbit

pressure

of the bulkhead. Aug. (ETR) 25, 1966 AS-202 (CSM-O 11 ) Successful (Saturn rapid mand Nov. (ETR) 9, 1967 Apollo 4 IB); restart module suborbital the launch vehicle also development and the the test com-

Apollo

heatshield

spacecraft

capability were was recovered. orbital launch

evaluated;

Successful (Saturn tions expected mand module Successful (LM-I)

vehicle

development severe

test condithe com-

(AS-501) (CSM-017)

V); the reentry

simulated

the most

during a lunar was recovered orbital launch

return trajectory; on Nov. 9. vehicle development test; on launch due

Jan. (ETR)

22,

1968

Apollo (AS-204)

5

test the Jan. LM 24.

(Saturn IB) and spacecraft was tested for the first time Unsuccessful development up-and-down thrust, failure module early was attempt test (Saturn to

development and recovered perform a was

Apr. (ETR)

4, 1968

Apollo

6 (AS-502)

vehicle to severe first-stage and

(CSM-020)

V); failure of the vehicle of second-stage engine

vibrations shutdown recovered

during

engines,

of the third-stage on

to restart; 4.

the command

Apr.

188

NASA HISTORICAL
Table Apollo 7 2-52.

DATA

BOOK

Characteristics

Date Official

of

launch mission

(ETR

complex

#):

designation:

Oct. 11, AS-205 CSM-101 Saturn

1968 (34)

Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension command weight shape, (m): module: truncated !englh_ diameter Crew: (kg):

IB 205

20 553

cone 3.63 of base, Walter Walter 3.9 M. Schirra, Cunningham, P.

service

module:

cylindrical engine

with

extended

nozzle

length, 6.88 diameter, 3.9 Jr., commander; LM John E. Evans, pilot W. Young, and Eugene John A. Cernan L. Swigert, William R. Pogue, Donn F. Eisele, CM pilot; R.

Backup crew: Cam corns:

Thomas Stafford, Young, 285/227 163 01:29:08

Stafford,

Ronald Cernan

Apogee/perigee at insertion (km): No. of orbits: Period: Length Mission launch S-IB cutoff (inboard) of mission: events (date, time, ground Oct. II

260:09:03 (10+ elapsed time): 11:02:45 11:05:05.7 11:05:09.3 11:13:01.8 11:13:11.8 a.m.,

days) EST 00:02:20.7 00:02:24.3 00:10:16.8 00:10:26.8 02:55:02 259:39:16.3 259:43:33.8 260:09:03

S-1B cutoff (outboard) S-IVB cutoff orbital insertion Oct. 22 S-IVB-CSM separation deorbit maneuver initiated CM-SM splashdown Distance Landing Recovery Mission traveled point: ship: objectives: (km): separation

1:57:47 p.m. 6:42:01.3 a.m. 6:46:18.8 7:11:48 7 323 000 64°04'W (crew

27°32'N, USS Essex

(3 km onboard

from

target) crew-space a manned execute

in 60 min.) performance; demonstrate facilities performance during CSM rendezvous capability;

Demonstrate vehicle-mission CSM two mission; experiments.

CSM-crew support demonstrate

Results: Reference:

All primary mission objectives were achieved. MSC, "Apollo 7 Mission Report," MSC-PA-R-68-15,

Dec.

1968.

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table -53. 2
Apollo Date Official of launch mission (ETR complex #): Dec. 21, AS-503 CSM-103 Saturn weight shape, (m): see table Frank Nell A. Michael strong, Apogee/perigee insertion (km): No. of orbits: Lunar orbit parameters (km): at 190/180 1.5 312/111 02:01:06 10 147:00:42 time, ground elapsed time): a.m., EST 00:02:05.9 00:02:33.8 00:08:44 00:11:25 00:11:35 02:50:37.1 03:20:59.3 a.m. a.m. a.m. 69:08:20.4 89:19:16.6 146:28:48 147:00:42 Dec. 21 cutoff (center) (outboard) 7:51:00 7:53:05.9 7:53:33.8 7:59:44 8:02:25 insertion injection separation ignition ignition Dec. 24 Dec. 25 Dec. 27 ignition 8:02:35 10:41:37.1 11:11:59.3 4:59:20.4 1:10:16.6 10:19:48 10:51:42 (kin): 933 000 165°1.2'W (2 km from target) in 80 min.) facilities performance during (6 + days) (initial), 112/111 (orbits 3-10) 2-52 commander; pilot Edwin Thomas Vance E. Aldrin, K. Mattingly, D. Brand, Haise Jr., II, Fred Gerald W. Haise, P. Carr, Jr. James A. Lovell, CM pilot; Borman, LM Collins, Aldrin, Armstrong, (kg): 43 663 V 503 (includes LM Test Article) 8 Characteristics 1968 (39A)

189

designation:

Spacecraft designation: Launch vehicle designation: Spacecraft Spacecraft dimension Crew:

William

A. Anders, Backup crew: Cam coms:

Arm-

Period (average): No. of orbits: Length Mission launch S-IC S-IC cutoff S-II cutoff S-IVB earth cutoff orbital of mission: (date,

events

translunar S-IVB-CSM

lunar orbit insertion transearth injection CM-SM splashdown Distance Landing Recovery Mission traveled point: ship: objectives: separation

8°7.5'N,

USS Yorktown (crew onboard Demonstrate crew-vehicle-support manned nominal tivities; Saturn and execute V mission selected two mission

a of ac-

with CSM; lunar

demonstrate orbit rendezvous achieved,

performance mission and the

backup experiments. objectives

Results: Reference:

All

primary

were

crew 1969.

became the first to travel MSC, "Apollo 8 Mission

to the vicinity of the moon. Report," MSC-PA-R-69-1, Feb.

190

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Size and Performance Comparisons

2-54. of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Apollo Apollo LM NA 4.53 3 2 100070 02 cabin backup crew transfer surface descent propulsion system 2135 ascent propulsion system 1850

Mercury Weight Volume, Mission Crew Cabin at reentry habitable duration, size atmosphere (kg) (m 3) max. (days) 1208 1.02 1 _A 1 100070 02 cabin backup

Gemini 2165 1.56 133A 2 100070 02 cabin backup ejection EVA

CSM 566.8 5.94 12V2 3 100070 02 cabin backup EVA crew transfer

Suit usage

Propulsion, and retro,

main

maneuvering

solid

retro

solid

retro

service propulsion system 1951

AV (m/sec)

98.8

99.1

Propulsion, system and impulse for attitude

reaction auxiliary control,

control maneuvers total

30 967

entry vehicle 90 478 orbital maneuvering 1 077 524

command module 256 714 service module 1 653 828 0.28-0.38 (Mach 36-6) Spaceflight Rome, Sept. from

782 483

(newtons/sec)

Lift/drag,

entry

ballistic

0.17-0.09 (Mach 24-6) of United Astronautical States Manned

NA

From Shuttle,"

Maxime paper, 32d

A. Fagnet, Congress,

"An

Overview

Mercury 1981.

to the

International

Federation,

6-12,

MANNED SPACEFLIGHT Table 2-55. MajorSubsystem Comparison forMercury, Gemini, Apollo and
Mercury Gemini Apollo CSM blunt (CM) cone Apollo LM NA

191

Entry

shape

blunt

cone

w/

same

as Mercury

cylindrical afterbody Thermal protection fiberglass on blunt ablator face; elsewhere silicone elastomer (otherwise as Mercury) ablator same

ablator Gemini's varying

like of

multilayer reflective insulation

high-temperature shingles

thickness around CM same as NA

Launch system Life

escape

solid-fuel mounted

rocket on tower

ejection seats 100% radiator evaporators cooling O:; and for

Mercury same Gemini as 10007o 02; sublimators cooling water for

support

100°70 02; evaporators cooling

water for

Attitude

control

hydrogen

peroxide

hypergolic propellants; ablatively cooled redundant systems engines; entry

same

as same coast as SM system

monopropellant; redundant systems

Gemini, but radiatively cooled in coast engines system

Maneuver propulsion (Newtons)

NA

thrusters same attitude (423) fuel

using as for control

SM

propulsion,

ascent

propulsion (15 568) engines each) NA

pressure-fed hypergolics (91 184)

10 throttleable descent (2224

Retrograde propulsion

3 solid-fuel rockets

4 solid-fuel rockets

(maneuver propulsion used)

Onboard

control

body-mounted gyro stabilization; horizon reference scanner

4-gimbal inertial platform; horizon digital rendezvous scanners; computer; radar

3-gimbal inertial platform digital pilot optical VHF autoand alignment; ranging as

same and

as CM, landing radars

but

w/rendezvous

computer;

Electrical

power

3 silver-zinc batteries

fuel cells backup same as Mercury, PCM

w/ batteries

same Gemini

4 descent ascent

and batteries

2

Communications

UHF, VHF voice and PAM telemetry; Cand S-

except

unified Sband; VHF voice

same as CM, plus extravehicular

telemetry

band tracking; command link

192

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Major Subsystem Comparison Mercury for

2-55. Gemini, and Apollo CSM Apollo (Continued) Apollo LM

Mercury,

Gemini

Landing

system

l drogue, 1 reserve landing

1 main, chutes; bag

1 drogue, main chutes;

1

2 drogue, main

3

4-leg gear

landing w/

chutes;

crushable structure

crushable structure; stroke couch w/ EVA-type umbilical w/

crushable honeycomb

Pressure

suit

backup control

to cabin

EVA-type umbilical

EVA-type independent life support Three

w/

atmosphere

From Space

John

H. Boynton paper

and

Kenneth AIAA

S. Kleinknecht, 6th Annual

"Systems Meeting,

Design Anaheim,

Experience CA, Oct.

from 20-24,

Manned

Programs,"

69-1077,

1969.

Table Major Contractor Aerojet-General Space Atlantic Propulsion Research Corp., Div. Corp. escape rocket, rocket Avco Systems Corp., Div. Corp., Co. reaction system control Space tower posigrade Contractors for Mercury Mercury,

2-56. Gemini, Gemini SM engine and Apollo Spacecraft Apollo

CMheatshield

Bell Aerospace Bell Aerosystems Bellcomm, Inc.

(Agena propulsion)

LM

ascent

stage

engine systems support engineering to Hq surface CSM experiments instrumentation and and analysis

Bendix

Corp.

instrumentation

lunar

package, Boeing Co. technical evaluation Co., Co. Inc. communications hardware Eagle-Picher Co. batteries space voice communications batteries data transmission system Garrett AiResearch Co. General Electric Co. Corp., Manufacturing environmental control (ECS) fuel cell, reliability assurance system ECS ECS suits

integration

David Collins

Clark Radio

communications data subsystem and

and

post-entry

storage

batteries

Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc.

and

quality

engineering services

MANNED

SPACEFLIGHT

193

Table Major Contractors for Mercury, Mercury Gemini,

2-56 and Apollo Gemini guidance system Spacecraft-(Continued) Apollo and navigation

Contractor General Motors Corp. AC Electronics Div. B. F. Goodrich Grumman Engineering Co.

space suits LM (prime)

Aircraft Corp. Inc. stabilization system core assembly honeycomb shield rate gyros, attitude and control electronics onboard computer [mission control center]

Hexcel Products,

Honeywell, Inc. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator International Machine Corp. Co. Business

stabilization and attitude control system

[instrument unit 6, mission control center]

International Latex ILC Industries Lockheed Propulsion Co./Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. McDonnell Aircraft

Corp./ escape tower motor (Agena target vehicle)

space suits

launch escape motor, pitch control motor

Corp./McDonnell Astronautics Co., McDonnell Douglas Marquardt Massachusetts of Technology, Instrumentation Laboratory Corp.

spacecraft (prime) Corp.

spacecraft (prime)

LM reaction SM reaction

control system control system

Institute

CSM guidance and navigation system design

J. A. Maurer, D. B. Milliken Motorola, Inc.

Inc. Co. camera command receivers

cameras

digital system

command

digital command system

North American Aviation, Inc., Rocketdyne Div.

reentry control system, orbit attitude and maneuvering system CSM (prime)

North American Aviation, Inc., Space & Information Systems Div. Northrop Div. Corp., Ventura landing and recovery system landing system

landing

system

194

NASA HISTORICAL
Table Major contractors for Mercury, Mercury Gemini,

DATA

BOOK

2-56. and Apollo Spacecraft (Continued)

Contractor Radio Corporation of America, Aerospace Communications and Controls Div. Raytheon Co.

Gemini pulse code modulator recorder

Al_ollo television equipment, LM guidance system, communications hardware

CSM guidance and navigation digital computer LM descent engine heatshield stage

Space Technology Laboratories, Inc. Studebaker-Packard Corp., Cincinnati Testing and Research Laboratory Thiokol Chemical Corp. retrograde rocket retrograde rockets

launch motor

escape tower analysis

TRW Systems Inc. United Aircraft Corp., Hamiltom Standard Div. United Aircraft Pratt & Whitney Div. Weber Aircraft Corp., Aircraft Corp. ejection seat system Westinghouse Corp. Electric rendezvous radar and transponder

trajectory LM ECS

CSM fuel cell powerplants

CHAPTER TH REE

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

CHAPTER

THREE

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

With the launching of small sounding rockets in the 1940s, scientists were able to extend their observations and measurements into the upper atmosphere. When larger rockets became available, they were put to work carrying sophisticated instrument packages to even higher altitudes. Rockets and spacecraft were "revolutionary tools," which were used on a large scale by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) when the agency was established in 1958. _ Taking advantage of the momentum inspired by the International Geophysical Year, which saw the launching of the first Explorer and Vanguard satellites, NASA managers organized a space science program around the several disciplines that would benefit from sounding rocket, satellite, probe, and manned spaceflight projects. The agency made a conscious effort to build its scientific programs along the guidelines suggested by the nation's leading scientists, and continued throughout its first 10 years to seek outside advice and support. Applying this new wealth of scientific return to practical uses was another part of NASA's mandate as a body supported by public funds. The legislation that called for the establishment of a civilian space agency directed the new administration to expand the body "of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space," a broad dictim. 2 Most of the scientists and engineers who hoped to achieve this goal came to NASA from other government agencies, namely the Naval Research Laboratory, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Members of the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard division and the upper atmosphere sounding rocket team formed the nucleus around which the Goddard Space Flight Center (originally called the Beltsville Space Center) in Maryland was built. Goddard's personnel were responsible for many of NASA's unmanned spacecraft projects and sounding rocket experiments, in addition to operating a satellite tracking network. Besides working in the field of propulsion, specialists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, were also involved with the Army's early satellite program. When JPL was assigned to NASA in 1958 as a contractor facility, its scientists became part of the agency's unmanned lunar and planetary exploration team. JPL also found a network for communicating with lunar and planetary spacecraft. The Langley Research Center, which had been part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, also played a role in the unmanned space program when its personnel began taking part in NASA's lunar and planetary projects

197

198
in the tion, 1960s. Unmanned

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

space

science

payloads

were

launched

from some

Wallops ongoing

Staspace

the Eastern Along with

Test Range, and the Western Test Range.* facilities and personnel, NASA inherited

science projects-the Vanguard and the Air Force's Pioneer deep managers and scientists were able many areas of research: geodesy,

satellite, various sounding rocket investigations, space probe. Building on these activities, NASA's to shape a space science program that embraced meteorology, atmospheric and ionspheric physics,

magnetospheric research, lunar and planetary science, solar studies, galactic astronomy, and bioscience. For management purposes, NASA throughout its reorganizations of the space science and applications program grouped these disciplines and their related flight projects into several divisions--physics and astronomy, lunar and planetary, life sciences, meteorology, communications, and applications. Thus organized and funded, "NASA proceeded to attack the scientific problems of the atmosphere and space that the scientists.., deemed most important and most likely to produce significant new information," with the approval of Congress. 3 To ensure that cerns of the nation's NASA's space science scientists, the agency's program managers reflected the interests and coninvited several advisory groups

to take part in program planning. The National Board was an important and influential source a series of advisory committees that involved

Academy of Science's Space Science of input, but NASA also established a broader segment of the scientific

community. The subcommittees of the Space Science and Applications Steering Committee were highly specialized groups that could furnish advice in a number of particular fields, while an Astronomy Missions Board and a Lunar and Planetary Missions Board offered broader commentary on NASA's programs. Working relations between NASA and its various advisory bodies were not always smooth, and friction among those bodies was not unknown. But, it is generally agreed that the content of NASA's science programs accurately mirrored the priorities and objectives of most American space scientists. In addition to the scrutiny given them by advisory groups, NASA's space activities were analyzed by the president's science adviser, the Space Science and Technology Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, and the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space "Pure Sciences. scientists" do not always concern themselves with the practical applica-

tions of their research, but NASA managers in justifying the budgets for their science programs often were forced to explain to Congress what the public could expect in return for tax dollars spent on space science. As funds for the space program and other large government programs not directly related to defense or public welfare became harder to obtain in the late 1960s and as the Apollo lunar expeditions took more and more of the agency's budget, it became increasingly important to realize some practical benefits from scientific projects. NASA had to balance the desirability of basic research, which could answer fundamental questions about the nature of matter and the forces of the universe and which might have some unforeseen practical benefits, and the need for applied research, toward a planned application. Both were critical components which could be geared of the agency's scien-

* See chapter

1 for

details

on

the launch

vehicles

used

for

space

science

and

applications

missions.

SPACE SCIENCE AND
tific program? scientific Meteorology research

APPLICATIONS

199 obvious fields to which Land and water

and communications was applied that

are two

NASA's

benefited

the public.

management, cartography, forestry, and aircraft design are other examples. NASA, a research and development organization, relied on other government agencies, industry, and universities for the actual appliction of its work to products or services. Space science was always an integral part of NASA's organization. Until late 1961, space science was part of the Office of Space Flight Development, becoming a directorate by itself in a November 1961 reorganization of the agency. Homer E. Newell, Jr., led the space science team from 1958 until October 1967. In March 1960, life sciences was organized as a separate directorate, but in November 1961 it became part of the space science program. There were separate directors for space science and for applications from November 1961 until June 1963, when the two interests were combined into one office. Directors and division directors were responsible to Associate Administrator Newell for their various program areas and flight projects. In October 1967, John E. Naugle became responsible for the management of space science and applications as the associate administrator. 5 (See table 3-1 for details 1968.) on how the organization of space science and applications evolved through

NASA's space science missions experienced their share of failures during the late 1950s, but by the end of the next decade the agency saw 80.8 percent of its scientific and applications experiments to successful or partially successful conclusions (this figure does not include sounding rocket projects). However, there was more to the success Beyond story than perfect launches and the operation of complex equipment. the tally of successful flights were the many discoveries made in several a result of new data returned from scientific satellites and probes applications of these discoveries that have made new products and Add to this the overall progress made in the earth and planetary advanced man's knowledge and understanding of the universe and for investigation. While scientific and applications missions confor funds, for program that

areas of study as and the practical services possible. sciences that have opened new fields

sistently took second place to manned spaceflight in NASA's search most of the agency's first 10 years it was the science and applications provided the larger return on the nation's investment in space. 6

200

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Five Phases

3-1. of Space

Science and Applications Management, NASA Headquarters
Phase Oct. 1958-Jan. I 1960

Administrator/Deputy Director, Assistant Chief, Chief, Chief, Chief, Space Flight

Administrator/Associate Development Space Science(s) (Abe

Administrator Silverstein) E. Newell, J. Stoller) F. Clark) E. Manos) F. Schilling) 1I 1961 Jr.)

Director, Space Planetary Science Astronomy

(Homer (Morton (John (Nicholas

Science

Programs Program Analysis

Science Program and

Astrophysics

(Gerhard Phase Feb.

1960-Oct.

Administrator/Deputy Director, Deputy Space Flight

Administrator/Associate Programs Flight (Silverstein) Programs Planning

Administrator

Director,

Space

(Newell) and Coordination (D. D. Wyatt; Edgar M. Cortright, act-

Assistant ing, June

Director, 1961) Director,

Program

Assistant dropped Flight Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Assistant acting Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Life

Applications replaced

and

Manned

Flight

Programs Programs

(NeweU (Sanders)

D.

Sanders); Manned

office Space

in 1961 and Programs Director, Director, Director,

by Advanced

Technology

and

(George Space Satellite Lunar Program

M. Low) Flight and and (Clark Operations (Edmond Rocket Programs Programs (Cortright) March dropped 1960 in mid-1961 (Mayo became C. Buckley) (Stoller)

Sounding Planetary

Sciences

T. Randt); (Alfred M.

established Mayo); office

Director, director for

Bioengineering life sciences) Grants Space Program Aerospace and

Director, Director, Director, Director,

Contracts (Quimby); and

(Freeman

H.

Quimby);

office

dropped

in mid-1961

Biology

established Coordination Voris);

in mid-1961 (G. Dale Smith); established in mid-1961

Planning Medicine

(Frank

established

in mid-1961

Phase Nov.

III 1963

1961-Oct.

Administrator/Deputy Associate Director, Deputy Administrator Space

Administrator

Sciences Space and

(Newell) Sciences Research and (Cortright) Contracts Propulsion (Thomas (Donald L. K. H. Smull) Heaton; Richard B. Morrison, June

Director, Grants Launch

Director, Director, 1962)

Vehicles

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table -1. 3 Five PhasesSpace of (Continued)

201

Director, Geophysics and Astronomy Programs F.Clark; E.Naugle, 1962) (John John May Director, Program and Review Resources ManagementD.Nicolaldes) (John Director, and Lunar Planetary Programs W.Nicks) (Oran Director, Bioscience (Orr .Reynolds) Programs E Director, Applications (Stoller) Director, Meteorological (Morris Systems Tepper) Director, Communications (Leonard Systems Jaffe) Director, Program and Review Resources Management (Carl Freedman) Director, Applications officeropped 1962 Future (vacant); d inNov. Director, Industrial Applications B.C.Fong, 1962); dropped 1963 (Louis Nov. office inApril Phase IV Nov. 963-Sept. 1 1967 Administrator/Deputy Administrator Associate Administrator Associate Administrator, Science Applications Space and (Newell) Deputy Associate Administrator, ScienceApplications Space and (Cortright) Deputy Associate Administrator (Sciences), Science Applications Space and (Naugle); office established 1966 inMay Director, Sciences Naugle, July (Clark; acting, 1965); dropped 1966 office inMay Director, Applications F.Garbarini); replaced (Garbarini direc(Robert office in1964 became torofengineering) Division Director, Bioscience (Reynolds) Programs Division Director, Communications and Navigation Programs office ropped (Jaffe); d in1966 Director, and Physics Astronomy Jesse (Naugle; Mitchell, 1966) May Director, and Grants Research Contracts officeropped (Smull); d in1967 Director, Launch Vehicles Propulsion and Programs (Morrison; L.Johnson, Vincent Aug. 1964) Director, and Lunar Planetary Programs (Nicks) Division Director, Manned Science B.Foster); dropped Space (Willis office in1967 Division Director, Meteorological (Tepper); dropped Programs office in1966 Division Director, Program and Review Resources Management D.Taylor) (Eldon Director, Voyager Program office stablished (Nicks); e inmid-1967 Phase V Oct. 967-Dec. 1 1968 Administrator/Director Administrator Associate Administrator Associate Administrator, ScienceApplications Space and (Naugle) Deputy Associate Administrator, ScienceApplications Space and (Nicks) Deputy Associate Administrator (Sciences), ScienceApplications Henry. Space and (Naugle; J Smith, 1968) April

202

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Five Phases Deputy Associate Assistant (Foster); Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Administrator

3-1. (Continued) (Johnson)

of Space

(Engineering),

Space Science and Applications

Associate Administrator (Manned office dropped in mid-1968 Advanced Program Bioscience Programs

Flight Experiments),

Space Science and Applications

(Pitt Thome) Management (Taylor)

Review and Resources Programs (Reynolds) (Jaffe)

Space Applications Launch

Vehicles and Propulsion (Donald

Programs

(Joseph

B. Mahon) in late 1968

Voyager Program

P. Hearth); (Hearth)

office dropped

Lunar and Planetary Physics and Astronomy

Programs

Programs

(Mitchell)

Table

3-2.

Science and Applications Satellites and Probes, 1958-1968 Number Mission Type Successful a Partially Successful a 2 4 2 0 1 2 11 of Major NASA of Missions Unsuccessful a Total

Geophysics

and astronomy b

53 22 13 20 1

14 12 2 1 0 0 29 Launchings,

69 38 17 21 2 4 151 KSC Historical,

Lunar and planetary Communications c Meteorology Bioscience Applications Total Technology

2 111

aAs reported in Kennedy Space Center, A Summary report 1 (Kennedy Space Center, rev. 1970). blncludes a number of international missions. Clncludes Telstar and INTELSAT.

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS BUDGET

203

Each year, NASA's managers confronted the Bureau of the Budget and members of Congress with their wish list of scientific projects.* They needed funds for basic research, for the development of spacecraft and experiment hardware, and for launch vehicles. President John F. Kennedy's decision in May 1961 to assign NASA the task of landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade pushed science projects that did not directly support the lunar landing into a decidedly second place in the budget queue. For most of the agency's first decade, Apollo, the manned lunar venture, would have priority. However, NASA's scientists still managed to assemble a respectable program in several fields of research. For each of these disciplines, budget tables are provided in this chapter, along with tables for individual flight projects (e.g., in the discipline of lunar and planetary studies, Ranger was a flight project.)t For a more detailed breakdown of flight projects budgets consult the NASA annual budget. In addition to funds for flight projects, each discipline was also granted money for supporting research and advanced studies. The following categories represent the changing organization of NASA's space science and applications program. Review the many bottom notes of the budget tables carefully before making conclusions about totals for any particular project or fiscal year. Summary information can be found in tables 3-3 and 3-4.

* It would be useful to review the introduction to the budget section in chap. 1 for general information on NASA's budget and on the sources and format used for the budget tables in this book. t If a project's activity were limited to two years, it is included in a miscellaneous category for the appropriate discipline.

204
Total Space

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Science (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... 62 244 131000 414 857 776 797 661 694 604444 200 900 515 400 600 d 619 f and thousands

3-3. Funding History _

Applications of dollars)

Authorization

Programmed 87 246 b

62 244 13100If 414 594 767 745 773 663 638 619 f 044 075 650 015 650 400 g

95 767 c 216 429 615 615 732 607 562 190 e 067 345 922 362 100 850

759093

a For

those

years

before the

there funds

was an Office requested,

of Space

Science or

and

Applications, for the

totals various

have been space

figured ap-

by adding

together

authorized,

programmed

science, of fundamen-

plications, and research projects; see following b Includes $3 995 000 for research grants and tal and and In the $21 944 applied FY 000 1963 research were and replaced 1964 necessary in part estimates, which for advancing

notes for contracts,

details. which was used and space budget

for "the

conduct

aeronautical university corresponding no

technology." in the FY 1965 item. from The

Research budget also total

grants estimate. includes

contracts

by the there grants grants the in 1959

sustaining was was funded

program

for Vanguard,

as a program see further see further budget for

separate

scientific After

satellites. the Authorizacon-

c Includes d Includes tion

$4 869 370 for research $10 000 000 for research Committee approved

and contracts; and contracts; $131 000 000

note b above. note b above. FY 1961, the

Conference

appropriation

ference committee awarded elncludes $5 000 000 for established dropped. flncludes STotal in the $7 600 reduced FY 1962

an additional $29 000 000 in a supplemental appropriation in June 1960. research grants and contracts; see further note b above; this was the amount budget research estimate; grants and by the FY 1963 budget estimate note this category had been

000 for to $538

contracts;

see further conference

b above. in October 1967.

000 000 by the

appropriation

committee

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

205

_

r_

_o _o I"-oo oO O ¢q ¢q

o
o_ O ¢',,I ¢',1 ¢q

d,

I I

I I

0

0

r.e_

I

• ...9."_

.o _'-6

i _M

_I

__

_m
r-o _1_ r_ _ 0

__I

__

N_N
f_

eq ¢'4 O0 0 ¢q

0 f_ I

P_
0"_ i-q "1= _1

_0_

_o _.__
_._

o_0=_ _0_

_0

_

o
0_'_

--

_

_

_

_

_

_

._NNN _mOOO_

206

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

.u_

0;

¢4

_

¢q O '_

o

oo

o

;u

oa

_d
O O o0

.o

[-

O

__, ,,

_

_3
E

o

.__

_

e

N_

_._0_

" r;N

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

207

Table Research Grants (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962

3-5. Funding History _ of dollars) Programmed 3995 b 4869 ___c ---

and Contracts

Reque_ ----10000 7600

aTo utilize the capabilities of nongovernment organizations in carrying out research; dropped as a category by FY 1963. blncludes $966 510 provided under salaries and expenses. Clt was estimated in the FY 1962 budget estimate that $5 000 000 would be programmed in FY 1961 for research grants and contracts; this category had been dropped by the FY 1963 estimate.

Table Physics

3-6. Funding History a

and Astronomy (Scientific Satellites) (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 22 800 41 700 72 700 175 165 194 400 190200 172 100 131 400 147 500

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Authorization 22 800 41 700 72 700 175 165 194 400 177 450 165 900 129900 145 500c

Programmed 43 249 b 20 241 54 97 147 148 139 142 129 139 398 775 689 623 082 753 800 500

aln the FY 1961-63 budget estimates, this program was called scientific satellites; in the FY 1964-65 estimates it was renamed geophysics and astronomy; it was changed to physics and astronomy in the FY 1966 estimate. bIncludes satellites. $21 944 000 for Vanguard, which in 1959 was funded as a program separate from scientific in Oc-

c FY 1960 appropriation tober 1967.

reduced to $130 000 000 by the appropriations

conference

committeee

208

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Physics Technology and Astronomy and (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aprior 1962-63), to the FY 1964 budget Request ...... ...... 800(# 12 369 f 33 679 s 15 200 14 800 25 200 22 900 19 900 estimate, supporting Advanced thousands

3-7. Supporting Studies of Research Funding and History a

dollars) Authorization Programmed 2675 b 4012 ¢ ----33 679 s 15 200 14 800 25 200 22 900 19 900 13 001 e 5200 13 581 17 666 21 057 20 594 20 365 22 904 budgeted as advanced research (FY and

research

was

development

of advanced

instrumentation/advanced

technical

development

(FY 1961-63), development, development, development, development, development, development,

scientific and technical studies (FY 1961). blncludes $1 520 000 for development of advanced and $1 and and and and and 155 00 for scientific $2 332 000 000 for $6 000 000 for 000 for advanced 0120 for scientific for for advanced advanced and technical studies. of advanced of advanced studies. of advanced of advanced of advanced c Includes $1 680 $2 000 $6 794 flncludes $4 043 a Includes elncludes for development research. development and technical development research. development research.

instrumentationadvanced instrumentationadvanced instrumentation/advanced instrumentation/advanced instrumentation/advanced instrumentation/advanced

technical technical technical technical technical technical

$6 207 000 $8 326 000 000 for

Includes $16 261 000 for development $17 418 000 for advanced research.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

209

Table Total Physics

3-8. Funding History a

and Astronomy Flight Projects (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 700 c 331 486 200 400 900 500 600

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Authorization

Programmed 40 16 41 92 134 130 118 120 107 113 574 b 228 397 575 108 957 025 159 700 696

33 60 141 179 175 143 106 125

141 179 162 137 105 123

----486 200 650 d 700 ¢ 000 600

a In the scientific satellites program, a flight project was defined as a payload. blncludes $8 540 000 for Juno II vehicles and $2 120 000 for Thor-Able vehicles as part of the flight research program and $21 944 000 for Vanguard, which in 1959 was funded as a program separate from scientific satellites. Clncludes $3 000 000 for Atlas-Agena B vehicles, $3 000000 for Thor-Agena B vehicles, and $3 500 000 for Scout vehicles as part of the flight research program. dThe House authorization committee suggested that NASA was requesting funds for FY 1965 for projects that were scheduled too far in the future to warrant immediate monies. Included in this category were Orbiting Solar Observatories, Orbiting Astronomical Observatories, and Orbiting Geophysical Observatories. e The House authorization committee suggested that NASA was requesting funds for FY 1966 for projects that were scheduled too far in the future to warrant immediate monies. Included in this category were Orbiting Astronomical Observatories and Orbiting Geophysical Observatories. The Senate authorization committee, however, restored funds for the Orbiting Geophysical Observatories. fThe House authorization committee suggested that failures with the Orbiting Astronomical Obser-

vatories and Orbiting Geophysical Observatories warranted authorization committee, however, restored the funds.

a decrease in the funds requested.

The Senate

Physics

and Astronomy

Table 3-9. Soundings

Funding

History

a

(in thousands Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aBefore the FY 1964 estimate, category sounding rocket program Request ...... ...... 300 000 000 000 000

of dollars) Authorization Programmed 7765 11 513 16 950 16 867 19 300 20 000 20 000 were budgeted under the general

13 15 17 19 22

13 300 15 000 17 000 19 000 22 000 soundings

physics and astronomy (see table 3-57).

210

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer-Class (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 13 735 d 10 698 f 4729 h 20 600 s 31 900 25 700 23 000 21 600 Satellites thousands

3-10. Funding of dollars) Authorization Programmed 6 252 b ------20 600g_ 31 900 25 700 23 000 21 600 12 965 ¢ 19 925 e 4 483 g 32 811 15 526 21 565 18 592 18 224 17 532 History a

alncluded satellite

in this that

category, were

in addition listed

to Explorer estimates

satellites, under

are funds names other

spent than

from Explorer

FY

1959-1963 but that

on

projects

in the budget

subseclass. for an 000 for sphere, 000 000 for for

quently were flown as Explorers, and b Includes $5 000 000 for Explorer ionospheric direct measurements

some projects that were not flown but 6, $557 000 for an ionospheric beacon $180 000 for an advanced radiation

were in the Explorer satellite, $220 000 belt for satellite, $145

satellite,

an atmospheric structures Clncludes $2 267 000 $565,000 for a radiation beacon

satellite, and $150 000 for for Explorer 6, $1 420 000 balance experiment, $1 942 $829

a radiation belt satellite. for Explorer 7, $51 000 for an energetic direct particles

a 3.66-meter $2 487 $565

000

satellite, satellite, $225 $304

an ionospheric an atmospheric micrometeroid

satellite,

000 for an ionospheric

measurements

structures satellite, $2 185 000 for a gamma ray astronomy satellite, satellite; $125 000 for an air density drag measurements satellite, and sounder. 000 for 000 an ionospheric for an advanced belt $912 beacon radiation $520 satellite, 000 for satellite, belt $256 satellite, 000 $765 for 000

000 for a Scout 000 for a fixeddirect measurestructures $1 690 unspecified satellite, astronomy 000

frequency topside d Includes $270 ments satellite, for satellite, $100 000

an ionospheric for

$712

an atmospheric satellite, for seven

for a radiation satellite,

000 for a gamma sounder, and

ray astronomy $8 510 000

a polar

geophysical

a topside satellite, satellite, satellite, satellite. in this satellite,

Scout payloads. elncludes $3 142 000 for $1 954 satellite, flncludes satellite, 000 for $496 $463 000 an ionospheric $2 854 000

an energetic direct

particles measurements particles structures all projects

$2 052 000 and $80 class $558

for an ionospheric for for a gamma topside direct

beacon ray sounders.

satellite, $50 000

$3 506 000 $4 794 000 for 000 were 000 for

for a Scout for

micrometeoroid

000 for

an energetic

an ionospheric a Scout under the

measurements satellite, and

an atmospheric sounders. estimate, an energetic monitor,

micrometeoroid heading

and $9 609 000 for topside gln the FY 1964 budget Monitors." h Includes $2 983 000 $336 for 000 for

"Explorers structures

particles and

for an atmospheric sounders.

satellite,

an ionospheric

$852

000

for

topside

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

211

Table Orbiting

3-11. History

Solar Observatories Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 2480 a 4167 15 506b 17 400 22 I00 37 000 II 900 II 900

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 alncluded bIncludes

Authorization

Programmed 250 1863 3917 5742 I0 900 20 005 16 597 19 052 I0 106 II 332 satellite.

------17 400 19 600 37 000 II 900 II 900

$550 000 for a solar observatory satellite, and $1 930 000 for a solar geophysical $11 687 000 for an advanced solar observatory.

Table Orbiting

3-12. History

Astronomical Observatories Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 4445 22 775 45 668 52 900 51000 32 500 29 200 40600 Authorization

Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 346 7472 38 221 39 250 35 608 32 644 22 300 27 700 44768

------52 900 44000 26 300 27 700 40 600

Table Orbiting

3-13. History

Geophysical Observatories Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 1580 18 517 58 595 61 800 55 400 31 700 23 400 20000 Authorization

Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 401 5358 25 729 39 42 30 28 24 20 634 868 352 215 770 064

------61 800 52 150 31 700 23 400 20000

212

NASA HISTORICAL DATA
Table Miscellaneous 3-14.

BOOK

Physics and Astronomy Projects (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 1480 c 4174 e 13 355g 13 200 h ......... ......... ......... 200(Y ----...... 13 200 h Authorization

Funding

History

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 23 412 a 654 b 4560 a 10 635 f ---

__i

___

alncluded $1 468 000 for general payload instrumentation and $21 944 000 for Vanguard, which in 1959 was funded as a program separate from scientific satellites. b lncludes $2000 for a Jupiter nuclear emulsions project, $10 000 for integration of the emulsion package, $445 000 for a recoverable nuclear emulsions probe, and $197 000 for electron density profile probes. c Includes $260 000 for general payload instrumentation and $1 220 000 for a geodetic satellite. alncludes $89 000 for modifying an X-15 for an astronomy payload, $167 000 for Vanguard 3, $2 673 000 for international ionospheric satellite UK-I, $60 000 for international project satellite UK-2, and $4 571 000 for electron density profile probes. e Includes $1 231 000 for international ionospheric satellite UK 1, $1 000 000 for international project satellite UK-2, $420 000 for international project satellite UK-3, $1 330 000 for a recoverable nuclear emulsions probe, and $193 000 for electron density profile probes. fFor international satellite projects. glncludes $338 000 for international ionospheric satellite UK-1, $5 247 000 for international project satellite UK-2, $1 654 000 for international project satellite UK-3, $1 719 000 for international satellite no. 4, and $4 397 000 for geoprobes. hlncludes $7 000 000 for international satellite projects and $6 200 000 for geodesy projects. iFor Sunblazer, a small interplanetary probe project that was not authorized for budgetary reasons.

Table Physics

3-15. History

and Astronomy Data Analysis Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request 3000 2000 2000 Authorization 3000 2000 2000

Year 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 2000 1735 2900

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

213

Table Total

3-16. History

Lunar and Planetary Funding (in thousands of dollars)

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... ...... 45000 159 899 273 560 322 600 300 400 215 615 197 900 142000

Authorization

Programmed 31 883 49 996

45000 159 899 263 274 283 213 160 400 100 115

a

91 019 161 784 222 205 206 204 802 762 027 300

210 900 131 900 b

184 150 147 500

aAfter

the

authorization conference

conference committee

committee awarded

approved

the $5 000

$45 000 000

budget

for

FY

1961,

the

appropriation in June 1960. bFY October

an additional 000 000

000 in a supplemental conference

appropriation committee in

1968 appropriation 1967.

was reduced

to $125

by the appropriation

Table Lunar Technology and Planetary and (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 9000 d 18 103 f 320008 20000 18 100 36 800 40 100 20 900 Advanced thousands

3-17. Supporting Studies of Research Funding and History a

dollars) Authorization Programmed 8103 b 8307 c ----32000 20000 18 100 36 800 40 100 20900 g 17 102 e 10 843 22 205 22000 24 140 23000 22 350 31 800 h

cprior development bFor CIncludes

to

the (FY

FY

1964

budget and

estimate,

supporting research (FY

research 1960-63). and and and and missions

was budgeted

as

advanced

technical

1959-63) technical 000 for

advanced

advanced $6 449

development. advanced technical technical technical technical development development development development planetary $1 858 000 $4 432 000 for advanced research. research. research. research. introduced

_For advanced e Includes $11 f Includes gIncludes $12

technical development. 670 000 for advanced 080 000 000 for for advanced advanced

for advanced for for advanced advanced item

$6 023 000 $15 000 000

$17 000

h Includes $12 000 000 budgeted in the FY 1970 estimate.

for advanced

technology,

a budget

214

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Total Lunar and Planetary (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ----36000 141 796 241 282 157 121 560 300 800 100 a thousands

3-18. Projects of dollars) Authorization _-_-__--231 254 176 160 400 h 315 c Programmed 23 780 a 41 690 73 917 150 941 200597 183 762 181 181 887 300 Funding History

Flight

302 600 178 815

265000 170 800 111 000

161 800 127000

aListed as "Flight Research b The House authorization jects that were scheduled and and Lunar Senate too

Program" committee far in the

in the FY 1962 estimate. suggested that NASA was requesting future to warrant suggested projects. immediate that monies. NASA

funds

for

FY 1965 for in this

pro-

Included

category need

were Surveyor CThe House for funds

Orbiter. authorization and Lunar

committee Orbiter

reexamine

its immediate

for future

Surveyor

Table Pioneer Lunar Probes (in Year 1959 1960 1961 Request --7140 b ---

3-19. Funding dollars) Authorization ___ 7140 b ___ Programmed 6237 a 18 349 ¢ 5975 ¢ History

(Atlas-Able) of

thousands

alncludes bAmount c Includes

$4 097

000

for the Atlas-Able

launch

vehicle. lunar probes.

requested and authorized for funds for the launch vehicle.

unspecified

Table Ranger (in Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Request ----64 754 44 022 90000 10 800 1415

3-20. History of dollars) Authorization --------65000 10 800 1415 Programmed 19 542 45066 63 430 88 816 30 306 11 037 1000

Funding

thousands

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

215

Table

3-21.

Surveyor Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 97 97 136 85 90 42 Request --53 134 378 500 000 600 400 200 89 123 84 90 42 Authorization -----300 700 I00 400 200 Programmed 7054 39 134 66 70 81 104 79 33 386 704 814 634 942 000

Table

3-22.

Lunar Orbiter Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 300 000 600 000 Authorization Programmed 4 000 500 081 000 9500

49 37 24 10

44 300 36 000 24 600 10 000

20 49 58 26

Table Prospector (in thousands Year 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... 24000 10400

3-23. History of dollars) Authorization ...... ___a Programmed 575
___

Funding

aDuring

the authorization

process,

funds for Prospector,

a proposed

heavy lunar lander,

were denied

because of its high cost and because the proposed time.

launch vehicle,

Saturn, would not be ready for some

216

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Pioneer (in Probes thousands

3-24. Funding History of dollars)

Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aFund b For CFor were Pioneer requested and probe, and

Request 6804 a ...... ......... ...... 15 000 21 100 8000 6700 7500 d authorized to the later Explorer astronomy for unspecified probe in FY

Authorization 6804 a

Programmed 3798b 462c 2614

15 000 21 100 8000 6700 7500 a deep series. second 1968-1969 interplanetary estimates. probe. space probes.

13 600 15 000 12 700 a 6900 a 6000

5 a precursor

Pioneer budget

a magnetometer by the physics

10, the program's

aFunded

Table Mariner (in Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 as10 already for 100 1300 for provided for two Mariner Request ...... 21 159 82 960 100 100 54 100 3800 26 100 68 900 Mars flyby Mars probe project

3-25. History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 14 785 ----85 100 54 100 3800 26 100 58 800 a projects and was not authorized because 48 377 42 777 49 152 17 368 17 585 43 188 66 250 current also funding provide

Funding

thousands

a 1969 Mariner of Mars.

because

the Voyager

program

would

the detailed

exploration

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-26. Voyager Funding History a (inthousandsdollars) of Year 1962
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aNot budgeted b $330 no funds to be confused with the

217

Request 349
6800 ___d ---f 43000 10000 71 500 g Voyager interplanetary

Authorization
......

Programmed
b e e 7168 17097g

...... ...... --43000 23000 42000 probe replaced funds h of the 1980s;

12 670 350 these funds study, were but

series

for a large Mars lander project, which was 000 from supporting research and technology were programmed for a Voyager flight

by the Viking was programmed

project in 1969. for a Voyager

project. studies, funds were

¢$3 069 000 which included d $900 requested e$2 which

from supporting research and a Voyager study; this category research project.

technology funds was programmed for advanced was not broken down further in the estimate. request was for a Voyager study; no

000 of the supporting for a flight

and technology

236 000 included no

from supporting research and a Voyager study; this category funds were requested for for

technology funds was programmed for advanced was not broken down further in the estimate. flight study project, and funds from the supporting studies; rather because this than

studies, research category as a lunar large-

fAlthough and technology was not broken s Voyager and planetary Senate h The scale tives

a Voyager a Voyager

budget were designated down further. as a separate

for sterilization budget estimates Voyager

was listed flight

program

in the FY 1968-1970 declined any

project. committee require over initially funds but for of the

authorization it would that program

expenditures of the space

the next several of the nearby agreed in August

years,

in response was one

to the House of the most of $42

authorization objecthe finan-

committee's ly, the House cial burdens in October ference

reasoning

the exploration the Senate committee

planets

significant

committee

to an authorization funds for

000 0O0. Subsequentrecognizing

appropriations

1967 denied

Voyager,

of the Vietnam conflict and other domestic needs; but 1967 restored $36 000 000 to the appropriation. Later denied funding, thereby terminating the program.

the Senate in October,

appropriations committee the appropriations con-

committee

Table Miscellaneous Lunar and (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 alncludes payloads. bIncludes $2 843 000 for for Request ...... ......... 36000 b Planetary thousands

3-27. Flight of Projects Funding History

dollars) Authorization Programmed 17 543 a ......

......... ......... ...... 11000 d Thor-Able, Atlas-Agena $3 500 000 and $26 for for 11000 Atlas-Agena, for unspecified as found had been d and $11 200 000 4200 ¢ --for unspecified

$9 500 000

500 000 FY 1964 item

payloads. 1965 budget estimate space for

CThis is the estimated manned project d For space science;

amount by the FY

programmed 1966 and estimate operational

in the FY dropped.

this

The

manned

science

dealt with the engineering manned space science.

development

of manned

spacecraft

systems.

218

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Lunar and Planetary Data (in thousands Request ......

3-28. Analysis Funding of dollars) Authorization History

Year 1968

Programmed 600

Table Total Meteorology (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... 800 700 200 185 700 500 700 600 400 b

3-29. Funding History a of dollars) Authorization Programmed 988 7930 19 610 34 433 54 051 63 177 30 991 35 260 b 34 418 b 51 063 b

10 20 50 51 63 37 42 43 50

10 20 50 51 63 37 42 43 45

800 700 200 185 700 500 700 600 400 b

aFrom FY 1959 to 1967, meteorology was funded as a program with research and flight project funds as part of the Office of Applications or the Office of Space Science and Applications. In the FY 1968-1970 budget estimates, meteorology flight projects were funded as part of OSSA's space applications program. Research funds for meteorology came from the space application program's supporting research and technology budget. bFrom the space applications budget; see note a below.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-30. Meteorology Supporting Research andTechnology Advanced and
(in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 5800 d 4650 f 11 413 g 10 200 6600 8200 9100 5300 ----11 413g 10 200 6600 8200 9100 ___i was budgeted of dollars) Authorization Programmed 170b 3037 c 3875 e 3436 4877 7754 7311 7470 h 5761 h 5163 h as advanced Studies Funding

219
History

aprior to the FY 1964 budget estimate, supporting research development (FY 1959-63) and advanced research (FY 1960-63). bFor advanced technical development. Clncludes $1 706 000 for advanced technical dFor advanced technical development. elncludes flncludes $3 350 000 for advanced $3 350 000 for advanced development

technical

and $1 331 000 for advanced and $1 870 000 for advanced and $1 300 000 for advanced

research. research. research.

technical development technical development

gIncludes $9 605 000 for advanced technical development and $1 808 000 for advanced research. hAs of the FY 1968 budget estimate, funds for meterology research came from the space applications program's supporting research and technology budget. iAuthorized as space applications supporting research and technology, of which meteorology was a part.

Table Total

3-31. History

Meteorology Flight Projects Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 14900 a 45 39 53 30 34 550 772 500 900 500 ----39 772 53 500 30900 34 500 34 500 40100 b Authorization

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
a

Programmed 818 4893 15 735 30 49 55 23 27 997 174 423 680 790 b

34 500 45 100b

28 657 b 45900 b

Includes $5 700 000 for launch vehicles for the flight research program. bin the FY 1968-1970 budget estimates, meteorology flight projects were funded space applications program.

as part

of OSSA's

220

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Soundings (in Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSee 3-67). also the meteorology projects Request ...... 1468 2500 3000 3000 3000 3000 funded under (Meteorology) thousands

3-32. Funding of dollars) Authorization Programmed 441 --2500 3000 3000 3000 3000 the sounding rocket program, FY 1437 2244 2380 2730 2855 3000 1959-1963 (table History a

Table TIROS-TOS (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 _963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 1600 23 300 3390 7200 5800 4800 2600 7500 thousands

3-33. Funding of History dollars) Authorization Programmed 818 3091 ------7200 5800 4800 2600 7500 3013 6675 19 176 11 506 4100 2500 1292 9100

Table Nimbus (in Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... 7600 22 250 34 914 43 800 18900 22 700 23 400 34 500

3-34. History of dollars) Authorization Programmed 1802 ------43 800 18 900 22 700 23400 29 500 12 722 23 881 28 561 41 673 16000 22 560 24 420 33 700

Funding

thousands

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

221

Table Flight

3-35. History

Experiments (Meteorology) Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request 3200 4000 5500 Authorization 3200 4000 5500

Year 1965 1966 1967

Programmed 1200 -----

Table Cooperative Applications

3-36. FR-2) Funding History a

Satellite (French Satellite (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 100

Year 1967 1968 aA joint American-French CAS-1 (Eole) in 1971. project

Authorization 100

Programmed 100 100 satellite

that culminated

in the launching of the French meteorology

Table Communications (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request --4700 5600 94 600 85 377 51 100 12 600 2800 4600 c 4100 d

3-37. Total a of dollars) Authorization --4700 5600 b 94 600 85 377 42 175 11 400 2800 4600c ___e Programmed 3575 3050 33 833 33 I05 32 075 8413 8079 c 2019 d 3595 d 3897 d

a From FY 1959 to 1966, the communications program (with research and flight project funds) was part of the Office of Applications or the Office of Space Science and Applications. As of FY 1967, meteorology and Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) projects were combined into a single OSSA program called space applications; in the FY 1968-1970 budget estimates, communications was also part of this program. bAfter the authorization conference committee committee approved the $5 600 000 budget for FY 1961, the apappropriation propriations conference in June 1960. awarded an additional $24 000 000 in a supplemental Technology Satellite.

c Includes research funds for communications dFrom the space applications budget. eAuthorized as space applications,

and the Applications

of which communications

was a part.

222

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
Table Communications Supporting Studies (in thousands Advanced 3-38. Research Funding and Technology a and History

of dollars) Authorization Programmed 285b 1522c 21Moe 7478 3012 1637 2124h 2019i 3593i 3897 as advanced technical

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aprior to the FY 1964 budget

Request ...... ...... 1450 d 4450f 5161g 5000 3500 2500 4600h 4100 i estimate, supporting

----5161s 3075 2300 2500 4600h __D research was budgeted

development (FY 1959-63) and advanced research (FY 1960-63). bFor advanced technical development. Clncludes $705 000 for advanced technical development and $817 000 for advanced research. dFor advanced technical development. e Includes $790 000 for advanced technical development and $1 250 000 for advanced research. flncludes $3 650 000 for advanced technical development and $800 000 for advanced research. glncludes $2 473 000 for advanced technical development and $2 688 000 for advanced research. hFor communications and applications technology satellite. i As of the FY 1968 budget estimate, funds for supporting research for communications and navigation came from the space applications program's supporting research and technology budget. JAuthorized as space applications supporting research and technology, of which communications part. was a

Table Total Communications Flight (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 alncludes program. blncludes $2 150 000 for boosters $1 300 000 for tracking Request ...... ...... 4150 b 90 150 80 216 46 100 9100 300

3-39. Projects of dollars) Authorization Programmed 3290 a 1528 31 793 25 627 29063 6776 5955 ___c for the flight research program. Funding History

----80 216 39 100 9100 300 and communications

and $46 000 for tracking and communications communications

for the flight research flight projects

aAs of the FY 1968 budget estimate, tions program.

were a part of the space applica-

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-40. Echo Funding History
(in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 alncludes blncludes Clncludes dIncludes Request ----4150 4400 b 135 200 300 $3 200 000 for Thor and $2 200 000 for Thor-Agena $400 000 for Thor launch vehicle. $1 000 000 for Thor and $4 800 000 for Thor-Agena $500 000 for Thor-Agena launch vehicle. of dollars) Authorization ------___ --200 300 launch vehicles. launch vehicles. Programmed 1140 1528 8928 a 6103 c 2299 d 1675 325

223

Table

3-41.

Relay Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Request --_ 16 350 19 141 1900 1800 200 Authorization ------1900 1800 200 Programmed 20 650 6912 13 751 2590 462 ___a in FY 1966 for

alt was estimated in the FY 1967 budget estimate that $200 000 would be programmed Relay; by the FY 1968 estimate this item had been dropped.

Table

3-42.

Rebound Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1961 1962 1963 Request 1650 a 13 250b 16 747d Programmed 325 ___c ---

aSupplemental request, of which $1 400 000 was for Atlas-Agena B launch vehicle. b Includes $5 700 000 for Atlas-Agena B and $3 500 000 for Centaur launch vehicles. Clt was estimated in the FY 1963 budget request that $13 500 000 would be programmed in FY 1962; by the FY 1964 request this item had been dropped. d Includes $11 828 000 for Atlas-Agena launch vehicles.

for Rebound

224

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-43. Syncom Funding History (inthousandsdollars) of

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

Request ...... 22688 b 44000 c 2000 100

Authorization --37000 d 2000 100

Programmed 12 a 612 13 013 2511 168
___e

alncludes $200000for an Advanced Syncomstudy. blnciudes $18601 000for Advanced Syncom. Clncludes $40000000forAdvanced Syncom. dlncludes $33 000000f or Advanced Syncom. elt wasestimatedinthe FY 1967 budgetestimatethat$1000000would Syncom; by the FY 1968 estimate thisitemhadbeen dropped.

be programmed

inFY1966

for

Table Miscellaneous

3-44. Funding History

Communications Flight Projects (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 54 300 b 21 505 c ......... 5000 d

Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Authorization

Programmed 1890 a

...... ...... 5000 a 5000d

aFor a radiation measurement satellite. It was estimated in the FY 1962 budget that $5 000 000 would be programmed for a transitional satellite system; by the FY 1963 estimate this item had been dropped. bFor a transitional satellite system. CFor an intermediate-altitude satellite. dFor an early gravity gradient experiment.

Table Total Applications Technology (in thousands

3-45. Satellite Funding of dollars) Authorization History _

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... I000 31000 28 700 26400 b 36 800c

Programmed 8668 17 539 24 819b 35 781c 31 239c 26 330c

000 31000 28 700 26400 b ___d

aAlso called Advanced Applications Satellite and Advanced Technological Satellite. b Includes supporting research and technology funds for Applications Technology Satellites munications.

and com-

Cln the FY 1968-1970 budget estimates, Applications Technology Satellites were funded as part of OSSA's space applications program. d Authorized as space applications, of which the Applications Technology Satellite project was a part.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-46. Applications Technology Satellite Supporting Research and Technology Advanced and Studies Funding History (inthousandsdollars) of Year
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSupporting research

225

Request
----1100 2000 4600 a 1300 b funds for Applications Technology

Authorization ----1100 2000 4600 a ___

Programmed 8668 2162 2124 a 1350 b 1226 b 730 b

Satellites and communications.

hAs of the FY 1968 budget estimate, funds for supporting research for Applications Technology Satellites came from the space applications program's supporting research and technology budget. CAuthorized as space applications supporting research and technology, of which the Applications Technology Satellite project was a part.

Table Applications Technology Satellite (in thousands Request ...... 29900 26 700 21 800 35 500

3-47. Flight Program of dollars) Authorization Funding History

Year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 15 377

29900 26 700 21 800 35 500

22 695 34 431 30 013 25600

Table Total

3-48. History a

Space Applications Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ......... 3500 b ......... ...... ...... 104200

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Authorization

Programmed 300 b c

3500 b

___ 78 053 71 300 99 500 replaced the separate

99500 d

aAs of the FY 1968 budget estimate, the space applications program meteorology, communications, and Applications Technology Satellite programs. b For industrial applications.

Clt was estimated in the FY 1964 budget estimate that $2 370 000 would be programmed plications in FY 1963; by the FY 1965 estimate this item had been dropped. d Total reduced to $88 000 000 by the appropriations conference committee in October

for space ap1967.

226

NASA HISTORICAL DATA
Table 3-49.

BOOK

Space Applications Supporting Research Technology and Advanced Studies Funding (in thousands of dollars) Year 1966 1967 1968 alncludes blncludes Clncludes $450000for $900000for $7 361 000for Request ...... ...... 16 600 b geodesy. geodesy and $5000000for interdisciplinary Authorization

and History

Programmed 10 839 11 030 a 19 300 c

16 600 b

earth resources.

applications.

Table Total Space

3-50. History _

Applications Flight Projects Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 87 600 Authorization

Year 1966 1967 1968 aSee also meteorology (table

Programmed 67 214 60 270 80 200 and Applications Technology

75 600 b (table 3-39),

3-31),

communications

Satellite (table 3-47). b $5 000 000 for Nimbus and $4 700 000 for geodetic

satellites was undistributed

in the authorization.

Table Geodetic Satellites (in thousands Year 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 4700

3-51. Funding History a of dollars) Authorization Programmed 4993 1600 3400 class of satellites funded by the

__b in the Explorer

aBefore FY 1966, this flight project was included physics and astronomy program. bFunds not distributed in the authorization. Table Miscellaneous Space Applications (in thousands

3-52. Flight Project of dollars) Authorization ___a because Funding History

Year 1968 aFor a voice broadcasting

Request 2300 a satellite,

Programmed 5300 b the authorization committee

which was not authorized funded

believed that such a venture should be commercially applications. bFor an earth resources survey satellite.

since the project obviously

had commercial

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

227

Table Total Bioscience (Life (in thousands Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... 2000 a 20 620 c 4747 b 35 200 31 31 35 44 000 500 400 300

3-53. Funding History of dollars) Authorization ------21 200 31 31 35 41 000 500 400 800d Programmed 917 a 360 b 3048 13 731 21 479 28 34 42 41 501 400 000 800

Sciences)

aFunded under research grants and contracts. bFunded under scientific satellites (physics and astronomy). c Funded as a separate life sciences program. dTotal reduced to $40 000 000 by the appropriations conference

committee

in October

1967.

Table Bioscience

3-54. and

Supporting Research and Technology Advanced Studies Funding History a (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... 11 200 c 1114 b 10 800 11 800 15 500 14 700 14 300 Authorization

Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 195 b 2915 11 772 12 979 12 501 11 100 10 050 10 122

------11 800 15 500 14 700 14 300

a Before the FY 1964 budget estimate, supporting research was budgeted as advanced technical development (FY 1961-62) and advanced research (FY 1961-62). bFunded under scientific satellites (physics and astronomy). Clncludes $6 330 000 for advanced research and $4 870 000 for advanced technical development.

Table

3-55.

Biosatellite Funding History (in thousands of dollars) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aFunded under scientific Request ...... 2070 3633 a 24 400 19 200 16 000 20 700 30 000 satellites (physics and astronomy). $2 500 000 of the funds requested for the continuation of this Authorization Programmed 165 a 133 1959 8500 16 000 23 300 31 950 30 000

19 16 20 27

------200 000 700 500b

bBecause of delays and cost overruns, project were denied.

228

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Planetary (in Quarantine thousands

3-56. Funding of dollars) History

Year 1968

Request ---

Programmed 1678

Table Total Sounding (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 aAs of the 1964-1968, FY 1964 budget and Request ...... 10000 8000 9000 19 157 estimate, sounding soundings Rockets thousands

3-57. Funding of dollars) Authorization Programmed 3556 10000 8000 9000 19 157 rockets (table as a separate 3-10) and program was --dropped. (table For FY 9681 12 330 --History a

see physics

astronomy

meteorological

soundings

3-32).

Table Sounding Rocket Advanced (in Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... ...... 1800 420 1658 Technical thousands

3-58. Development of dollars) Authorization Programmed 640 835 --...... 1685 .... 1387 Funding History

Table Sounding Rocket (in Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request ...... ...... 320 784 Advanced thousands

3-59. Research of dollars) Authorization Programmed 419 419 ...... 784 --Funding History

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

229

Table Total Sounding

3-60. Funding History

Rockets Flight Program (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 6200 b 8260 16 68_

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 aIncludes $1 380 blncludes $3 200 c Includes $2 254 dIncludes $3 768 000 000 000 000 for for for for

Authorization

Programmed 2916 a 8428 l0 524 c ---

--...... 16 688

launch vehicles. launch vehicles. launch vehicles. launch vehicles.

Table Solar Physics and Astronomy (in thousands

3-61. Soundings of dollars) Funding History

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963

Request ----1046 450 592

Programmed 108 323 491 -----

Table Energetic Particles

3-62. Funding History

and Magnetic Field Soundings (in thousands of dollars) Request ----460 350 412

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963

Programmed 367 687 631 -----

Table Ionosphere-Plasma and Ionospheric (in thousands

3-63. Physics Soundings of dollars) Funding History

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963

Request ----157 420 1050

Programmed 168 335 505 -----

230

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-64. Aeronomy Soundings Funding istory H (inthousandsdollars) of

Year 1960 1961 1962
1963

Request ----980
1329

Programmed 745 1077
-----

Table Galactic

3-65. History

Astronomy Soundings Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request ----500 911

Year 1960 1961 1962 1963

Programmed 720 719 -----

Table

3-66. History

Meteorite-Micrometeorite Soundings Funding (in thousands of dollars) Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 Request --...... 94 115

Programmed 83 -----

Table Miscellaneous Sounding Rocket (in thousands

3-67. Flight Projects of dollars) Funding History

Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 alt was estimated

Request ...... 226 b ...... 1946 d

Programmed a 365c --for atmospheric

in the FY 1961 budget estimate that $115 000 would be programmed

soundings for FY 1960; by the FY 1962 estimate this item had been dropped. bFor atmospheric soundings. ¢Includes $146 000 for a meterology probe, $49 000 for magnetodynamics, chemistry studies. dlncludes $40 000 for a meteorology chemistry, and $115 000 for astrophysics probe, $405 000 for magnetodynamics, studies.

and $170 000 for space $1 386 000 for space

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

231

Table 3-68. Sounding Rocket Support-Analysis History Funding _ (inthousands ofdollars) Year Request Programmed 1959 --894 1960 --5536 1961 1111 4483 1962 5466 --1963 6565 --aFunded flight roject from p monies. Table -69. 3 OSSA Launch Vehicle Development a (inthousands ofdollars) Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967
aFor more information

Request ...... ...... 130 00 7 128 00 2 63600 33 700
on launch vehicles, see chapter

Authorization 127 00 7 128 00 2 63600
33 700 1.

Programmed 85 661 10529 7 11100 9 96500 57 790
31 200

Table OSSA Launch Vehicle (in thousands Year t964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Request ...... ...... 194 500 152000 165 100

3-70. Funding History _ of dollars) Authorization Programmed 129 154 178 117 124 1-21). in October 986 487 700 650 550

Procurement

178 700 142 750 157 700b

aFor more information on launch vehicle procurement, see chapter 1, table bTotal reduced to $145 000 000 by the appropriations conference committee

1967.

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

DESCRIPTION-PHYSICS

AND

ASTRONOMY

PROGRAM

The goals of the physics and astronomy program during NASA's first 10 years were broad: "to increase our knowledge of the environment of the earth and interplanetary space; to study the sun and to determine its influence in interplanetary space and on the environment of the earth; to expand our knowledge of the structure and history of the universe through astronomical observations; and to extend our knowledge of astrophysical laws through the conduct of experiments in space. ''7 In accomplishing these goals, the program embraced several scientific disciplines-astronomy and geodesy, solar physics, particles and fields, ionospheric physics, and radio physics among others. Generally, NASA physics and astronomy projects were designed to obtain new information about the stars, interplanetary space, and the sun that was not obtainable with ground-based instruments. Supplemented by balloons and aircraft-borne experiments, the physics and astronomy flight projects included sounding rockets, small scientific satellites (Explorers), Pioneer probes, and geophysical, astronomical, and solar orbiting observatories (platforms). NASA's scientific investigations revealed a space environment full of surprises. In 1958, the model of earth's environment as generally envisioned had an atmosphere and an ionosphere limited to low altitudes with a dipole-like magnetic field in which the field lines presumably extended without limit into the vacuum of space. But scientists discovered a very active region above earth containing highly energetic particles controlled by earth's magnetic field. The solar wind, an ionized gas, was found to be blowing in interplanetary space, which reacts with earth's magnetic field limiting that field's extension in all directions. Observations of the sun gave researchers new information about ultraviolet rays and x-rays and their effect on earth's environment. By sending instruments above this planet's obscuring atmosphere, astronomers gathered new data on the sun, other stars and planets, and the interplanetary medium. Supporting research and technology funds also made possible theoretical work and laboratory developments not specifically related to a given flight project. Funds for data analysis ensured that scientific returns would be studied and the findings distributed to the scientific community. In an agency-wide reorganization in November 1961, a director for geophysics and astronomy programs was added to the space science directorate. John F. Clark was director until May 1961, when John E. Naugle took the post, which he held until May 1966 (the program was renamed physics and astronomy in June 1963). Jesse Mitchell saw the program through the remainder of the agency's first decade. Reporting to the director were chiefs of the various disciplines (e.g., astronomy and particles and fields) and as of June 1963 managers of flight programs (e.g., interplanetary and solar probes and solar observatories).

Explorer

The Explorer

program

was already

under

way when

NASA

was established

in

1958. Of the five launches attempted had returned valuable scientific data.

by the Army Ballistic Used for investigations

Missile Agency, three of the earth's environ-

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

233

ment and terrestrial-solar-interplanetary relationships and for astronomical observations, the Explorers were the smallest of NASA's scientific satellites. Launched primarily by Scout and Thor-Delta vehicles, 33 Explorer spacecraft successfully performed their missions from 1959 through 1968. The design of the spacecraft (ranging from inflatable spheres to windmillshaped satellites) and its instrumentation (ranging from a single radio beacon to a dozen complex scientific experiments) depended on the mission, and there were several different classes of missions: energetic particles Explorers (6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 26), atmospheric studies Explorers (9, 17, 19, 32), ionospheric studies Explorers (8, 20, 22, 27, 31), micrometeoroid Explorers (13, 16, 23), interplanetary monitoring platform Explorers (18, 21, 28, 33, 34, 45), air density-Injun Explorers (24, 25, 39, 40), radio astronomy Explorers (38), geodesy Explorers, part of the U.S. Geodetic Satellite Program (29, 36), gamma ray astronomy Explorers (11), and solar Explorers (30, 37) (see fig. 3-1). A single program manager oversaw both the Explorers and the sounding rocket program within the physics and astronomy office at NASA Headquarters. From mid-1963 until mid-1966, Marcel T. Aucremanne held this post, with John R. Holtz taking over in May 1966. The individual projects were managed at either Goddard Space Flight Center or Langley Research Center (see following tables for project managers and scientists), with the launches taking place at Wallops Island, the Eastern Test Range, or the Western Test Range. Many of the early Explorer spacecraft were designed and built in-house at Goddard or Langley, with some of the instruments and experiments coming from university or industry participants. Two Explorer missions were jointly managed by NASA and the Naval Research Laboratory (30, 37); the two Injun Explorers were built at the State University of Iowa (25, 40); and one Explorer mission was part of a joint NASA-Canadian Defense Research Board project (31). When contractors were hired to fabricate the spacecraft or their various components, the cognizant center oversaw the work. The Explorers were simpler, smaller, and less expensive than the orbiting observatories also used in the physics and astronomy program. As such, they often performed preliminary surveys and gathered basic data as precursors to the more sophisticated missions, sometimes opening new areas of scientific investigation in the process. Many discoveries in the fields of astronomy and physics were attributed to instruments carried by the efficient, economical Explorers. The following tables briefly describe each Explorer mission. For more information, especially on the instruments and experiments, consult Alfred Rosenthal and William R. Corliss, Encyclopedia of Satellites and Sounding Rockets, August 1959 to December 1969 (Beltsville, MD: GSFC (1970); Henry L. Richter, Jr., ed., Space Measurements Survey: Instruments and Spacecraft, October 1957-March 1965, NASA SP-3028 (Washington, 1966); and Corliss Scientific Satellites, NASA SP-133 (Washington, 1967) For the early history of Explorer and how it was related to the Vanguard program and the International Geophysical Year, see Constance M. Green and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A History, NASA SP-4202 (Washington, 1970).

234

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

235

Table Chronology Date 1954 American participants for of Explorer

3-71. and Event in the International Geophysical information Year during (IGY) the suggested acOperations

Development

using a satellite tivities. July 1, 1955 The Army Laboratory Sergeant July Aug. 28, 1955 U.S. The

obtaining

scientific

1957-1958

Ballistic Missile (JPL) proposed solid-fuel rockets (2d,

Agency a plan 3d,

(ABMA) and the Jet Propulsion for launching a small satellite with 4th stages) atop a Redstone as part on booster. IGY.

officially Department

announced of Defense in

plans

to launch Advisory an

a satellite Group satellite, over

of the

3, 1955

(DoD) choosing

Special selected the Army's

Capabilities the Naval proposal,

(Stewart

Committee),

IGY project

Research Laboratory's called Orbiter. 1956 Both Navy's (se also Nov. 1957 After the Army chapter delays with and being 1).

(NRL)

Vanguard

Navy based

continued on the Viking

to develop missile

their and

launch

vehicles,

the

booster

the Army's

on Redstone

its Vanguard

launch

vehicle,

NRL

transferred

one

of

its

satellite Explorer. of Iowa, months. Nov. 8, 1957

experiments to ABMA for use in their The experiment, sponsored by James was integrated into a fourth-stage

satellite project, Van Alien, State motor

now called University in three

Sergeant

by JPL

DoD officially directed launch a satellite for (Redstone Booster) 1, the first by the Army Explorer

the Army the IGY;

to proceed with their Explorer program to the modified Jupiter C launch vehicle Juno I. (13.6 kg, torpedo-shaped), was

would

be called U.S. a Juno

Jan.

31,

1958

Explorer launched

successful with

satellite I vehicle. orbit

March

5, 1958

A second tioned

failed

to achieve

when

the launch

vehicle

malfunc-

(ABMA). 3 was launched 4 was launched Explorer failed by Juno by Juno to achieve I (ABMA). I (ABMA). orbit because it collided with the booster

March July 26, Aug.

26,

1958

Explorer Explorer The fifth after

1958 1958

24,

separation. S-I, an energetic (ABMA). launched, launched. an energetic particles Explorer, failed when the launch vehicle the first NASA Explorer put into orbit. particles Explorer, failed when the launch vehicle

July

16, 1959

Explorer

malfunctioned Aug. Oct. March 7, 1959 13, 1959 1960 Explorer Explorer 6 was 7 was

23,

Explorer S-46, malfunctioned. Explorer Explorer Explorer tion after 8 was

Nov. Feb. Feb.

3, 1960 16, 1961 24, 1961

launched.

9 was launched. S-45, an ionospheric from the beacon booster. Explorer, failed because of malfunc-

separation

Feb. April May

25, 27, 24,

1961 1961 1961

Explorer Explorer

10 was launched. 11 was launched. an ionospheric beacon satellite, failed when the launch vehi-

Explorer S-45A, cle malfunctioned. Explorer

Aug.

16,

1961

12 was launched.

236

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 13 was launched. 14 was launched. 15 was launched Belt) 16 was launched. 17 was launched. 18 was launched 19 was launched. of Explorer Development

3-71. and Operations Event (Continued)

Aug. Oct. Oct.

25, 2, 27,

1961 1962 1962

Explorer Explorer Explorer Radiation

as part

of Project

SERB

(Study

ofthe

Enhanced

Dec. April Nov. Dec. March

16,

1962

Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer

3, 1963 26, 19, 1963 1963

(first

interplanetary

monitoring

platform).

19, 1964

Explorer S-66, an ionospheric launch vehicle malfunctioned. Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer NASA). 20 was launched. 21 was launched. 22 was launched. 23 was launched. 24 and This 25 were launched

measurements

Explorer,

failed

when

the

Aug. Oct. Oct. Nov. Nov.

25, 4,

1964 1964

9, 1964 6, 21, 1964 1964

together

(first

successful of Iowa

dual project.

launch

by

was a joint

NASA-State

University

Dec. April May Nov. Nov. Nov.

21, 29, 29, 6, 19, 29,

1964 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965

Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Erplorer

26 was launched. 27 was launched. 28 was launched. 29 was launched 30 was launched 31 was launched Defense (part (joint with of the U.S. Geodetic project). satellite project). in a dual launch (joint Satellite Program).

NASA-NRL a Canadian Board

NASA-Canadian May July May July Jan. March July Aug. 25, 1966 Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer

Research

32 was launched. 33 was launched. 34 was launched. 35 was launched. 36 was launched 37 was launched 38 was launched. 40 were launched logether (joint NASA-State University of (part (joint of the U.S. Geodetic project). Satellite Program).

1, 1966 24, 1967

19, 1967 11, 1968 5, 1968 4, 1968 8, 1968

NASA-NRL

Explorer 39 and Iowa project).

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-72.
Explorer Date Launch Weight Shape Dimensions (m): of launch vehicle: (kg): Aug. 7, 1959 (ETR) 6 (S-2) Characteristics

237

(location): Thor-Able 64.4 Irregular but symmetrical .66 extended, 2.18 spheroid with 4 solar cell paddles extended on arms from

waste of spacecraft spheroid diameter, diameter height, paddles, w/paddles .74 .5 x batteries .56 plus 1961

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA

NiCd

solar

cells

Cognizant center:

Prior to July GSFC

Project manager, scientists: Contractor: Class of Explorer :

J. C. Lindsay

Space Technology Energetic particles Measure data tion; Van Allen

Laboratories, belt and

Inc. cosmic

(STL), radiation;

spacecraft map earth's magetic on radio STL, the field; wave acquire propogaof

Objectives:

on micrometeorites; determine provide crude television image of 12 experiments Cambridge from Research the

effect of ionosphere of cloud cover. University of Chicago, and Stanford first

Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Total

University

Minnesota,

Laboratories,

University. cloud cover pic-

All experiments performed satisfactorily; ture; first detailed study of the Van Allen Also designated Able 3.

returned belts.

televised

238

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: Project NASA Oct. 13, 1959 (ETR) Juno II 41.5 Truncated cones joined at bases .76 × .76 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC 7 (S-la)

3-73. Characteristics

manager: H. E. La Gow Army Ballistic Missile Agency, spacecraft and launch vehicle Energetic particles Measure sun's radiation, intensity of x-rays, and ultraviolet rays, heavy cosmic rays, intensity of charged particles; study ionospheric composition, micrometeorite impacts, solar cell erosion; measure temperatures. Thermal radiation balance, University of Wisconsin Solar x-ray, NRL et al. Cosmic ray ion chamber, Martin Co. et al. Geiger counters, State University of Iowa et al. Ground-based observations, University of Iowa et al. Micrometeoroid penetration sensor, GSFC Provided significant geophysical information on radiation and magnetic storms. Spacecraft designed, fabricated, and tested under the direction of Ernst Stuhlinger and Joseph Boehm, ABMA (later MSFC).

Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives:

Experiments, responsible institution:

Results: Remarks:

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager, scientist: Class of Explorer Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks: Nov. 3, 1960 (ETR) Juno II 40.8 2 truncated cones joined .76 × .76 Hg batteries In orbit GSFC R. E. Bourdeau : Ionospheric studies the 8 (S-30)

3-74. Characteristics

at bases

Take measurements in micrometeorite impacts. RF impedance probe, meter, micrometeoroid periments Micrometeoroid mosphere. Spacecraft influx

ionosphere;

study

ionospheric

properties

and

ion traps, Langmuir probe, detector, and micrometeoroid rate measured;

rotating shutter electric field microphones, all GSFC exdiscovered (MSFC). in upper at-

layers of helium

was built at the Marshall

Space Flight Center

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

239

Table Explorer Date of launch Feb. Scout 36.3 Sphere Diameter, Batteries Before LaRC-GSFC William July (inflated 3.66 plus solar 1961 joint project LaRc cells with nitrogen) 16, 1961 (Wallops) 9 (S-56a)

3-75. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape Dimensions(m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Cognizant center:

Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer

J. O'Sullivan,

G. T. Schjeldahl : Atmospheric studies by measuring (passive) vehicle and satellite achieved useful for orbit, data were but the radio obtained. information on the beacon failair drag on an inflatable sphere; test Determine density of atmosphere launch for the Scout vehicle. Radio Balloon beacon and only, fourth was

Objectives: Experiments: Results: Remarks:

no instrumentation stage of launch optically

ed; the satellite See also Echo spacecraft's

tracked

communications

background

design.

Table Explorer Date of launch March 25, 1961 (ETR) 10 (P-14)

3-76. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg):

Thor-Delta 35.4 Sphere Sphere Drum atop a supporting .33 .49 1.32 tube joined to a drum

Shape: Dimensions

diameter, diameter,

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA manager,

Total height, Batteries June 1968 GSFC

Cognizant center: Project scientist:

James

P. Heppner

Contractors:

Varian Explorer:

Associates,

rubidium Co., called

vapor fluxgate

magnetometer magnetometers Probe) magnetic thrown fields outward and by

Schonstedt Class of Energetic Objectives:

Engineering particles (also

Magnetometer-Plasma

Gather information on earth's on the way these fields interact the sun. Rubidium Fluxgate Plasma Data solar vapor probe, transmitted wind and magnetometer,

magnetic field and interplanetary with electrically charged particles GSFC

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

magnetometers, MIT for existence 52

GSFC

hours; of solar

demonstrated proton streams.

existence

of geomagnetic

cavity

in

240

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): April 27, 1961 (ETR) Juno II 11 (S-15)

3-77. Characteristics

Dimensions

(m):

Power

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager:

43.1, including 5.8-kg 4th-stage rocket 3-sectional octagonal box with .43-meter plate on top and instrument tached to 1.12-meter-long 4th-stage Sergeant rocket Overall length, 2.26 Box, .3 x .6 × .43 Instrument column, .52 x .15 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC-MSFC joint project

column

at-

John Coogan, GSFC Bill Greever, MSFC J. E. Kupperian, Jr., GSFC MIT, gamma ray telescope Raymond Engineering Laboratory, Gamma ray astronomy Detect and map extraterrestrial ma ray albedo of atmosphere. Gamma ray telescope, MIT

Project scientist: Contractors: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

tape recorder gamma rays; measure high-energy gam-

high-energy

Detected first gamma

rays from space.

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA Aug. 15, 1961 (ETR) 12 (S-3)

3-78. Characteristics

Thor-Delta 37.6 Octagonal platform atop a truncated .43 x .7 x .7 AgCd battieres plus solar cells Sept. 1963 GSFC cone with 4 solar panels extending from sides

Paul Butler Project manager: F. B. McDonald Project scientist: Contractor: Raymond Engineering Laboratory,

Inc., spacecraft

structure

Class of Explorer : Energetic particles Objectives: Study physics of fields and energetic particles by observing solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field, and particle population of interplanetary space, and trapped radiation regions. Experiments Proton analyzer, ARC responsible Fluxgate magnetometer, University of New Hampshire institution: Cosmic ray instruments, State University of Iowa Geiger and scintillation counters, GSFC Ion-electron detectors, GSFC Results: Normal operation; 2568 hours of data received and significant geophysical radiation and magnetic fields provided. data on

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

241

Table Explorer Date of launch Aug. Scout 83.9, including with 22.7-kg spent 25, 1961 (Wallops) 13 (S-55a)

3-79. Characteristics

(location): Launch Weight vehicle: (kg):

motor in nose

case

Shape Dimensions Power source: Date of reentry:

Cylindrical, .61 x 1.9 NiCd batteries

instruments solar cells

plus

Cognizant center: Project Class of Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: manager: Explorer :

Aug. 28, LaRC Charles

1961 T. D'Aiutolo

Micrometeoroid Gather information study dust particles; Cadmium Wire grid Piezoelectric Pressurized Foil-type sulphide detector, detector, cell detectors, detectors, than LeRC planned; no significant data returned. on micrometeoroids test Scout vehicle. cell detector, LeRC LaRC GSFC GSFC 385-965 kilometers above earth;

Results:

Orbit

lower

Table Explorer Date of launch Oct. 2, 1962 Thor-Delta 40.4 (ETR) 14 (S-3a)

3-80. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (In): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA manager: (kg):

Octagonal platform .43 x .7 x .7 AgCd batteries plus

atop solar

a truncated ceils

cone

with

4 solar

panels

Cognizant center: Project

July 1, 1966 GSFC Paul F. G. Marcotte

Project scientists: Contractor: Class of Explorer

B. McDonald Engineering particles 12"s mission; gather information on radiation, solar parLaboratory, Inc., spacecraft structure

Raymond : Energetic

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Continuation of Explorer ticles, and the solar wind. Proton Fluxgate Trapped Various Studied analyzer, ARC

magnetometer, particle radiation earth's radiation

University study, GSFC belt

of New State

Hampshire of Iowa

University

detectors, radiation

as planned.

242

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m) Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Oct. 27, 1962 (ETR) Thor-Delta 45.4 15 (S-3b)

3-81. Characteristics

Octagonal platform atop a truncated .43 x .7 x .7 AgCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC John W. Townsend, W. Hess Jr.

cone with 4 solar panels

Results: Remarks:

Raymond Engineering Laboratory, Inc., spacecraft structure : Energetic particles Make detailed measurements of artificial radiation belt created by Starfish highaltitude nuclear test of July 9, 1962; determine effects of radiation on solar cells. Electron energy distribution, GSFC, Bell Telephone Laboratories (BTL) Electron angular distribution, BTL Omnidirectional electron-proton detector, University of California, San Diego Directional electron-proton detector, UCSD Ion-electron detector, GSFC Fluxgate magnetometer, University of New Hampshire Solar cell damage, BTL Good data on artificial radiation bek obtained although spacecraft's despin system failed to operate. Fabricated from Explorer 14 spare parts; part of Project SERB (Study of Enhanced Radiation Belt).

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA 16 (S-55b)

3-82. Characteristics

Dec. 16, 1962 (Wallops) Scout 100.7 Cylindrical 1.93 x .58 NiCd batteries In orbit LaRC

plus solar cells

Project manager: Class of Explorer Objectives:

Earl Hastings : Micrometeoroid Determine micrometeoroid puncture hazards to spacecraft skin samples; gather information on dust particles; compare performance of protected and unprotected solar cells. Foil gauge detectors, LeRC Cadmium sulphide cells, GSFC Impact detectors, LaRC Wire grids, GSFC All experiments functioned as planned; 16 micrometeoroid registered during the first 29 days of flight.

Experiments responsible institution: Results:

penetrations

were

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

243

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project managers: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: April 2, 1963 (ETR) Thor-Delta 185.5 Spherical Diameter, .89 AgZn batteries Nov. 24, 1966 GSFC N. W. Spencer, J. E. Cooley Budd Co., spacecraft structure 17 (S-6)

3-83. Characteristics

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Atmospheric studies (also called Aeronomy Satellite) Determine diurnal and spatial variations of electron density and temperature; mine the neutral parameters-density, composition, pressure, temperature-in regions between 250 and 900 km. Mass spectrometers, GSFC Pressure gauges, GSFC Langmuir probes, GSFC Confirmed that earth 250-900 km. is surrounded by a belt of neutral

deterthe

helium at an altitude

of

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Class of Explorer Objectives: Nov. 26, 1963 (ETR) Thor-Delta 62.6 18 (IMP-A)

3-84. Characteristics

Octagonal platform with solar panels .3 x .71 x .71 NiCd batteries plus solar cells Dec. 30, 1965 GSFC Paul Butler F. B. McDonald : Interplanetary monitoring platform Study magnetic fields, solar wind, and cosmic rays beyond the influence of earth's magnetic field; obtain information about space radiation intensities and distribution. Ion and electron probes, Fluxgate magnetometers, GSFC GSFC of Chicago University of California

Experiments, responsible institution:

Cosmic ray telescope, University Geiger counter and ion chamber,

Plasma probe, MIT Scintillator and geiger telescopes, GSFC Radium vapor magnetometer, GSFC Plasma analyzer, ARC Results: First accurate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field and shock front.

244

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-85.
Explorer 19 (AD-A) Characteristics

Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Dec. 20, 1963 (WTR) Scout 43.1 Spherical (inflatable) Diameter, 3.66 NiCd batteries plus solar ceils May 10, 1981 LaRC Claude W. Coffee, Jr. William J. O'Sullivan G. T. Schjeldahl studies (also called Atmospheric Density Satellite) : Atmospheric Determine air density of upper atmosphere; study heating effects in upper mosphere due to influx of energetic particles and ultraviolet radiation. Radio beacon only, no instrumentation (passive)

at-

Achieved desired orbit but lost ability to transmit; 20; some data obtained through See also Echo communications spacecraft's design.

first sighted in Australia information

on Dec. on the

optical tracking. satellite for background

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions: Power source: Aug. 25, 1964 (ETR)
Scout

3-86. Characteristics

20 (S-48)

44.5 Conical

main body with. l-meter

ball-shaped

ion mass spectrometer

and .25-meter

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

tapered boom Main body, .83 x .66 Overall length, 1.18 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC John J. Jackson Airborne Instruments

Lab., Cutler-Hammer,

Inc., spacecraft

Ionospheric studies Measure irregularities in the topside of earth's ionosphere. Fixed frequency sounder, Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, of Standards Ion probe, University College, London Galactic radio noise receiver, GSFC Helped to map the topside of the ionosphere.

National

Bureau

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

245

Table Explorer Date of launch Oct. 4, 1964 (ETR) 21 (IMP-B)

3-87. Characteristics

(location): Launch Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project Project Class manager: scientist: of Explorer: P. Butler F. B. McDonald Interplanetary Study magnetic magnetic field; tion Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Same regarding as for monitoring platform rays beyond with solar distribution. the influence plasma; obtain of earth's informa(m): vehicle: (kg): Thor-Delta 61.7 Octagonal .3 x .71 Solar source: of reentry: NASA AgCd platform × .71 .66 x with .46 solar cells 4 solar panels

panels, batteries 1966

plus

Cognizant

Jan. 30, GSFC

Objectives:

fields, solar wind, and cosmic study magnetic field interactions space radiation 18 (table intensities 3-84). and

Explorer

Useful

data

obtained,

but

spacecraft

failed

to achieve

required

orbit.

Table Explorer Date of launch Oct. Scout 52.2 Octagonal with Shell diameter, Shell Solar Power Date source: of reentry: NASA manager: NiCd GSFC F. T. Martin R. E. Bourdeau Applied Conduct Ionospheric Electron Laser More than tracking, Physics Laboratory, (also called height, panels, batteries .3 .25 × plus 1.68 solar cells 4 solar .46 panels 9, 1964 (WTR) 22 (BE-B)

3-88. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape Dimensions (m): (kg):

extending

from

sides

In orbit

Cognizant center: Project

Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer:

Johns

Hopkins, research

spacecraft for a minimum et al. of 1 year.

Ionospheric

studies ionospheric beacon, density,

Beacon-Explorer) of Illinois,

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

and geodetic University GSFC

GSFC observing stations participated; successful.

80 international

246

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Nov. 6, 1964 (Wallops) Scout 133.8 (including spent 4th-stage Cylindrical 2.34 x .61 NiCd batteries plus solar cells June 29, 1983 LaRC Earl Hastings, Jr. Micrometeoroid 23 (S-55c)

3-89. Characteristics

motor)

Measure micrometeoroid penetration Pressurized cells, LaRC Impact detectors, LaRC Capacitor detectors, LaRC Cadmium sulphide cells, GSFC Obtained data on penetratiom as planned.

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions Power (m):

3-90. B) Characteristics

24 and 25 (AD-Injun

Nov. 21, 1964 (WTR) Scout Explorer 24, 8.6 Explorer 25, 40.8 Explorer 24, spherical (inflatable) Explorer 25, roughly spherical with 40 flat surfaces Explorer 24, diameter, 3.66 Explorer 25, diameter, .61 NiCd batteries plus solar cells Explorer 24, Oct. 18, 1968 Explorer 25, in orbit LaRC Claude W. Coffee, Gerald M. Keating Explorer 24, G. T. Explorer 25, State Air density-lnjun Provide information mosphere. Explorer 24, radio Jr. Schjeldahl University of Iowa on complex beacon radiation-air density relationships (passive). in the upper at-

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA

Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

only, no instrumentation

Explorer 25, 16 radiation sensors, State University of Iowa First successful dual launch; all instruments performed as planned. Joint NASA-State University of Iowa project; see also Echo communications satellite for background information on Explorer 24's design.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table -91. 3
Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): Dec. 21, 1964 (ETR) Thor-Delta 45.8 Octagonal platform atop a trucated cone with 4 solar panels .86-meter tube mounted on top to support magnetometer .43 x .7 x .7 AgCd batteries In orbit GSFC plus solar cells extending 26 (EPE-D) Characteristics

247

from sides;

Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives:

Gerald W. Longanecker Leo R. Davis Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc., electrical integration Energetic particles Determine how high-energy particles are injected, trapped, and lost in the Van Allen Belt; determine penetration depth of high-energy solar protons into the geomagnetic field. Electron-proton angular distribution and energy spectra, BTL, GSFC Electron-proton directional-omnidirectional detector, University of California, San Diego Magnetic field measurements, University of New Hampshire Ion-electron detector, GSFC Solar cell damage, BTL Experiments performed as planned, continuing the work of earlier satellites in the energetic particles series.

Experiments, responsible institution:

Results:

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: 27 (BE-C)

3-92. Characteristics

April 29, 1965 (Wallops) Scout 60.8 Octagonal .46 x .3 with 4 solar panels extending from sides

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientists: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives:

Solar panels, .25 x 1.68 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC Frank T. Martin Robert E. Bourdeau, R. Newton Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins, spacecraft Ionospheric studies (also called Beacon-Explorer) Study for a minimum of 1 year variations of electron density and orbital perturbations in order to deduce the size and shape of earth and the nature of its gravitational field. Same as for Explorer 22 (table 3-88).

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Experiments

functioned

as planned.

248

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-93.
Explorer 28 (IMP-C) Characteristics

Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

May 29, 1965 (ETR) Thor-Delta 59 Octagonal with 4 solar panels .71 x .71 x .2 Solar panels, .7 x .51 NiCd batteries plus solar cells July 4, 1968 GSFC Paul Bulter Frank B. McDonald Electro-Mechanical Research,

Inc., electrical

integration space and quiescent properties of in-

Interplanetary monitoring platform Study radiation environment of cislunar terplanetary magnetic Same as for Explorer

field; develop solar flare prediction 18 (table 3-84).

capability

for Apollo.

Placed in a highly magnetosphere.

eccentric

orbit,

the

spacecraft

returned

data

on

earth's

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks: Nov. 6, 1965 (ETR) Thrust-augmented 174.6 Thor-Delta

3-94. Characteristics

29 (GEOS-A)

(TAD) pyramid with 18-meter extendable boom

Octahedron topped by a truncated 1.22 x .81 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC

C. H. Looney Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins, spacecraft Geodesy Compare tracking system accuracies; study gravitational field; improve geodetic datum accuracies. Flashing-light beacon, corner cube quartz reflector, radio transmitters for doppler shift detector, radio range transponder, range and range-rate transponder, all GSFC experiments All systems functioned with good data returned. Also called GEOS 1; part of the U.S. Geodetic Satellite Program, with coordinated tracking accomplished by NASA, DoD, and the Department of Commerce.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

249

Table Explorer Date of launch Nov. Scout 56.7 2 hemispheres separated 19, 1965 (Wallops) 30 (SE-A)

3-95. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date center: Project Project Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks: manager: scientist: of reentry: NASA (kg):

by a .089-meter .61

equatorial

band

Diameter of each hemisphere, NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit NASA Marcel R. W. NRL Solar Monitor X-ray X-ray ion solar geiger x-rays counters, return of during photometer, NKL Hq. T. Aucremanne Kreplin, Naval Research

Cognizant

Laboratory

the International NRL NRL on solar x-rays and

Quiet

Sun

Year.

chamber

Lyman-alpha Successful Joint

ion chamber, data Research

ultraviolet

rays.

NASA-Naval

Laboratory

Project.

Table Explorer Date of launch Nov. 29, 1965 B 146.5-kg 31, 31, 2, roughly .76 x Alouette) with spherical .64; overall octagonal (WTR) 31 (DME-A)

3-96. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape Dimensions Power Date source: of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: (m): (kg):

Thor-Agena 98.9 (plus Explorer Alouette Explorer

a spherical height, .86

ion 1.17

mass

spectrometer

Alouette 2, diameter, Solar cells In orbit GSFC Evart D. Nelson

1.07;

height,

Cognizant center: Project Project Contractor:

J. E. Jackson Explorer Ionospheric Sound niques. Explorer Electron Spherical Magnetic Energetic the 31, Applied studies topside 31, Physics (also called Laboratory, Direct using Johns topside Hopkins, sounder spacecraft and measurement tech-

Class of Explorer: Objectives:

Measurements

Satellite)

of the ionosphere ion and electron GSFC College,

Experiments, responsible institution:

Thermal probe,

probes,

GSFC

Electrostatic

probe,

University

London University NRL still in orbit and available Board Studies); project; see also dual mission table 3-126. for use in 1970. called ISIS-X College

ion mass ion mass current

spectrometer, spectrometer, monitor, with GSFC

Results: Remarks:

Functioned Joint (International

as planned, Satellite

the Alouette Research

NASA-Canadian

Defense

for Ionospheric

250

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Explorer
Date of launch May 25, 1966 (ETR)

Table 3-97. 32 (AE-B) Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: of Explorer: (kg):

Thor-Delta 220 Spherical Diameter,

.89 plus solar cells

AgZn batteries In orbit GSFC

Cognizant center: Project Project Class

N. W. Spencer L. H. Brace Atmospheric studies Study structure and Redhead GSFC Experiments due to a long ion gauges, performed second-stage experiments. well, but burn. spacecraft achieved a higher apogee than planned physics ion of upper gauges, atmosphere (220-1050 probes, ion km). mass spectrometer, all

Objectives: Experiments: Results:

electrostatic

Table Explorer Date of launch July 1, 1966 (ETR) Improved tube with 33 (IMP-D)

3-98. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thrust-augmented 93.4 2-piece axial-thrust

Thor-Delta a Delta

(TAID) attach-flange on one deck end and a retromotor cell pad-

flange on the other connected to an octagonal dles and 2 booms for magnetometers Dimensions Power Date (m): Width Height, source: of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: of Explorer: with 1.12 solar cells paddles extended, 2.78

equipment

with

4 solar

Battery plus In orbit GSFC P. G. N. F. Marcotte Ness

Cognizant center: Project Project Class

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Interplanetary monitoring platform (anchored) Anchor satellite in orbit about moon; measure magnetic Fluxgate Thermal Ion Tubes fields, ion plus and cosmic GSFC junction, State lunar for University orbit, the return but dust; GSFC, explore ARC

solar

plasma

flux,

energetic gravity

particles, field.

variations

of moon's

magnetometers, probe, UCLA p-on-n

chamber,

of the

Iowa highly eccentric plasma, earth orbit into par-

Results:

Faraday-cup Spacecraft which ticles,

probe, MIT failed to achieve allowed fields.

it was injected and magetic

of data

on solar

energetic

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Table Explorer Date of launch May 24, 1967 (WTR) Improved with solar Thor-Delta (TAID) and 2 booms for magnetometers 34 (IMP-F) 3-99. Characteristics

251

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: of Explorer: (kg):

Thrust-augmented 73.9 Octagonal Diameter, platform .71 plus

4 solar ceils

cell paddles

AgCd battery May 3, 1969 GSFC Paul Frank Butler

Cognizant center: Project Project Class Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

B. McDonald monitoring and galactic platform cosmic and from radiation, interplanetary Bell Telephone solar plasma, field. Southwest University period of Center Iowa, for and solar State class and energetic particles magnetic

Interplanetary Study within Total solar of

the magnetosphere 11 experiments Studies, GSFC,

Laboratories,

Advanced TRW. Returned flares.

University of data;

of Maryland, during

170 000 hours

launched

three

of bright

Table Explorer Date of launch July 19, 1967 (ETR) Improved panels cells 35 (IMP-E)

3-100. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: (kg):

Thrust-augmented 104.3

Thor-Delta

Octagonal with 4 solar .71 × .71 x .86 AgCd battery In lunar orbit GSFC Paul G. Marcotte F. Ness Div., plus solar

Project scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives:

Norman Aerospace

Westinghouse monitoring

Electric platform

Corp., measure

integration solar plasma flux, energetic par-

Interplanetary Anchor satellite ticles, magnetic Magnetometers, Thermal Ion ion

(anchored)

in orbit around moon; fields, and cosmic dust. GSFC, ARC GSFC tubes, junction, Temple on July UCLA State

Experiments, responsible institution:

detector, and and MIT lunar orbit

chambers tubes cup, into

geiger p-on-n detector,

Geiger Faraday Results: Inserted

University

of

Iowa

Micrometeoroid

University 22; no detectable lunar magnetic field discovered.

252

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA Jan. 11, 1968 (WTR) Thrust-augmented 2O8.7 Improved

3-101. Characteristics

36 (GEOS-B)

Thor-Delta pyramid with a 9-meter extendable boom

Octahedron topped by a truncated 1.22 x 1.22 x .81 NiCd batteries In orbit NASA Hq. plus solar ceils

Project manager: Program scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

J. D. Rosenberg Nancy Roman Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins, Geodesy Compare tracking system accuracies; study

spacecraft earth's gravitational field; improve

geodetic datum accuracies. Optical beacon, radio doppler, range transponder, range and range-rate transponder, C-band transponder, and laser corner reflector, all GSFC experiments All experiments returned data as planned. Also called GEOS 2; part of the U.S. Geodetic

Satellite

Program.

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA

3-102. Characteristics

37 (SE-B)

March 5, 1968 (Wallops) Scout 88.5 12-sided ylinder c .76 × .69 NiCd batteries plussolarceils In orbit NASA Hq. J. Holtz H. Glaser, NASA Hq.; R. W. Kreplin, Naval Research Laboratory NRL Solar Monitor the sun's x-ray emissions. Scintillation counter, x-ray photometer, geiger counters, and photometers, all NRL experiments Experiments returned data as planned.

Project manager: Program scientist: Contractors: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

ultraviolet

Joint NASA-NRL

project.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Program scientists: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: July 4, 1968 (WTR) Thrust-augmented Improved Thor-Delta 275.3 (including 79.4-kg apogee kick motor) Cylindrical with 4 solar paddies and 4 228-meter .91 × .79 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC plus solar ceils 3-103. Characteristics

253

38 (RAE-A)

antennas

John T. Shea Robert G. Stone Space and Electronics assemblies Radio astronomy Div., Fairchild Hiller Corp., spacecraft structure and antenna

Monitor low-frequency cosmic radio noise using large deployable antennas; monitor radio noise emitted by sun, Jupiter, and Earth. Nine-step receivers, burst receivers, electron trap, impedance probe, and capacitance probe, all GSFC experiments and damper boom on Oct. radio signal from Jupiter. 8; deleted sharply

Successfully deployed antennas beamed sporadic low-frequency

Table Explorer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power (m): (kg):

3-104. E) Characteristics

39 and 40 (AD-Injun

Aug. 8, 1968 (WTR) Scout Explorer 39, 9.4 Explorer 40, 71.2 Explorer 39, spherical (inflatable) Explorer 40, 6-sided cylinder Explorer 39, diameter, 3.66 Explorer 40, .74 x .76 NiCd batteries plus solar cells Explorer 39, June 22, 1981 Explorer 40, in orbit LaRC Claude W. Coffee, Jr. William A. Whelpley, State University of Iowa Explorer 39, G. T. Schjeldahl Explorer 40, State University of Iowa Air density-Injun Study complex radiation-air density relationships in upper atmosphere in polar regions. Explorer 39, radio beacon only, no instrumentation (passive) Explorer 40, particle differential energy analyzer, solid-state detector, VLF receiver, and spherical particle analyzers, all State University of Iowa experiments Dual launch; studied interaction solar maximum. of solar radiation with the atmosphere during the

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA

Project manager: Program scientist: Contractor: Class of Explorer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Joint NASA-State University of Iowa project; see also Echo satellite for background information of Explorer 39's design.

communications

254

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA BOOK

Orbiting

Solar Observatories position of the sun in our solar system and its profound effect on has made it the subject of extensive examinations by space agen-

The dominant earth's atmosphere

cy scientists. To study the sun, NASA planned an earth-orbiting platform-smaller and less sophisticated than the proposed Orbiting Astronomical Observatories (see elsewhere in this chapter) - equipped with instruments to measure solar radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, and dust particles. 8 Called a "streetcar" satellite because it could carry interchangeable scientific instruments aboard as passengers, the Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO) consisted of two main sections. The lower wheel-like structure was composed of nine wedgeshaped compartments, five of which housed scientific apparatus. Three spheres on extended arms held pressurized nitrogen for stabilization. The top part of the spacecraft was a stable fan-shaped array to which silicon solar cells were attached. Experiments that required a fixed orientation with respect to the sun could be housed in this section. In 1962, 1965, and 1967, four OSOs were orbited successfully by Thor-Delta launchers, sending back a wealth of data about the sun and sun-earth relationships. Managed at NASA headquarters by the physics and astronomy directorate, OSO 1 was the responsibility of Irwin Cherrick, program manager. From June 1963 through 1965, Richard E. Halpern was OSO program manager, and Dixon L. Forsythe was solar observatories manager from January 1965 until mid-1967, when C. Dixon Ashworth assumed these duties (Ashworth managed both astronomical and solar observatory programs from December 1967). The Goddard Space Flight Center was responsible for the individual flight projects (see the following tables for project managers), with the launches taking place at the Eastern Test Range. Ball Brothers Research Corporation of Boulder, Colorado, designer of the spacecraft, was the prime contractor. The firm has worked with Goddard on the design even before the first OSO contract was awarded in October 1959. The experimenters involved with the program were from Goddard, NASA's Ames Research Center, the University of Rochester, the University of California at San Diego, Harvard, the Naval Research Laboratory, the University of Minnesota, the University of New Mexico, the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory, MIT, the University of Michigan, University College (London), and American Science and Engineering, Inc. The Orbiting Solar Observatories opened a new era in solar astronomy, but the spacecraft had its limitations. To carry larger instruments with high spectral and spatial resolution, NASA proposed in 1962 an advanced OSO to carry on observations beyond the eight planned OSOs. After Goddard specialists had completed negotiations with Republic Aviation Corp. for such an advanced spacecraft, the project was cancelled because of budget cuts in late 1965. However, each succeeding OSO flight offered investigators new opportunities to confirm their data and improve their instruments. In addition, OSO 4 was able to carry 90 kilograms more payload than OSO 1. For more information, consult GSFC, Orbiting Solar Observatory Satellite, OSO 1, the Project Summary, NASA SP-57 (Washington, 1965); [Alfred Rosenthal and William R. Corliss], Encyclopedia of Satellites and Sounding Rockets, August 1959 to December 1969 (Beltsville, MD: GSFC [1970]); and Corliss, Scientific Satellites, NASA SP-133 (Washington, 1967).

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

255

Table Chronology Date April 16, 1959 of Orbiting

1-105. Solar Observatory Event (OSO)

Measurements cluded among

of

the sun

from

a spacecraft space (OSO)

with

pointing flight

controls

were

in-

NASA's Solar Year

immediate

science

program

objectives. of Space VII-8)

Aug.

17, 1959

An Orbiting Sciences as one Center Ten

Observatory Program"

was included (pp. VII-15

in an "Office through

document

17, table

of the solar physics projects underway at the Goddard Space Flight (GSFC), with Ball Brothers Research Corp. being considered a potencontractor; the first launch was tentatively scheduled for December

tial prime 1960. By Sept. 30, 1959

Goddard and Ball Brothers had ing for an OSO to weigh about The ($250 first 000, 1 was contract initial with funding); Ball

completed part 136 kilograms. for OSO

of the

preliminary

engineer-

Oct.

1959

Brothers additional

instrumentation were awarded

was in 1961.

signed

contracts

March Aug.

7, 1962 15, 1962

OSO NASA

launched three

successfully. study to study contracts for the design of a new series of and

awarded

spacecraft Space Oct. 22, 1962 NASA for Feb. 6, 1964 The curred April 14, 1964 OSO-B's

with which

the sun (Ball Brothers, $100 discussions million 000 each). for

Republic

Aviation,

Technology and Republic

Laboratories, initiated ($1.9

a development contract). Congress because that of

studies

contract

an advanced General $799

OSO Accounting

estimated to

Office

reported costs

NASA

had

in-

000

in unnecessary launch

on OSO motor three

mismanagement. accidentally Some parts while were

third-stage

vehicle

(X-248) men

ignited killed.

mated to the spacecraft salvaged for OSO-B2. Feb. April 3, 1965 16, 1965 OSO NASA million). Aug. Aug. 25, 30, 1965 1965 OSO-C failed to achieve with 2 was launched signed

at Goddard;

were

successfully. with Ball Brothers to build two more OSOs ($9.6

a contract

orbit

due

to launch

vehicle three

malfunction. more OSOs, bringing

NASA negotiated the total to eight. Goddard million, and

Ball Brothers

to purchase

Oct.

1, 1965

Republic

completed

negotiations

for

an advanced

OSO

($58.4

estimated OSO

contract). development program was cancelled because of budgetary

Dec.

15, 1965

An advanced considerations. OSO OSO 3 was 4 was

March Oct. April

8, 1967 18, 1967 10, 1968

launched launched for proposals

successfully. successfully. for OSO-H was issued by Goddard.

A request

256

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table OSO Date of launch March 7, 1962 1 (OSO-A)

3-106. Characteristics

(ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thor-Delta 199.6 2 main lower tion sections, wheel-like arms Section, section, height, batteries diameter, diameter, .95 plus solar ceils 1.12 1.12; height, .23 each capable of movement; fan-shaped sail with solar cells atop a structure composed of 9 wedge-shaped compartments; 3 stabiliza-

Dimensions

(m):

Upper Lower Overall

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA manager,

NiCd

Cognizant center: Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Oct. 8, 1981 GSFC

John

C. Lindsay Research Corp., spacecraft radiation in space; and in integration ultraviolet, future x-ray, and gamma design. ray

Ball Brothers Measure regions; X-ray Gamma X-ray Dust solar

electromagnetic dust particles GSFC GSFC

investigate spectrometer, ray monitor,

improve

spacecraft

monitors, particle

GSFC experiment, GSFC stability, GSFC Ball Brothers ARC sensor

Emissivity Photoelectric Solar Solar Solar Earth

stability, error

radiation, ultraviolet gamma horizon

GSFC radiation,

ray radiation, GSFC sensor, GSFC University of Rochester of California at San Diego Diego in the x-ray upper 6, 1963. flux emitted by and

High-energy gamma ray, Neutron flux, University Results: Proton-electron Collected 2000 the sun and the intensity and data

flux, University of California at San hours of data; detected rapid fluctuations between radiation the spacecraft the temperature from ceased on

a correlation of ultraviolet for

of earth's August

atmosphere

the sun striking

the atmosphere.

Tracking

operations

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-107.
OSO Date of launch Feb. 3, 1965 (ETR) 2 (OSO-B2) Characteristics

257

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thor-Deka 247.2 2 main sections, lower wheel-like tion arms each capable of movement; fan-shaped structure composed of 9 wedge-shaped diameter, diameter, .95 plus solar cells 1.12 1.12; height, .23 sail with solar compartments; cells atop a 3 stabiliza-

Dimensions

(m):

Upper Lower Overall

section, section, height,

Power Date of

source: reentry: NASA manager:

Cognizant center: Project

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

L. T. Hogarth John Ball C. Lindsay Brothers Research of solar Corp., x-ray, spacecraft gamma and and ray, part integration and ultraviolet emissions, with added of the corona. studies

Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Continue capability Ultraviolet Solar White Zodiacal High-energy Low-energy Astronomical Emissivity

to scan entire spectrometer, and ultraviolet coronograph, University

solar disc Harvard imaging, NRL

x-ray light

NRL

light,

of Minnesota of New GSFC Mexico

gamma gamma stability, return after

ray, University ray, GSFC spectrometer, ARC

ultraviolet

Results:

Successful 29, 1965

of data

from

4100

orbits;

placed

in coasting

mode

on

November

exceeding

its operating

life expectancy

by 50 percent.

258

NASA HISTORICAL
Table 0S0-3 (OSO-E)

DATA

BOOK

3-108. Characteristics

Date

of launch

March

8, 1967

(ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thor-Delta 284.4 2 main lower tion Upper Lower Overall sections, wheel-like arms section, section, height, batteries diameter, diameter, .95 plus solar cells 1.12 1.12; height, .23 each capable of movement; fan-shaped sail with solar cells atop a structure composed of 9 wedge-shaped compartments; 3 stabiliza-

Dimensions

(m):

Power Date of

source: reentry: NASA manager:

NiCd

Cognizant center: Project

Apr. 4, 1982 GSFC

L. T. Hogarth W. E. Behring Ball Obtain X-ray Gamma Particle X-ray Solar Ultraviolet ray Brothers Research Corp., spectral GSFC Air MIT gamma University in the ray of ARC ultraviolet spectrum during solar data flares; collected data still transmitting scientific on command. telescope, Michigan University San Diego of Rochester of California, Force Cambridge Research Lab spacecraft data and integration high-resolution spectrometer, telescope, and spectrometer, detector telescope, x-ray

Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

University instrumentation,

detector, changes for

Technological Results: Observed significant

aeronomy;

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

259

Table OSO Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): Oct. 4 (OSO-B2)

3-109. Characteristics

18, 1967 (ETR)

Thor-Delta 276.7 2 main sections, lower wheel-like tion arms each capable of movement; fan-shaped structure composed of 9 wedge-shaped sail with solar cells atop a compartments; 3 stabiliza-

Dimensions

(m):

Power

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientists: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Upper section, diameter, 1.12 Lower section, diameter, 1.12; height, Overall height, .95 NiCd batteries plus solar cells June 15, 1982 GSFC L. T. Hogarth W. E. Behring

.23

Results:

Ball Brothers Research Corp., spacecraft and integration Obtain high-resolution spectral data Ultraviolet spectrometer-spectroheliograph, Harvard Solar x-ray spectroheliograph, ASE (?) Solar x-ray spectrometers, NRL; University College (London) Geocorona hydrogen Lyman alpha telescope, NRL X-ray monitor, NRL Earth proton-electron telescope, University of California Solar monochromator, University College (London) Returned the first photographs of the corona over the whole face of the solar disc; still provides data on command.

Orbiting

Astronomical

Observatories

Since Galileo began telescopic observations in the mid-17th century, observers have been monitoring and measuring atmospheric phenomena. With the advent of rocket-launched observatories, scientists were able to enhance the quality of their results by placing their instruments above earth's obscuring atmosphere. Experiments borne by balloons, sounding rockets, and high-flying aircraft gave investigators brief glimpses above the atmosphere, but what was needed was a large stable orbiting platform on which they could place their telescopes, photometers, and other measuring devices. The Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO) was one of the first long-range projects planned by NASA's Office of Space Sciences. Octagonal in shape with solar paddies, the aluminum OAO spacecraft was precisely stabilized and had a hollow cylindrical central tube in which experiments could be housed. The spacecraft was designed to point in any direction with an accuracy of 1 minute of arc during the observation of an individual star, with the accuracy being increased to 0.1 second of arc using sensors associated with the experiment instrumentation. Of the two OAOs launched during NASA's first 10 years, the first failed one and a half days into the mission because of a power system malfunction. The loss of this complex, expensive observatory without any data having been

260

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

returned led to an extensive review of the spacecraft's design and some systems modifications. OAO 2 was a highly successful spacecraft, providing an abundance of information on ultraviolet, gamma ray, x-ray, and infrared radiation, on the structure of stars, and on the distribution and density of the interstellar medium. A physics and astronomy project, the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory was managed at NASA Headquarters by Allan H. Sures from June 1963 until early 1966, when C. Dixon Ashworth took this position (Ashworth managed both OAO and OSO from December 1967). While personnel at Ames Research Center prepared the preliminary engineering specifications for OAO, technical management of the flight projects was assigned to the Goddard Space Flight Center in February 1960 (see the following tables for project managers). Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., Bethpage, New York, was the prime contractor for OAO. Major.subsystem contractors included General Electric, Radio Corporation of America, IBM, Westinghouse, and Kollsman Instrument Corp. The scientific investigators were recruited from Goddard, Lockheed, MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. For more information, see Alfred Rosenthal and William R. Corliss, Encyclopedia of Satellites and Sounding Rockets, August 1959 to December 1969 (Beltsville, MD: GSFC, 1970); Corliss, Scientific Satellites, NASA SP-133 (Washington, 1967); Robert S. Rudney, "A Preliminary History of the OAO Program (1966-1968)," NASA HHN-115, Sept. 1971, prepared for NASA Historical Off.; GSFC, The Observatory Generation of Satellites, Session H of a Special Astronautics Symposium Held at the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, December 27, 1962, during the 129th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Washington, 1963); and James E. Kupperian, Jr., and Robert R. Zeimer, "Satellite Astronomy," International Science and Technology (March 1962): 48-56.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

261

Table Chronology Date May 15, 1958 In a preliminary study, of Orbiting Astronomical

3-110. (OAO) Event the staff at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical suggested that astronomical being provided Development and Operations

Observatories

Laboratory (National the new civilian space observatories by 1960. Oct. March April 1958 1959 1959

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) agency consider stabilized and oriented goal with practical equipment

as a long-range

NASA established a feasibility of launching Stable frared, orbiting optical, platforms

working group large orbiting with and

under Nancy Roman to astronomical observatories. to make of observations sciences

study

the

telescopes x-ray regions as part

in the beyond long-range

in-

ultraviolet, were

the spectrum

earth's

obscuring atmosphere flight program. Dec. 1, 1959 An OAO ticipants attendees). Feb. 1960 Technical Center. Having posals were project to provide

proposed

of the space

briefing further

was

held at NASA

Hq.

for

potential and

industry planning

par(150

information

on requirements

management

of

OAO

was

assigned

to the

Goddard

Space

Flight

Apr. Sept.

19601960

circulated received under way for

OAO an at

design OAO

specifications, spacecraft. Princeton,

NASA the and

evaluated suitable' of of University

the for an

11 proOAO

Experiments the

Goddard,

University

Wisconsin, Michigan

Smithsonian Observatory. Oct. 10, 1960 NASA Corp. estimate). Oct. June 19601961 Grumman tric,

Astrophysical

Observatory,

announced plans to negotiate with Grumman for a contract for a 1360-kilogram OAO

Aircraft Engineering $23 million contract

negotiated

four

subsystem and control; and

development Radio Corp.

contracts:

General

Elec-

spacecraft

stabilization

of America, Electric Corp.,

television ground

scanner; operating April 1961

IBM, data equipment.

processing;

Westinghouse

Booz-Allen Company was awarded NASA reliability control program Kollsman the OAO Instrument telescope. Div.

a contract for OAO.

for

a study

of an independent

Jan.

1962

was awarded

a contract

for the primary

mirror

for

Aug.

7, 1962

GE announced simulated flight Three sounding photometers rocket

that the tests.

control

system

for

OAO

had

completed

its

first

Oct.

29,

1962

developed launched from

for

OA0

were Island.

flight-tested

on

an

Aerobee

Wallops

Feb.

24,

1964

General system.

Dynamics/Astronautics

was awarded

a contract

for the OAO

shroud

June

16,

1964

NASA more three).

ordered ($20

a third

OAO

from

Grumman for one

and

took

an option $50

for

two for

million,

estimated

contract

spacecraft;

million

April

9, 1965

Grumman was given the go-ahead to convert ready spacecraft to be called OAO-A2. Grumman was awarded a contract for

its prototype

OAO

into

a flight-

May

12,

1965

a fourth

OAO.

262

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Orbiting Astronomical

3-110. (OAO) Development and Operations

Observatories (Continued)

Date

Event

April

8, 1966

0.40

1 was launched

successfully power

and placed system failed

in circular when

orbit. the battery

After

1 ½ days

(22 orbits), the spacecraft No data were returned. April 21, 1966 A NASA review board

overheated.

was

established

to

examine

observatory-class

satellites. Dec. 23, 1966 NASA launch percent Jan.-June 1967 announced vehicle more for that future Atlas-Centaur OAO missions; would replace Atlas-Agena of D as the boosting 40

it would

be capable

payload. systems redesign to prepare 1967 to late 1968. Centaur rockets from it for flight; the

OAO-A2 underwent extensive launch date was slipped from NASA ordered two additional Astronautics for OAO. OAO-2 periments was launched

April

30,

1968

General

Dynamics

Dec.

7, 1968

successfully as planned.

and

placed

in orbit.

All

systems

and

ex-

functioned

Table OAO Date of launch April 8, 1966 (ETR) D 6 solar panels solar panels 1 (OAO-A1)

3-111. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project manager: of (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 1769

Octagonal with 3.1 × 5.2 Width with solar

extended, cells

6.4

source: reentry: NASA

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert James General Radio IBM,

plus

Cognizant

R. Ziemer E. Kupperian Aircraft Electric Corp. data Engineering Co., stabilization TV Corp., Corp., Corp., and scanner ground primary operating mirror above equipment in OAO telescope of special interest were prime control subsystem

Project scientist: Contractors:

Grumman

of America, processing Electric

Westinghouse Kollsman Objectives: Make precise

Instrument telescopic

observations

the atmosphere;

emission and absorption terplanetary and interstellar regions Experiments, responsible institution: of the spectrum. Broad-band Gamma X-ray Gamma photometric ray telescope, proportional ray telescope,

characteritics of the sun, stars, planets, rebulae, and inmedia in the infrared, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma ray studies of ultraviolet, University of Wisconsin

MIT counter, GSFC Lockheed

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

263

Table OAO Results: 1 (OAO-A1)

3-111. (Continued)

Characteristics

Remarks:

Spacecraft failed after 1V2days (22 orbits) because of battery malfunction; when the battery overheated the power supply system would not respond to ground commands to switch over to the two backup batteries; no data received. As a result of this failure, 0.40 2"s power system was redesigned. OAO l's loss forced NASA's managers to function as a review team as they scrutinized and reworked a design they had previously judged to be satisfactory.

Table OAO Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight ' Shape: (kg): (m): Dec. 7, 1968 (ETR) Atlas-Centaur 1995.8 2 (OAO-A2)

3-112. Characteristics

Dimensions Power

Octagonal with 8 solar panels 3.1 x 5.2 Width with solar panels extended, NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC plus solar cells

6.4

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Contractors: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., prime For subsystem contractors, see 0.40 1 (table 3-111). Survey ultraviolet spectra and helium content of hot, young stars; study ultraviolet spectra of giant stars; study distribution and density of interstellar gas. Ultraviolet photometer package, University of Wisconsin, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Celescope (4305mm telescopes with TV imaging photometers) All systems and experiments functioned as planned, providing among other things a detailed map of a significant portion of the celestial sphere; spacecraft was turned off on February 13, 1973, after the experiments' power system failed, but the spacecraft had far exceeded its expected lifetime. Changes in the design resulted in less dependence on ground commands, better experiment efficiency, and an ability to work around component failures.

Remarks:

264 Orbiting Geophysical

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK Observatories

NASA's early scientific satellites were necessarily tailor-made to suit available launch vehicles and the scientific instruments required for the specific

the in-

vestigations. Besides leading to a variety of configurations, this practice was not a particularly economic way to build spacecraft. Engineers at the Goddard Space Flight Center in 1959-1960 suggested a standardized satellite design into which many experiments could be incorporated (called the "streetcar" principle); the same basic satellite could be used for several different missions. Since the satellites could be fabricated independently of the scientific instruments and on more of a massproduction scale, it would save time and money. As geophysical studies covered such a broad range of investigations (atmospheric composition, solar emissions, radio astronomy) and required many different measurements, this field would be well served by such a versatile spacecraft. Called the Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (OGO), the large spacecraft could house 20 or more experiments. Scientists also had their choice of orbits-polar (POGO), or highly eccentric, or eliptic (EGO). This made observations possible near earth or in cislunar space. Three-axis stabilization of the .9 x .9 x 1.8-meter OGO could accommodate investigations that demanded precise orientation for long periods. Several booms and antennas added to the craft's versatility. Unfortunately, all five OGO spacecraft flown in the agency's first decade encountered attitude control problems, and the spacecraft spun about their axes instead of orbiting in a stable manner. This seriously degraded or reduced to zero the data available from many of the experiments. OGO 6 flown in 1969, however, was highly successful. Despite their technical problems, OGO 1 through 5 sent back over a million hours of data that helped scientists gain a broader understanding of earth and earth-sun relationships and made precise measurements of magnetic and electric fields, cosmic rays, and solar particles. OGO, a physics and astronomy program, was managed at NASA Headquarters by C. Dixon Ashworth from mid-1963 until mid-1966, by Marcel T. Aucremanne until September 1968, and then by Thomas L. Fischetti, who acted as manager through the remainder of the agency's first 10 years. Goddard monitored the prime contractor, TRW of Redondo Beach, California, and the scientific investigators, in addition to integrating the many scientific instruments into the spacecraft (see following tables for project managers). Major subcontractors included Gulton Industries, battery cells; Minneapolis-Honeywell, gyroscopes; American Standard, Advanced Technology Div., horizon scanners; ITT Industrial Products Div., power converters; Bendix Eclipse Pioneer Div., reaction wheels; Hoffman Electronics, solar cells; Kinetics, static inverters; RCA, Astro-Electronics Div., tape recorders; and Ampex, tape transporters. Although the Orbiting Geophysical Observatory program was not as successful nor as efficient as its initiators had planned, it rewarded most of the scientists involved with a steady stream of significant measurements and observations. OGO also represented a significant step in the evolution of satellites-from tailor-made one-instrument packages to automated orbiting laboratories. The best single source on OGO, especially concerning is John E. Jackson and James I. Vette, OGO Program (Washington, 1975). It has an extensive bibliography. the scientific instruments, Summary, NASA SP-7601

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

265

Table Chronology of Orbiting Development Date May 15, 1958

3-113. Observatory Operations Event (OGO)

Geophysical and

In the

a preliminary new civilian for

study, space

the agency

staff

at

the Langley for a large

Memorial

Aeronautical suggested with goal. flight project radiation, by that stable

Laboratory orientation April 1959 An and Mid-1959mid-1960 Personnel orbiting magnetic

(National

Advisory

Committee consider

Aeronautics) satellite-platform

geophysical

meausurements was Science fields. recognized for as

as a long-range a long-range particle flux,

observatory of Space and electric

NASA's

Office

measuring

solar

at the

Goddard

Space

Flight

Center

did preliminary into

design many

work ex-

on a new-generation satellite periments could be integrated July 1960 Eccentric investigations. Aug. 30, 1960 A bidder's constructing satellite. Dec. 21, 1960 conference an was and polar orbit

with a standard from mission were

structure to mission. for

which

missions

considered

ionospheric

physics

held

at Goddard

for

17 companies a

interested

in

Orbiting

Geophysical

Observatory,

450-kilogram-class

NASA issued a letter contract a division of TRW) to proceed for three OGOs and STL ($15 million).

to Space Technology Laboratories, Inc. (later with preliminary analytical and design studies

April

1961

NASA movable

agreed and

on a 400-kilogram extendable for booms. OGO-A.

box-like

structure

for

OGO

with

solar selected received

panels

Dec. Aug. Dec.

19,

1961

NASA TRW

19 experiments a definitive installed in

3, 1962 1963

contract the first

for OGO. spacecraft underwent environmental

Experiments testing.

April June

1964 1964

NASA OGO-A checkout, OGO failure

began

negotiations

with

TRW

to provide

a fourth

and for

fifth

OGO. assembly,

was transported and integration launched spacecraft into

to the Kennedy with the launch into eccentric orbit,

Space Center vehicle. but an

final

Sept.

5, 1964

1 was left 2 was

attitude

control

system

the

in a fixed polar

position.

Oct. Oct.

14, 1965 24, 1965

OGO

launched

orbit. gas supply was some of its ex-

OGO 2 ceased operations depleted; the spacecraft periments still working. began contract

after its attitude control system was put into a spin mode with

Jan. April June July

24,

1966

NASA OGO O(70

negotiations leaving eccentric a fixed spin

with TRW three

for

a sixth

OGO.

1966 6, 1966 27, 1966

l's batteries 3 was

failed, into into

experiments

operational.

launched placed

orbit. mode after its attitude control system

OGO 3 was failed. The House

Aug.

1966

Science into

and

Astronautics failures, into were polar

Committee including orbit; OGO

on NASA 1, 2, and control control.

Oversight 3.

began

inquiries July 28, 1967 OGO after

spacecraft launched insertion

4 was orbital

attitude

problems

detected

corrected

by ground

266

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Orbiting and

3-113. Observatory (Continued) Event (OGO)

Geophysical Operations

Development Date NASA tract. Sept. Nov. Jan. 19, 1967 1967 29, 1968 All four OGO Funds OGOs shut modified

Aug.

8, 1967

TRW's

fixed-price

contract

to a fixed-price-incentive

con-

transmitted down and for one be phased into

data put

simultaneously into a standby OGO;

for mode. after

the

first

time.

2 was

were approved would

additional out.

a proposed

sixth

mission

the program March 4, 1968 OGO

5 was launched

eccentric

orbit.

Table OGO Date of launch Sept. 5, 1964 (ETR) 1 (OGO-A)

3-114. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 487 Rectangular

B parallelepiped antennas extended, panels x 2.29 cells with 2 6.7-meter and 18 and experiment booms, 15 2 solar and paddles 4 1.8-meter booms for experiment

sensors, plus several .9 x .9 x 1.8 Length Width Solar with with panels, batteries (EGO) booms solar 1.83

extended

Power

source:

NiCd

plus solar

Type of orbit: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: Project NASA manager:

Eccentric In orbit GSFC Wilfred George Space tractors In

E. Scull H. Ludwig Technology Laboratories orbit, (later make and a div. of TRW), measurements in interplanetary emissions, and and prime, plus 10 major in earth's subconearth's magnetic at-

Project scientist: Contractor:

Objectives:

a highly and rays,

eccentric

observations beyond

mosphere field. Areas of Cosmic medium 20

magnetosphere radio astronomy,

space

solar

composition

of interplanetary

investigation: Number of experiments: Results:

The immediate attitude tation, control solar

failure gas, aspect

of 2 booms leaving

to deploy

properly in a fixed

caused position. resulting

the unscheduled Because in a regular of this

use of orien-

the spacecraft

was_periodically

unfavorable,

low-power

period of 6 weeks every 4V2 months. Although 6 of the 20 experiments could not function as planned, the data returned were judged to be valuable. Experiments were turned off November 25, 1969.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

267

Table OGO Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Oct. 14, 1965 (ETR) Thrust-augmented 520 Thor-Agena 2 (OGO-C)

3-115. Characteristics

D (TAT) for experiment

Rectangular parallelepiped with 2 6.7-meter and 4 1.8-meter booms sensors, plus several antennas and 2 solar paddles .9 × .9 x 1.8 Length Width Solar AgCd Polar Sept. GSFC with booms extended, 18 and experiment booms, 15 with solar panels extended panels, 1.83 x 2.29 batteries plus solar cells (POGO) 17, 1981

Power

source:

Type of orbit: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Areas of investigation: Number of experiments: Results:

Wilfred

E.Scull

N. W. Spencer TRW, prime, plus 10 major subcontractors Take geophysical measurements of the near-earth environment during a period of low solar activity to study earth-sun relationships. Particles and fields, solar emissions, and magnetic field measurements (as part of International Quiet Sun Year World Magnetic Survey) 20 Because of difficulties in maintaining earth-lock with the horizon scanners, the attitude control gas supply was exhausted by October 23, and the spacecraft began to spin, rendering five experiments useless and degrading six others. Two experiments had failed soon after launch. Battery failure occurred by April 1966, leaving eight experiments operational. Before the spacecraft was shut down and put on standby in November 1967, it had produced more than 72 000 hours of data. Operations were terminated on November 1, 1971.

268

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table OGO Date of launch June 6, 1966 (ETR) B parallelepiped antennas extended, panels x plus solar 2.29 cells with 3 (OGO-B)

3-116. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 515 Rectangular

2 6.7-meter and 18 and 2 solar

and paddies

4 1.8-meter

booms

for

experiment

sources, plus several .9 × .9 x 1.8 Length Width Solar with with panels, batteries (EGO) booms solar 1.83

extended

experimen_t

booms,

!5

Power

source:

AgCd Eccentric In orbit GSFC

Type Date

of orbit: of reentry: NASA manager:

Cognizant center: Project

Wilfred G. H. TRW, Make

E. Scull Ludwig prime, plus 10 major correlated measurements optical and and cosmic plasma, subcontractors within the magnetosphere radio rays emissions, ionosphere, and interplanetary fields, space. trapped

Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Areas of investigation: Number experiments: Results: of

Micrometeorites, radiation, 21

magnetic

Maintained system 1969, more 29, suspended than 1972. data

planned 1966 acquisition

3-axis forced was

stabilization the spacecraft to limited 15 of

for half

46 days; into of the

a failure orbit. were

in the attitude spin Before mode. operations

control By June were with

in July

a permanent were

in December 375 000 hours

1969, of data

the

21 experiments Operations

still operating

returned.

terminated

on February

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

269

Table OGO Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): 4 (OGO-D)

3-117. Characteristics

July 27, 1967 (WTR) Thrust-augmented 562 Thor-Agena D (TAT) booms for experiment

Dimensions

(m):

Rectangular parallelepiped with 2 6.7-meter and 4 1.8-meter sensors, plus several antennas and 2 solar paddles .9 x .9 × 1.8 Length with booms extended, 18 and experiment booms, Width with solar panels extended Solar panels, 1.83 x 2.29 AgCd batteries plus solar cells Polar (POGO) Aug. 16, 1972 GSFC Wilfred E. Scull

15

Power

source:

Type of orbit: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Areas of investigation: Number of experiments: Results:

N. W. Spencer TRW, prime, plus 10 major subcontractors Take geophysical measurements in the near-earth environment relationships during a period of increased solar activity. Cosmic rays, magnetic 20 An attitude control problem detected after orbital insertion was corrected by ground control, and 3-axis stabilization was maintained for 18 months, after which the tape recorder failed. The spacecraft was placed in a spin-stabilized mode in January 1969 and put on standby status in October 1969 with 3 reactivations in 1970 and 1971. Operations were terminated on September 27, 1971. field, radio measurements, and study earth-sun

and the atmosphere-ionosphere

270

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table OGO Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): 5 (OGO-EB)

3-118. Characteristics

March 4, 1968 (ETR) Atlas-Agena 611 D for experiment

Dimensions

(m):

Rectangular parallelepiped with 2 6.7-meter and 4 1.8-meter booms sensors, plus several atennas and 2 solar paddles .9 x .9 x 1.8 Length with booms extended, 18 Width with solar panels extended and experiment Solar panels, 1.83 × 2.29 AgCd batteries plus solar cells Eccentric (EGO) In orbit GSFC Wilfred E. Scull booms, 15

Power source: Type of orbit: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Areas of investigation: Number of experiments: Results:

J. P. Heppner TRW, prime, with 10 major subcontractors Conduct many diversified geophysical experiments to obtain a better understanding of earth as a planet; study earth-sun relationships. Particles and fields, radio astronomy, and solar emissions 25 All systems operated normally for 41 months. The attitude control system failed in August 1971, and the spacecraft was placed on standby mode the following October, with a period of reactivation in 1972. Provided first observations of the hydrogen cloud surrounding earth and first detailed measurements of electric fields at the shock and magnetosphere boundaries. Most successful OGO to date. Operations were terminated on July 14, 1972.

Sounding

Rockets

The early of his

sounding 1929, rockets, sounding earth's measuring became the several

rocket Robert and

story H. in

begins Goddard

long

before

NASA's two

organization instruments a Russian, their instruments

in

1958. on

As one a and had

as July test

included

measuring

1933 At to

Mikhail last,

K. Tikhonoravov, could and send

launched into

liquid-fuel above taken when their they

rocket. devices available,

scientists in situ mountains still

atmosphere

make to high but

measurements.

Early exploited area which along again War instruments time above

investigators high-flying

balloons to about 40 that ver-

this

limited But and way

their rockets, fired up and World of

of

study could

kilometers, altitude tical to

maximum times, taking could

balloon

altitude.

surpass or nearly

be instrumented on the rockets

a vertical as the

trajectory, earth The further that

measurements of a few small

rocket

fell back scientists ex-

(a vertical

profile). refinement carry after II offered to

vehicles ceding

could

hundred minutes

kilograms of observation

altitudes

250 kilometers

for several

the atmosphere.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

271

As scientists learned to build compact, sturdy instruments, rocket designers further improved vehicle control systems and extended the altitudes rockets could reach by increasing their power. Hundreds of rocket soundings gave specialists clues about the composition of the ever-changing upper atmosphere and ionosphere, and crude pictures of weather patterns taken of high altitudes hinted at the practical value these vehicles would have. But it was during the International Geophysical Year (IGY), July 1957 to December 1958, that the first "concerted systematic application of sounding rockets to upper atmosphere and space research" took place. The U.S. alone launched 200, with other countries firing hundreds more. High-altitude wind patterns were measured, along with pressure, density, and other parameters of the atmosphere. Regions of electron densities were mapped and new theories about earth's magnetic field established. Several kinds of solar emissions were studied, and some limited micrometeoroid influx data were obtained. But this explosion of scientific information obtained from soundings was overshadowed by the introduction of earth-orbiting satellites flown by the Soviet Union and the United States during the IGY. The advantages of satellites were obvious. They could stay in orbit for long periods of time, reaching higher altitudes and giving investigators a look at the geographical "big picture." But sounding rockets, though not as glamorous as satellites or manned flights, continued to be popular, useful research tools. Sounding rockets were simpler than most satellites with fewer mechanical interfaces to match. Because they could be mass produced and launched without lengthy preparations, there was a shorter lead time for the experimenter; he did not have to plan years ahead for a sounding rocket flight as was often required for satellite payloads. And sounding rockets were much less costly, allowing universities, private research laboratories, and industries who could not afford multimillion-dollar satellites to take advantage of space research. Finally, some investigations could be adapted more easily to the brief flights of sounding rockets; also, satellites could not operate below 250 kilometers, leaving this region to be investigated and measured by soundings. When NASA came into being in 1958, some members of the Naval Research Laboratory Rocket-Sonde Research Branch, formed in 1945 to develop small rockets that could carry scientific instruments, were transferred to NASA and assigned to the new Beltsville Space Center (called Goddard Space Flight Center after 1959) in Maryland. This group formed the core of the agency's sounding rocket team, and management of sounding projects became a permanent Goddard assignment. Within the space and satellite applications directorate at Goddard, sounding rockets were part of the Spacecraft Integration and Sounding Rocket Division, which was led by Robert C. Baumann (formerly part of NRL's Project Vanguard team) during the center's first decade. He was assisted by Karl R. Medrow, head of the sounding rocket branch. At NASA Headquarters from 1958 through 1961, sounding rockets were under the purview of the Office of Space Flight Programs. Morton J. Stoller was assistant director for satellites and sounding rocket programs in 1960-1962. In a 1962 reorganization, William C. Spreen became chief of meteorological soundings within the Office of Applications, and Spreen continued to manage this part of the sounding program through various Headquarters reorganizations. The scientific soundings were managed by the physics and astronomy director. In mid-1963, John R. Holtz became program manager for Explorer and sounding rockets and remained in this post through 1968.

272
Sounding rocket data

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

contributed

to many

fields

of investigation

(see

table solar great well highGer-

3-119), including aeronomy, biology, fields and particles, ionospheric and physics, and astronomy. The investigators and their instruments came from a many places in the U.S. and from several foreign countries. Universities were represented, as were private and corporate laboratories that could make use of altitude research data. Japan, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, Israel,

many, France, Argentina, and Brazil sponsored or participated in sounding rocket experiments with NASA. Scientists at Goddard, of course, were the most frequent users of small instrumented rockets. Besides soundings for scientific purposes, the vehicles were also used to flight-test experiments or components that were due to fly on satellites. And measurements of radiation taken by soundings supported Mercury and Apollo manned missions. As rockets and instruments became more and more sophisticated, the number of soundings increased-from 16 in 1959, to 93 in 1963, to 174 in 1968. The rockets NASA used for soundings from 1959 to 1968 were relatively simple and very small when compared to standard launch vehicles used to boost satellites and manned spacecraft. The Aerobee family, developed by Aerojet in the late 1940s, was used extensively to carry a variety of payloads weighing up to 227 kilograms to a maximum altitude of 483 kilometers. A series of all-solid-propellant sounding rocket configurations using the Nike booster paired with an Apache, Asp, Cajun, or Tomahawk upper stage sent hundreds of scientific payloads of up to 45 kilograms to an altitude up to 322 kilometers. Other vehicles flown by NASA included the small Arcas (meteorological soundings), the Astrobee 1500, the Canadian-built Black Brant IV, the large Javelin and Journeyman (also called the Argo series), and the British Skylark (see following tables for more information). All the slender rockets had three or four stabilizing fins, but attitude control, telemetry, and recovery systems varied from vehicle to vehicle. Many sounding rockets were small and could be launched from any number of ranges without long lead times or elaborate preparations. Some could even be launched from ships, and the tiny Arcas was tube-launched. Launch facilities at Wallops Island, Virginia, Fort Churchill (Canada), and White Sands, New Mexico, were used most often by NASA; however, many soundings were launched from other American ranges and from Puerto Rico, Brazil, Australia, Norway, Pakistan, and Sweden. Rail launching was the method of firing required by most sounding rockets. For more information on the early history of American sounding rockets, see Homer E. Newell, Jr., High Altitude Rocket Research (New York: Academic Press, 1953); and Newell, ed., Sounding Rockets (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959). For a look at NASA's sounding rocket program, see William R. Corliss, NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958-1968: A Historical Summary, NASA SP-4401 (Washington, 1971); Alfred Rosenthal and William R. Corliss, Encyclopedia of Satellites and Sounding Rockets, August 1959 to December 1969 (Beltsville, MD: GSFC [1970]); and Rosenthai, Venture into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Centel, NASA SP-4301 (Washington, 1968), pp. 121-30, 181-202. (These three books have comprehensive lists of NASA sounding rocket missions.) For information on sounding rocket launches at Wallops, see Joseph A. Shortal, A New Dimension; Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years, NASA Ref. Pub. 1028 (Washington, 1978), pp. 541-614.

273
SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

T

I

274

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Number of Soundings

3-119. by Field Year lO-year of Investigation

Discipline 1959 Aeronomy Biology Energetic Fields Galactic Ionospheric Meteorology Radio astronomy Solar physics Test and miscellaneous Total From William R. Corliss, 1971), particles astronomy physics 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 16 NASA p. 146. 1960 10 0 16 2 4 8 5 0 4 11 60 Sounding 1961 21 2 1 3 5 10 13 0 1 14 70 1962 30 0 0 0 4 14 14 1 2 13 78 Rockets, 1963 35 0 2 1 5 27 11 0 6 6 93 1958-1968: 1964 51 0 16 9 11 22 34 1 1 7 152 1965 45 0 15 13 10 46 53 2 5 2 191 A Historical 1966 31 0 14 5 1i 25 59 1 9 3 158 1967 28 1 11 12 16 20 57 1 10 6 162 1968 31 2 21 12 19 21 48 1 12 7 174 NASA

total

287 5 96 57 85 197 294 7 50 76 1154 SP-4401

Summary,

(Washington,

Table Sounding 1959 1960 Rocket 1961 1962 Projects 1963

3-120. Summary, 1964 1965 1959-1968 1966 1967 1968 10-yr Total Success (%) 92 94 100 100 95 100 80 100 75 94 100 98 63 97 98 100 83 2 16 2 6 1 2 44 6 5 2 4 2 1 36 1 20 38 43 3 43 12 1 191 of 158 Satellites 35 15 2 162 and 38 30 6 174 7 7 2 92 6 9 4 51 7 375 27 301 60 4 12 1154 Rockets,

Aerobee Aerobee Aerobee Aerobee Arcas Arcon Astrobee Black Iris Javelin Journeyman Nike-Apache Nike-Asp Nike-Cajun Nike-Tomahawk Skylark Special Totals From Alfred 1959 Rosenthal to December (other) .... 16 and 5 1 1500 Brant IV 150/150A 300/300A 350 6 4

4 11 3

8 8 2

2 20 1 30 2 26 2 29 1 1 13 1 1 1 9 29 35 37

14 229 11

2 5 1 10 24

1 8 2 5 8 23 4 1

1 2 1 11 3 37

76

57

48

50

2 78 R. Corliss, MD: 93 152 Encyclopedia GSFC [1970]),

60

70 William

Sounding

August

1969

(Beltsville,

p. 320.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-121. Chronology ofSounding Rockets Development andOperations Date
1919 Robert that July 17, 1929 H. rockets Goddard could suggested be used and which for upper

275

Event
in A Method of Reaching research. included of 52.1 on a test of one meters. liquid-fueled sounding of Extreme Altitudes atmosphere were altitude

An aneroid Goddard's

barometer rockets,

a thermometer attained an

1933

Mikhail K. Tikhonoravov launched rocket in the Soviet Union. 1934 The Army. A-2 rocket, a predecessor to

an instrumented

Dec.

the

V-2,

was

launched

by

the

German

1935

Russian altitude

F. of

A.

Tsander

designed

an

instrumented

rocket

that

reached

an

11 kilometers. Army could used the 907 Signal carry Corps expressed a need for a high-altitude instruments. World of War about II; it sounding

Jan.

1944

The rocket

U.S. that

11.3 kilograms rocket of

of meteorological as a weapon to an during altitude

1944-1945

Germany

V-2 (A-4) kilograms

could carry kilometers. July 1945 Live tests Laboratory 1945

explosives

322

of the Baby for upper

Wac (Corporal) being designed by the atmosphere research were performed. Corporal was successful; it reached

Jet Propulsion

Sept.

26,

The first launch 70 kilometers. The Naval

of a Wac

an altitude

of

Dec.

17, 1945

Research

Laboratory a sounding was the held

(NRL) rocket at NRL

Rocket-Sonde to carry scientific the

Research

Branch

was

formed Jan. 16, 1946

to develop meeting use group 27, and

instmments. possibility a scientific the of working research would with Panel the on inArmy

An informal with launch Army, February dustry, the Army to from the program

to discuss V-2s,

Ordnance with Sands, established would

Department captured a V-2 include New Mexico.

in implementing German After Upper which agreeing

White which

to cooperate Research from

Atmosphere

representatives

government,

universities. submitted to develop 136 to 680 of a V-2. program. a contract and for 20 liquid-fuel 5 to NRL; the rockets; Aerojet 15 would rocket go to the was called a proposal a sounding kilograms A total to the Applied rocket capable of fired Physics of carrying 182 880 from Laboratory a payload meters. Sands as

Feb.

22,

1946

Aerojet of Johns weighing

Engineering Hopkins from launch Hermes

to an altitude of 67 V-2s were

April

16, 1946

First part

U.S. of the

White

May

17,

1946

Aerojet Applied Aerobee.

was awarded Physics

Laboratory

Aug.

1946

The for rocket

Navy the was

awarded construction capable contract

contracts of of called

to Glenn called

L. Martin Viking

Co. larger

and than

Reaction by NRL; Aerobee's.

Motors NRL's The

a rocket launching for

designed

a payload

original Nov. May 24, 1947 First Launch Aerojet and

10 Vikings. took place.

full-scale of

Aerobee l from an

launch White

3, 1949

Viking

Sands. rocket, the Aerobee-Hi, for the Air Force

1952-1953

developed

improved

Navy.

276

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 1953 of Sounding Rockets

3-121. and Event Operations (Continued)

Development

NACA's Pilotless Aircraft Research Division mated a Nike I guided missile to the Deacon motor to form the Nike-Deacon configuration, which could launch 23 kilograms to an altitude of 111 kilometers. took place.

Nov. 19, 1953 1954

First firing of a Nike-Deacon

The University of Michigan's Aeronautical Engineering Department was funded by the Air Force to convert the Nike-Deacon into a sounding rocket. First launch of a Nike-Deacon took place.

April 8, 1955 June 20, 1956

First firing of the Cajun motor took place. When the Cajun was combined with the Nike I guided missile, the resulting rocket could lift 23 kilograms to 167 kilometers. First launch of a Nike-Cajun took place.

July 6, 1956 July 1957Dec. 1958

During the International Geophysical Year (IGY), the U.S. launched 210 sounding rockets (mainly Aerobee His -the improved version of the Aerobee 150-and Nike-Cajuns). First firing of the improved of launching 18 kilograms First firing of the Aerobee the Sparrow missile. Some members of NRL's Aerobee (Aerobee 150) took place. It was capable to 160 kilometers. 300 took place, an Aerobee Rocket-Sonde Branch 150 with a motor from

Feb. 18, 1958

Oct. 25, 1958 Dec. 28, 1958

were transferred

to NASA Space

and assigned to the Beltsville Space Center Flight Center). July 1959 First firings of the Arcas rocket developed place. July 22, 1960

(later called the Goddard

by the Army and the Navy took

First firing of the Iris rocket designed by NRL (pre-NASA It could send 45 kilograms to 320 kilometers. NASA launched First launch its first small Arcas rocket. 350 sounding

design) took place.

March

1, 1965

June 18, 1965 Dec. 10, 1967

of the Aerobee a sounding rocket

rocket took place. 150) equipped with the solar at Ames

NASA launched pointing Research Aerobee Center.

rocket (an Aerobee control system

(SPARCS)

developed

May 7, 1968

NASA launched

its first British Black Brant IV.

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS .9
_ __ _ _ ,-. o o ._ _o_ ;_.__

277 *n,d_

"_

_

_

_

_._.__ _

-=_,

_._
0 _'_ "_,

v

<
oO _0 Ox

_u

<

_'_o

•r. _

_.8o

.._

:"

0

E-_

--.

e,I

"_

0 0 0 e_ _'_ _

<oz

Z
t_ 0 t_ cq _o _0

.....

z_

o

o'_

_o o,,

oo

oo

0

0

<<

278

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

D,

_.__ .__a_x_ _ _-_ o_ _._._
--.8_= z _

_o._

_

_

_

_

_._

r.

oo

,=J3g

¢q

.E_

e,_o
O

< e,i ,_ -

_-o

,t::

e.,

_o ¢',1

(0

¢,1

o'_ "_.

o_

O

,<

<

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
_.._ ._ _'-_o •= ,_ _ __._

279
__o--_ _ ''_ _ _-

_-_
__
,.,,,

.-"
ek" _._ ,_

t_

,_

_

""

.

e,-__.

z

__
O

,_z

_

<mt_

_

_-

o_

O

_
•_ _o
.-6 _'_._ _--

_._

O_

7.

8
I

_'_" '= _ _'

_ R

_,_

E-g
<
r/9 ¢q

<
Z

r_

¢q

8
<

o
<

280

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

__

._

_ _._

_ _

-_ _-_ _
_

_=

_

__o _"

_

_.
._o_

_ _ ._-o

_ _ _

-_

C9

e_ o

oo

O

i e_ _0 t_ e_ u_ O

oq

< < Z

t'q

m c_ e_o

o0

o'1

ee_

=_
u_

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

281

r'

0

_ _3

0 _''

_o
..o

_

<

_ _'_=

_ "_

-.'-

_ o_

_ 0 0 _ _,._ _ "0 _'_ _ _ 0 ,,_ _ _ _ _ t._ 0 .

° _._

o.o

_.=- _ 8
L_

_=_ _z

_ _ 8.

o
<
oo

_=o

o'_

g: _ 8
I 0 xO

._.o

44
H

88
m

8
q,J oo _o

t_

¢q

oo

o,

r_

282

"g'
efo

_0

_.o
m_

t-_ oo

1-

_e;_
i eq t_

__

I em

_t)

& L;.l _ Z

'

["

e,I

Q

r]?

< r.t3 < z

rm _o

Z

SPACE
e_

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

283

=_'_ _ ._ -_ -

_

__

ea

o

'_'_

--

_.t_

e_

_ _ _Z_-r.

_<._

_ _.__

°-

,,¢

¢q ¢q ¢q

Z_'_

A_
O 09

O']

Z
¢q cq

¢q

O
oo

f-

Ox

2_

n_

284

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

E • .- 5

8

_._

_,_._

d _
.-

_.=
- o

_, _=
_- m

"_ °_ "o o

£

O o_

.2

_'-_
"" .o .m

,,,,_ _.

_,o.

._

o

_'._

_.__ __
o

_

o_-

_

0oo._ ._ _°= .

0

Z

e_

_;_
< _3,_

__
o_.

_.__
o_

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

285

E

< ._ .o <.o 8
o

_

o

E= '_..£

"_-

'-_

"_

2

o

_.__ _ _
_"6 _'_, _ "=o_

8e -_
8o-o _.._

.

o'_ • o e_ej

_'a. a "- '_ ,o

o'= ,u "_

_c.o°
_Nt:

g o I.-.
u

0._

._

-d -'_ z_

_ "-_ z,_

o

o

_

_

..6 _.

o

o._

o

_

,,.,

_

-

286

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

Vanguard

Project Laboratory

Vanguard was initiated in (NRL) in response to interest

the mid-1950s by the in orbiting an artificial

Naval Research satellite, as ex-

pressed by the international scientific community and the military. In September 1955, NRL was given official authorization by the Department of Defense to build a satellite and launch vehicle, both to be called Vanguard, for use during the International Geophysical Year (IGY), July 1957 through December 1958. At that early date, before the final configuration of the Vanguard satellite had been determined, James Van Allen, George Ludwig, and others at the State University of Iowa submitted a plan for a cosmic ray observation experiment weighing about 23 kilograms for an IGY satellite. In November 1955, NRL announced that its 10-kilogram spherical satellite could accommodate only a 1-kilogram scientific package. NRL scientists proposed to conduct basic environmental studies with instruments capable of measuring surface and internal temperatures, surface erosion, and internal pressures with the first Vanguards. Another prospective investigator wanted to determine the variation in the intensity of solar Lyman-alpha radiation during each revolution of the satellite. In February 1957, a panel of scientists led by Van Allen suggested that the first of the four Vanguards planned for the IGY carry the equipment for the environmental studies and the radiation experiment. The second would house a scaled-down version of Van Allen's cosmic ray observer and one other experiment. There were many worthwhile proposals for investigations from which to choose. Delays in perfecting the Vanguard launch vehicle forced NRL to readjust the launch schedule for the first mission several times. The Soviet Union in the meantime, orbited its first Sputnik satellite on October 4, 1957. In response to Sputnik 1 and Vanguard's delays, the Department of Defense gave the Army authority to proceed with all haste in launching its proposed satellite (see table 3-71). On January 3, 1958, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency launched Explorer 1 with a modified Redstone missile. Less than two months later on March 17, the 1.8-kilogram Vanguard 1 also was successfully boosted In October 1958, Project Vanguard satellite and launch vehicle were transferred into orbit. and the NRL team responsible for the to NASA. The new agency oversaw the

launch of Vanguard 2 on February 17, 1959, which did not achieve the desired orbit but transmitted data for 18 days, the unsuccessful launches of two Vanguards in April and May 1959, and the successful Vanguard 3, a 23.7-kilogram scientific payload orbited on September 18, 1959. When Project Vanguard and the NRL team were transferred en masse to NASA, the project was assigned to the new Beltsville Space Center (later called Goddard Space Flight Center) in Maryland. John P. Hagen, head of the project at NRL since 1955, continued in this position as project director at Goddard. For a chronology of events, see table 1-90, which deals primarily with the development of the Vanguard launch vehicle. Vanguard 2 and 3 are described in the following tables. The Minitrack tracking network devised for Vanguard is discussed in chapter 5. For further information, see Constance M. Green and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A History, NASA SP-4202 (Washington, 1970).

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

287

Table Vanguard Date of launch Feb. 17, 1959 (ETR)

3-124.

2 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA director: (kg):

Vanguard 9.75 Spherical Diameter, Hg batteries In orbit GSFC .51

Cognizant center: Project Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

John Record Cloud

P.

Hagen formations U.S. Army over the surface of earth Signal R&D Lab. by means of photo cells.

cloud cover,

A wobbling reignited data and returned.

motion bumped

of the satellite the satellite,

initiated made

by the launch it impossible 7, 1959.

vehicle's to interpret

third

stage,

which cover

the cloud

Transmissions

stopped

on March

Table Vanguard Date of launch Sept. 18, 1959 (ETR)

3-125.

3 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA director: (kg):

Vanguard 22.7 Spherical Diameter, .51 AgZn batteries In orbit GSFC

Cognizant center: Project Objectives: Experiments, r_sponsible institution:

John

P.

Hagen earth's magnetic GSFC NRL measurements, detectors, GSFC GSFC field, x-rays from the sun, and environmental conditions

Measure in space. Solar

Magnetometer, x-ray, Environmental Micrometeroid

Results:

Transmitted a detailed

data for 85 days, providing a comprehensive location of the lower edges of the Van Allen impacts; the satelfite was put

survey of magnetic Belt, and an accurate with the third

fields, count stage.

of micrometeorite

into orbit

288

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

Other

Physics

and Astronomy

Projects

In addition to Explorer, OAO, OSO, OGO, Vanguard, and sounding rockets, NASA sponsored several other small physics and astronomy projects. The agency attempted to orbit two Beacon 3.66-meter inflatable spheres to study atmospheric density in 1958 and 1959. A cylindrical shell housed the folded Mylar satellite before it was to be released and filled with nitrogen. An October 22, 1958, launch was attempted by a Juno I, but failed when the upper stages of the vehicle separated prematurely, and an August 14, 1959, try with a Juno II was met with booster and attitude control system malfunctions. A third Beacon (S-66), of another configuration, also failed in 1964 (table 3-138). The early Beacons were under the project direction of Langley Research Center, with support from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; the 1964 attempt was sponsored by Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA did orbit four balloon-like satellites as Explorer 9, 19, 24, and 39 (tables 3-75, 3-85, 3-90, and 27) were ionospheric 3-104). The two successful Beacon-Explorers investigations; they were not balloon-shaped satellite.) boosted two probes, P-21 (Explorer 22 (tables 3-88, and P-21A, into

3-92). (See also Echo communications In 1961, the Scout launch vehicle

suborbital trajectories. They provided data on the densities of the electron field and radiowave propagation (tables 3-135, 3-136). Geodetic earth-orbiting satellites (GEOS) were also part of the physics and astronomy program. See Explorer 29 and 36 (tables 3-94, 3-101) for information on GEOS 1 and 2. For PAGEOS 1, a 30.5-meter balloon satellite was used as a tracking beacon for geodesy experiments, see table satellites, see elsewhere in this chapter. 3-137. For a discussion on geodetic

During its first 10 years of operation, NASA cooperated with the governments of many foreign countries-setting up NASA tracking stations around the world, launching scientific or applications payloads for countries that did not have the technology or adequate vehicles and launching facilities, incorporating the experiments of foreign scientists on NASA flights, collaborating on sounding rocket programs, and sharing the data returned from American experiments. Another area of cooperation was the international satellite program. The first joint project culminated in the launching of Ariel 1 in April 1962, a United States-United Kingdom venture, followed by Ariel 2 and 3 in 1964 and 1967 (tables 3-128, 3-129, 3-130). The Canadian Alouette 1 and 2 were launched by NASA in 1962 and 1965 (tables 3-126, 3-127). San Marco 1 and 2 were put into orbit for Italy in 1964 and 1967 (tables 3-139, 3-140). NASA orbited FR-1 for France in 1965 (table 3-133). In May 1967, NASA attempted to launch the first satellite designed and built by the European Space Research Organization (ESRO),* but the solar astronomy-cosmic ray investigator (ESRO 2A) failed to achieve orbit because the Scout vehicle's third stage malfunctioned. A second attempt was successful. ESRO 2B (also called IRIS) was orbited in May 1968 (table 3-132). A third European satellite, ESRO 1 (also called Aurorae), was lauched by NASA in October 1968, and a fourth, HEOS 1, capable of sampling the interplanetary medium, was sent to its eccentric orbit by the United States in December 1968 (tables 3-131, 3-134).

*The 10 members of ESRO were Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

289

Table Alouette Date of launch Sept. 28, 1962 B (WTR)

3-126.

1 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date source: of reentry: NASA manager, (m): (kg):

Thor-Agena 144.7

Oblate spheroid Diameter, 1.1 Height, .86 plus solar cells

Cognizant center: Project scientist: Contractor:

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

John

E. Jackson

De dian

Haviland Defence

Aircraft Research

Co.,

spacecraft distribution

design

and fabrication

(contract

with

Canayear the varyflux of

Board) in the ionosphere with galactic and study for one study density distribution obtain whistlers Telecon Research time of day and latitude noise measurements; (Can.) under

Objectives:

Measure variations energetic

electron

density

of electron auroral particles sounder, particle noise

ing magnetic Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks: Topside Energetic VLF Cosmic

conditions;

and investigate Defence counters, Research Defence Research Defence

(VLF). Establishment Telecon Estab. data return; project; first still available spacecraft for use designed (Can.) Telecon excellent Board Estab.

receiver,

National receiver, operated

Council Research with

All experiments in 1970. Joint and

as planned Defence other than

NASA-Canadian built by a country

Research the U.S.

or USSR.

290

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-127.
Alouette 2 Characteristics

Date

of

launch

Nov.

29,

1965 (WTR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): (m):

Thor-Agena 146.5 Oblate Diameter, Height, .86

B

Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project

spheroid 1.07 plus solar cells

source: of reentry: NASA manager:

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Evart John D. Nelson E. Jackson

Cognizant

Project scientist: Contractor:

De Haviland

Aircraft

Co.,

spacecraft ionosphere;

design

and

fabrication of

(contract the mission

with

Canaby

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

dian Defense Research To sound the topside Alouette Topside Galactic VLF Energetic 1. sounder, and solar

Board) of the

continuation Establishment Research

started

Defence radio detectors,

Research noise

Telecon Telecon Research for use

(Can.) Telecon Estab.

receiver, Naval

Defence Estab.

receiver,

Defence

Research

particle

Laboratory in 1970. project 2 was (known launched as 1SIS-Internawith Explorer 31

Results: Remarks:

Electrostatic probe, GSFC Excellent data return; still Joint tional (table NASA-Canadian Satellites 3-96). for

available

Defence Ionospheric

Research Studies).

Board Alouette

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Table Ariel Date of launch April 26, 1962 (ETR) 1 (UK-I) 3-128. Characteristics

291

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project Project manager: scientists: (m): (kg):

Thor-Delta 59.9 Cylindrical 1.22-meter Cylinder, Spheres, NiCd with booms .27 .14 batteries 1976 x x a spherical .58 .13 plus solar cells section at each end, plus 4 solar paddles and 2

source: of reentry: NASA

Cognizant

May 24, GSFC R. C. M. O.

Baumann Robbins

R. E. Bourdeau

UK project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Washington Ionospheric position

Technological investigations; of positive ions;

Associates, measure monitor

spacecraft electron

structure and temperature and x-rays; and measure the comcosmic

density radiation

ultraviolet

Experiments, responsible institution:

rays. Cosmic Electron

ray

detector, composition

Imperial probe, probe, density gages,

College University University University probe, of Birmingham College College College

density

plasma

Ionospheric Solar X-ray Electron

emissions counters useful

measurement, and data

temperature

University of Leicester were

University

Results:

Much atomic

on the ionosphere of 725-800 two months. first

returned, satellite

including until

information June

on a new

ion layer in August Remarks: Joint

at an altitude test in September 1964 for

kilometers;

was damaged

by an American 1964; restarted

1962 but transmissions international

continued satellite.

NASA-U.K.

project;

292

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
Table Ariel 2 (UK-C) 3-129. Characteristics

Date

of launch

Nov. Scout 59.9

18, 1967

(Wallops)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date source: of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: (m): (kg):

Cylindrical 1.22-meter Cylinder, Spheres, NiCd Nov. 18, GSFC

with booms .27 .14 x ×

a

spherical

section

at

each

end,

plus

4 solar

paddles

and

2

.58 .13 solar cells

batteries 1967

plus

Cognizant center: Project Project UK

project

Emil Hymoqitz Lawrence Dunkelman M. O. Robbins

manager: Contractors:

Washington Westinghouse Measure Galactic Ozone Made Joint

Technological Electric flux. noise receiver, and detectors, survey project Corp., vertical radio distribution

Associates, several of the

spacecraft satellite ozone; study

structure and integration radio noise; measure galactic

subsystems

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

micrometeroid

University University ozone;

of Cambridge Air Ministry Jodrdl Bank life than Ariel 1. for a longer of Manchester,

photometers a global NASA-U.K.

spectrometer,

Micrometeoroid

of the

designed

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-130.
Ariel Date of launch May Scout 89.8 Cylindrical main body with a dome bottom of the main structure Diameter, .58 Height, Power Date of source: reentry: NASA manager: NiCd .89 batteries plus solar cells on top, plus 4 honeycomb vanes attached 5, 1967 (WTR) 3 (UK-E) Characteristics

293

(location): Launch Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): vehicle: (kg):

to the

Cognizant center: Project

Dec. 14, 1970 GSFC

R. C. Siegfried Space

Baurnann Bauer Research design vertical Management and sources; fabrication investigate distribution Unit, of molecular VLF UK Science Aircraft oxygen radiation; Research Establishment in earth's measure terrestrial University of atmosphere; ionozation radio noise. and Radio map density largeand Council assigned

Project scientist: Contractors: Objectives:

spacecraft Measure scale Experiments, responsible institution:

to Royal

R-F noise

temperature Ion chamber,

above the F2 maximum; Meteorological Office University University the upper of

investigate

Radio receivers, Research Station R-F plasma probe,

Manchester,

Sheffield,

of Birmingham atmosphere were returned; transmitter was turned

Results: Remarks:

Much useful data on off after 28 months. Joint NASA-U.K.

project.

294

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table ESRO Date of launch Oct. Scout 85.8 Cylindrical (m): Diameter, Overall Span Power Date center: Project Project Project Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: director: scientist: coordinator:J. H. L. Eaker L. H. Meredith Talentino To study High-altitude Kiruna University Auroral Ionospheric Results: Remarks: Returned Satellite launched of the aurora particle Bergen experiments data designed by as planned; and built ESRO NASA. Geophysical photometry, borealis of source: reentry: NASA Battery June 26, GSFC with with .76 height, booms solar 1970 plus 1.5 extended, cells 2.4 truncated cones 3, 1968 (WTR) 1 (Aurorae)

3-131. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (kg):

at each

end

Cognizant

and

other

related

phenomena and Space Space Technical

of the polar Research Station of University

ionosphere. (England), Denmark,

experiments Observatory (Norway), Norwegian outlived

(5), Radio (Sweden), Norwegian Institute

Committee Physics of six months. Research ESRO Organization) 1 (table and 3-132). (England) lifetime Space

of Cosmic College

(2), University by ESRO 2B (IRIS)

its expected (European was

launched

before

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Table 3-132.
ESRO Date of launch May Scout 74.2 (plus Cylindrical, (m): Diameter, Height, Power Date center: Project Project Project Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: manager: scientists: coordinator:J. To Solar Solar Primary Hard Soft Flux solar H. L. Eaker L. H. Meredith Talentino conduct and and solar solar Van cosmic x-rays, astronomy particle alphas ray and flux, cosmic Imperial Imperial and of (the galactic ray studies. College College Imperial College (England) Centre Leeds University Netherlands) cosmic ray particles, (England) of London (England) Monitor of energetic Allen galactic x-rays, source: of reentry: NASA NiCd .85 battery plus solar cells 14.9-kg separation 12-sided .76 system) 16, 1968 (WTR) 2B (IRIS) Characteristics

295

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (kg):

Cognizant

May 8, 1971 GSFC

Belt protons, particles electrons, University

protons,

University of Leicester, of Utrecht and

University spectrum (France)

and energy

of solar

d'l_tudes

Nucleaires Results: Remarks: Returned First built ESRO Satellite. on third May stage launch

de Saclay

data as planned. of an ESRO-(European The 2B launch was for the payload, was launched to launch a similar Space stands before Research by Organization-) NASA for Radiation 3-131). 2A) failed when designed-andESRO. A previous the IRIS, Investigation attempt Scout's the accomplished ESRO payload

spacecraft. designation ESRO 29, 1967

for International 1 (table (ESRO

malfunctioned.

296

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-133.
FR-1 Characteristics

Date

of launch

Dec. Scout 61

6, 1965

(WTR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project Project Project CNES: Project CNES: Objectives: director: scientist: director, director, source: of reentry: NASA (In): (kg):

2 truncated Diameter Height, 1.3

octagonal from corner plus

cones

joined

by .69

an octagonal

central

section

to corner, solar cells

NiCd batteries In Orbit GSFC Samuel

Cognizant

R. Stevens

R. W. Rochelle Jean-Pierre Causse

Xavier

Namy the characteristics in the ionosphere in the magnetosphere. of very and to low study frequency (VLF) electromagnetic in the distribution wave of

To investigate propagation ionozation

irregularities

Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

VLF experiment, electron density probe, rendezvous experiment with OGO 2 and the Canadian Alouette satellites, Centre National d'I_tudes des Telecommunications

Returned Satellite (CNES)

data as planned. designed and and built by the French Centre National D'l_tudes Spatiales launched by NASA.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

297

HEOS Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientists: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Dec. 5, 1968 (ETR) Thor-Delta 109 Flat cylinder .75 x .13 AgCd batteries Oct. 28, 1975 GSFC R. J. Gross B. Taylor

Table 3-134. 1 Characteristics

with an axial boom plus solar cells

Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke GmbH (Munich), prime contractor to ESRO Study interplanetary radiation, solar wind, and magnetic fields outside the magnetosphere during the period of maximum solar activity. Fluxgate magnetometer, Imperial College, University of London Barium-copper oxide release, Max Plank Institute Cerenkov scintillator telescope, Imperial College Solid-state telescope, Imperial College and Centre D'l_tudes Nuclaires de Saclay Electrostatic analyzer, University of Brussels Radio telescope and Cerenkov counter, University of Milan and Centre D' l_tudes Nuclaires de Saclay

Results: Remarks:

Good data returned March 18, 1969.

until October

1975; barium

cloud experiment

performed

on

HEOS stands for Highly Eccentric Orbit Space Research Organization) by NASA.

Satellite; launched

for ESRO (European

P-21 Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project Project manager: scientist: Oct. 19, 1961 (Wallops)

Table 3-135. Characteristics

Scout 42.6 8-sided frustrum .38 x .84 NiCd batteries Oct. 19, 1961 GSFC John E. Jackson Siegfried Measure ditions. J. Bauer electron densities; investigate radio wave propagation under daytime con-

Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Radio frequency probe, GSFC Radio wave propagation, GSFC Probe achieved altitude of 7891 kilometers and transmitted sity information was collected to about 2778 kilometers. Also considered a sounding. good data; electron den-

298

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table P-21A Date of launch March Scout 42.6 8-sided .38 NiCd March GSFC John x frustrum .84 batteries 29, 1962 29, 1962 (Wallops)

3-136,

Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA manager: scientist: (kg):

Cognizant center: Project Project Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results:

E. Jackson J. Bauer density conditions. GSFC GSFC of 7241 from kilometers; daytime when determined that characteristics of the is probe, altitude sharply a sounding. profile and ion density and intensity in the atmosphere

Siegfried Measure under Radio Radio Ion Probe

electron nighttime wave frequency

propagation,

trap,

GSFC the temperature of the ionosphere

achieved

ionosphere differ much cooler. Remarks: Also considered

Table PAGEOS Date of launch June 23, 1966

3-137. Characteristics

1 (PAGEOS-A) (WTR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Agena 56.7 (110.7 Spherical Diameter,

D with 30.48 canister) (inflatable)

None (passive) In orbit LaRC

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor:

D. L. Clummons, G. T. Schjeldahl, Aerospace of the Goodyear

Jr. sphere Corp., National canister Geodetic network geodesy maps. Satellites Program, serve as a passive point of optical observation stations (56); stations measurements for defining the precise shape

Objectives:

In support

source of light for a worldwide then would provide geometric of the planet and No active payload. for preparing

Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Successfully periments. See also Echo spacecraft's

served

as a target

for optical satellite for

tracking;

still

being on the

used

in 1972

for

ex-

communications

information

background

of the

design.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

299

Table S-66 Polar Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Ionosphere

3-138. Beacon Characteristics

March 19, 1964 (ETR) Thor-Delta 54.4 Octagnal with 4 solar panels Body diameter, .457 Height, .305 Panels, .254 x 1.676 NiCd battery plus solar cells Did not achieve orbit GSFC Frank T. Martin Robert E. Bourdeau Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory Survey earth's ionosphere; observations would be made by 81 ground countries; other experiments were designed to measure electron temperatures and to provide geodetic information. Laser and doppler Electron tracking, GSFC and NASA Hq. (OART) stations in 32 density and

Power

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Program scientist: Contractor: Objectives:

Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

measurement,

GSFC First Delta

Failed to orbit because of a launch vehicle (third-stage) failure. Would have been called Explorer 20 had the mission been successful. failure in 23 consecutive launches.

Table 3-139. San Marco 1 Characteristics Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks: Dec. 15, 1964 (Wallops) Scout 113.4 Spherical Diameter, .66 Hg batteries Sept. 13, 1965 GSFC A. J. Caporale, Hq. Centro Ricerche Aerospaziale, tion (Italian contract) Measure tion. air and electron University

University

of Rome, spacecraft

design and fabrica-

density of upper atmosphere; of Rome, Faraday rotation,

study radio wave propagaUniversity of Florence

Accelerometer,

All systems performed as expected. Italian satellite launched by NASA.

300

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table San Date of launch April 26, 1967 Marco

3-140. 2 Characteristics

(Formosa

Bay,

Indian

Ocean;

near

coast

of Kenya)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date center: Project manager: Contractor: of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thrust-augmented 129.3 Spherical Diameter, Batteries Oct. GSFC .66

Improved

Thor-Delta

(TAID)

14, 1967

Cognizant

A. J. Centro (Italian Measure tion. Air

Caporale, Richere contract) upper

Hq. Aerospaziale, atmosphere balance, University air density, University of Rome, electron of Rome, spacecraft density; study design radio and fabrication wave and propagawave pro-

Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

density

triaxial University

Electron

content

pagation,

of Florence

All experiments Italian satellite form.

returned launched

data as expected. by NASA; first

satellite

to

be launched

from

a sea plat-

DESCRIPTION-

LUNAR

AND

PLANETARY

PROGRAM

Beyond the examination of our own planet's upper atmosphere, the unmanned exploration of earth's moon and the other planets was an especially attractive goal for NASA's space scientists. Telescopes and other instruments sent into orbit around earth had relayed clearer, improved images of these distant bodies and new information about the interplanetary medium. This wealth of new data, plus increasingly powerful launch vehicles and improved telemetry systems, recording devices, and scientific instruments, made it possible for man's machines to explore new worlds. The Soviet Union's success with Sputnik and Luna spacecraft added an extra sense of urgency to NASA's early plans for lunar and interplanetary investigation. Schemes for sending automated spacecraft to the vicinity of the moon certainly predate NASA. The moon was one of the goals military launch vehicle specialists and civilian scientists alike had in mind when it became apparent that powerful boosters capable of launching large payloads could be perfected over time. In the spring of 1958, advanced planners at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics were suggesting that the new civilian space agency being organized launch a 34-kilogram probe to the vicinity of the moon to acquire "scientific information on the characteristics of space between the earth and the moon, and on the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the moon itself." Probes would be followed by orbiters and then landers. A secondary benefit from these scientific investigations, of course, would be data that could also be applied to manned

SPACE SCIENCE AND

APPLICATIONS

301

spaceflight. There were many unknowns. How many meteorites would a spacecraft encounter during its trip to the moon? Precisely what was the moon's mass? What was the radioactivity level at the surface? What were the constituents of the atmosphere? Would the crust be made of volcanic rock or dust? For many participants and bystanders, unmanned exploration and the search for answers to scientific questions were overshadowed by the glamor of manned expeditions. As early as the summer of 1959, the Office of Space Science recognized this: "If one goal were to be selected which would most influence the overall NASA program during the next decade it would be manned flight to the moon. The manned space flight program, the program of unmanned lunar exploration and the booster development program are all oriented toward this goal." The Langley people believed that NASA could take its first steps in this direction by late 1959, with landers reaching the moon "within a few years. ''9 NASA's early attempts to send a probe to the moon were unsuccessful. the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA herited a lunar probe program called Pioneer. Launch vehicle malfunctions From had inin 1958

prevented three Pioneer probes from obtaining the velocity necessary to escape earth's gravity, and Pioneer 4 in early 1959 did not pass close enough to the moon for its photoelectric scanner to operate. Three more attempts in 1959 and 1960 with Atlas-Able vehicles also were failures. It was 1964 before NASA had an unqualified success. Ranger 7 orbited the moon sending back good-quality photographs and impacted on the lunar surface on command. Two other Ranger missions were carried out successfully, followed by five lunar Orbiters, also successful. Five of the seven Surveyor spacecraft soft-landed on the moon in 1966-1968. Much of the lunar surface was photographed, and millions of bits of scientific data were telemetered to earth, the sheer bulk of which led to the establishment of the Lunar Science Institute in 1968 to serve as a center for the analysis and study of data being generated by un_ manned and manned lunar programs. Beyond the moon were more unknowns: the other planets, our sun, the medium surrounding them. The first thing scientists wanted to determine was the astronomical unit, the semi-major axis of earth's orbit about the sun, so that interplanetary trajectories could be plotted precisely. The size of the planets, the composition of their atmospheres, and their physical, biological, and chemical properties were other subjects for investigation. The early planners again suggested a threetiered approach: trackable spacecraft that would escape earth's gravitational field but remain in a nearby orbit of the sun, followed by planetary orbiters of the nearby planets, and finally by landers. _0 This was basically the approach NASA followed. Five very successful Pioneer interplanetary probes were sent on a variety of missions from 1960 through 1968. A Mariner spacecraft passed by Venus in 1962 and another took 22 photographs of Mars as it passed by that planet in 1964. Another Mariner flew by Venus in 1967. NASA's plans for a Mars Voyager lander were cancelled in 1967 by a budget cut demanded by Congress, but it was replaced by Project Viking, which would send two orbiter-landers to the Red Planet in the 1970s. NASA in its initial organization had a chief of planetary science programs, John F. Clark. In an early 1960 reorganization, Edgar M. Cortright was named assistant director for lunar and planetary programs. In November 1961, Oran W. Nicks assumed this position, managing the programs until late 1967. With the growing importance of the Apollo Program and the conclusion of the automated lunar exploration program, lunar science was assigned to the Office of Manned Space Flight in

302

NASA HISTORICAL DATA

BOOK for lunar science under Lee of whom were formerly of

December 1967. R. J. Allenby became R. Scherer, director for Apollo lunar

assistant director exploration, both

the Office of Space Science and Applications. Donald P. Hearth was named director of planetary programs. Managers of the various flight programs reported to him. Project managers were named at the appropriate centers-the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Langley Research Center, and Ames Research Center.

Pioneer

There were two former started before

separate Pioneer programs-lunar and interplanetary. The NASA was established when President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1958. were

approved Department of Defense plans for a lunar probe program in March The Air Force Ballistic Missile Division and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency

assigned three and two probes, respectively. The prime objective was to place a payload in the vicinity of the moon with scientific instruments designed to measure radiation, temperature, and micrometeorite distribution. Space Technology Laboratories joined with the Air Force in designing the Thor-Able launch vehicle and its lunar-bound payloads (the payloads were incorporated in Able fourth stages and were sometimes referred to as the Able series of lunar probes). The Air Force failed to place any of its three probes in a lunar trajectory during 1958. On October 1, 1959, the new civilian space agency was assigned the management responsibility for the lunar probe program, but NASA delegated authority back to the Air Force and Army. The Army-Jet Propulsion Laboratory team also failed to put its first small conical probe into a lunar trajectory in 1958, and its second probe in 1959 did not pass close enough to the moon for its instruments to record any data on the nearlunar environment. In 1960, a spherical probe with a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center experiment package was sent to explore interplanetary space. Aboard were instruments that would measure radiation, magnetic fields, cosmic dust, and solar phenomena. Pioneer 5 was a success. Even before it began its journey around the sun, specialists at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Held, California, were exploring the possibilities of a new series of solar probes. In November 1962 NASA Headquarters approved a series of five interplanetary Pioneer probes and assigned their management to Ames. Built by TRW (formerly Space Technology Laboratories) and equipped with scientific instruments from universities and other NASA centers, four Pioneers were launched successfully from 1965 through 1968 (the fifth in the series failed when the booster malfunctioned in 1969), returning valuable data on solar plasma, solar and galactic cosmic radiation, magnetic and electric fields, and cosmic dust. Because of the Pioneers' unexpectedly long lives, they returned information beneficial to scientists studying the solar minimum as part of the International Quiet Sun Year (1964-1965) and the solar maximum (1969-1970). Although NASA had formal authority for the early lunar probes, they essentially were managed by the Army and the Air Force, since their development was already well under way before NASA came into being. During 1960 when Pioneer 5 was launched, Roger C. Moore was in charge of planetary science in the NASA Headquarters Lunar and Planetary Program Office, Goddard. Glenn A. Reiff became Mariner-Pioneer and the project was managed at program manager at Head-

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

303

quarters in 1963 for the second Pioneer series. In 1966 and 1967, however, Reiff devoted all his energies to Mariner 4 and 5, and management of Pioneer was assigned to the physics and astronomy program under Marcel T. Aucremanne's direction. Reiff resumed authority for Pioneer in 1968. Charles F. Hall led the Ames Pioneer team from its first informal study of solar probes in 1960. TRW was the prime contractor for the design and fabrication of the interplanetary Pioneers (Herbert Lasser of TRW was responsible for the spacecraft's configuration). For more information on the interplanetary Pioneers, see William R. Corliss, The Interplanetary Pioneers, 3 vols., NASA SP-278, 279, and 280 (Washington, 1972); and TRW Systems Group, Pioneer Handbook, 1965-I969 (Ames Research Center, 1968).

Table Chronology of Pioneer

3-141, and Operations

Development

Date March 27, 1958 The Secretary of lunar other of Defense announced

Event that would One to the Advanced proceed Force with of these programs, Ballistic The Year. a contract Thor-Able. by the Air Force and third for Air probes, Research several which Missile Force which Projects programs called planned would for to be Division;

Agency three two

the Department unmanned probes, probes during was were

of Defense spacecraft. assigned assigned

for launching

to the Air for

the Army.

use a Thor-Vanguard launched 1958 Space

launch the International Laboratories

vehicle

the lunar

Geophysical was awarded and

Technology and

designing

building vehicle, test

the probe which came

modifying

the second

stages

of the launch July 9, 1958 Aug. 17, 1958 First successful

to be called

launch of a small after

of Thor-Able. lunar probe failed when the Thor-Able I vehicle

Attempted exploded

launch 77 seconds probe

liftoff. was assigned to NASA, which delegated authority

Oct.

1, 1958

The back

lunar

program and

to the Army

the Air

Force. Thor-Able evenly, The the I; because the probe probe the second did not reach program was were and the ofstill

Oct.

11, 1958

Pioneer third

I was launched stages of the vehicle for

on an Air Force did not separate trajectory. but

velocity

required

a lunar

lunar individual

ficially called Pioneer by this time, sometimes referred to as Ables. Fall 1958 The Atlas-Able for launch NASA's by vehicle lunar an Air failed probe. Force

spacecraft

combination

was

suggested

as

a possible

launcher Nov. 8, 1958 Pioneer

2 launch

Thor-Able

I was

unsuccessful; reach

the

third

stage of the vehicle altitude. Dec. 6, 1958 Pioneer vehicle Feb. 1959 3 launch cut off

to ignite,

and the probe

did not

the required

by an Army prematurely,

Juno

II was unsuccessful; did not reach

the first stage the required team

of the

and the probe between two Able

altitude. and Space

Negotiations Technology

were

conducted for

the Air Force-NASA stages and payloads.

Laboratories

March

3, 1959

Pioneer pass

4 launch enough

by an Army to the moon

Juno for

II was successful, its instruments to

but the probe function.

did not

close

304

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Pioneer Development

3-141. and Operations (Continued)

Date

Event

Nov.

26,

1959

An

attempt

to launch shroud

a lunar broke away

orbiter

with

an Atlas-Able after study liftoff of solar

was unsuccessful; (Able 4).

the payload May Sept. Sept. 1960 14, 1960 25, i960 Ames Ames An the Dec. 15, 1960 An

45 seconds informal

Research Solar attempt second attempt stage

Center Team

begun was

an

probes.

Probe

formed. orbiter with an Atlas-Able (Able 5A). was unsuccessful; was unsuccessful;

to launch stage

a lunar

of the vehicle a lunar

malfunctioned orbiter with

to launch

an Atlas-Able (Able 5B). probe). on designing

the first March April 11, 1962 1960 Pioneer

of the vehicle was

malfunctioned (interplanetary study for Ames

5 launch

successful

TRW completed Pioneer. NASA approved

a feasibility

an interplanetary

Nov.

6,

1962

a

new

series

of

interplanetary

Pioneers

and

assigned

management Nov. Jan. Feb. 9, 29, 1962 1963 Project A request A request was July Aug. 23, 1963 issued.

responsibility document proposals proposals for for

to Ames. for the Pioneer the series spacecraft to be carried was signed. was issued. on the Pioneer missions

approval for for

building experiments

1, 1963

An initial TRW ($1.5

set of experiments a letter maximum contract

for

Pioneer for the value).

was selected. fabrication of five Pioneer spacecraft

5, 1963

received million, final

contract review TRW spacecraft successful.

April July Dec. Dec. Feb. April

1964 30, 1964

The

spacecraft contract

design with

was held. was approved. at the Kennedy Space Center.

A definitive The first

5, 1965 15, 1965 22, 28, 1966 1966

of the Pioneer 6 launch spacecraft contract from was

arrived

Pioneer The fifth

was eliminated was amended parts. successful. successful. successful.

from further;

TRW's a fifth

contract spacecraft

due to budget would be

cuts. con-

TRW's structed

spare

Aug. Dec. Nov.

17, 13,

1966 1967

Pioneer Pioneer Pioneer

7 launch 8 launch 9 launch

was was was

8, 1968

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

305

Pioneer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Oct. 11, 1958 (ETR)

Table 3-142. 1 Characteristics

Thor-Able 38.3 2 truncated .74 x .46 Batteries cones joined by a cylindrical midsection

Oct. 12, 1958 NASA Hq. Space Technology Division Laboratories, under contract to the Air Force Ballistic Missile

Lunar (also known as Able 2) Place a probe with instrumented payload in orbit around the moon; measure radiation, micrometeorite flux, and magnetic fields. Ion chamber, magnetometer, temperature sensor, TV scanner, micrometeorite sensor, all AFBMD experiments. Did not achieve required velocity for a lunar trajectory because of launch vehicle malfunction (second and third stages did not separate evenly); some data returned on the Van Allen Belt and other phenomena before reentering 43 hours after launch. NASA had delegated authority for this lunar probe mission back to the Air Force.

Remarks:

Pioneer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Nov. 8, 1958 (ETR) Thor-Able 39.2 2 truncated .74 x .46 Batteries

Table 3-143. 2 Characteristics

cones joined by a cylindrical

midsection

Nov. 8, 1958 NASA Hq. Space Technology Divison Laboratories, under contract to the Air Force Ballistics Missile

Lunar (also known as Able 3) Place a probe with instrumented payload in orbit around the moon; measure radiation, micrometeorite flux, and magnetic fields. Ion chamber, magnetometer, temperature sensor, micrometeorite sensor, proportional counter, all AFBMD experiments, plus image scanning TV, STL. Did not achieve required velocity for a lunar trajectory because of launch vehicle

Remarks:

malfunction (third stage failed to ignite); briefly returned data that indicated that earth's equatorial region has higher flux and energy levels than previously believed. NASA had delegated authority for this lunar probe mission back to the Air Force.

306

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-144.
Pioneer 3 Characteristics

Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Dec. 6, 1958 (ETR) Juno II 5.9 Conical .51 x .23 Hg batteries Dec. 7, 1958 NASA Hq. Jet Propulsion Lunar Laboratory for Army Ballistic Missile Agency, spacecraft data

Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Place a probe with instrumented payload in the vicinity of the moon and obtain on Van Allen radiation belts. Geiger counters, photoelectric sensor trigger, ABMA experiments.

Did not achieve required

velocity

for a lunar trajectory

because

of launch

vehicle

malfunction (premature cutoff of first stage); transmitted data on dual bands of radiation around earth; reached an altitude of 102 322 kilometers; reentered after 36 hours. Remarks: NASA had delegated Army. authority for this Pioneer lunar probe mission back to the

Pioneer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: Objectives: March 3, 1959 Juno II 6.1 Conical .51 x .23 Hg batteries In orbit around NASA Hq. Jet Propulsion Lunar

Table 3-145. 4 Characteristics

the sun

Laboratory

for Army Ballistic Missile Agency,

spacecraft

Experiments responsible institution: Results:

Place a probe with instrumented payload in the vicinity of the moon; obtain data on the Van Allen radiation belts; determine extent of radiation in the vicinity of the moon; test a photoelectric sensor. Geiger counters, photoelectric sensor trigger, ABMA experiments.

Passed within 59 500 kilometers of the moon, not close enough for its photoelectric scanner to be effective; sent back excellent data on radiation; was tracked for 82 hours to a distance of 655 000 kilometers. NASA had delegated Army. authority for this Pioneer lunar probe mission back to the

Remarks:

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

307

Table Pioneer Date of launch March Thor-Able 43 Spherical (m): Diameter, With Power Date of source: reentry: NASA director, solar with .66 panels extended, cells 4 solar panels 11, 1960 (ETR)

3-146.

5 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (kg):

diameter,

1.4

NiCd batteries In orbit around GSFC

plus solar the sun

Cognizant center: Project scientist:

J. C.

Lindsay

Contractor:

Space Technology Missile Division Interplanetary Place probe in radiation, terplanetary (also

Laboratories, known around fields,

under as Able the cosmic sun 6)

contract

to NASA

and

the Air

Force

Ballistic

Type

of Pioneer:

Objectives:

orbit

between

Earth

and and

Venus; solar and cell

transmit phenomena geiger-MueUer

data in

on in-

magnetic space. telescopes,

dust

distribution, ionization and

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Cosmic

ray

magnetometer, thermistors, on interplanetary

chamber

tube, all

micrometeorite counter, GSFC experiments Sent back excellent data

photoelectric space.

aspect

indicator,

Table Pioneer Date of launch Dec. 16, 1965 (ETR)

3-147.

6 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date center: Project manager: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thrust-augmented 62.14 Cylindrical .95 x .89 Battery In orbit Ames Charles TRW, with

Improved 3 2.09-meter

Thor-Delta booms and

(TAID) 2 antennas

plus solar cells around sun Research F. Hall spacecraft fabrication first of the new series Center (ARC)

Cognizant

Interplanetary,

Objectives:

Make synoptic measurements of the interplanetary milieu as it was affected by the sun; record solar occultation of the spacecraft as seen by earth tracking stations; explore area ahead of earth as it orbits around the sun. Single-axis Faraday-cup Plasma Cosmic Cosmic fluxgate plasma analyzer, ray magnetometer, probe, MIT ARC University detector, Stanford good data. of Chicago Graduate University Research Center of the Southwest GSFC

Experiments, responsible institution:

telescope,

ray-anesotropy

Radio wave propagation, Celestial mechanics, JPL Results: All experiments returned

308

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Pioneer

3-148.

7 Characteristics

Date

of

launch

Aug.

17, 1966

(ETR) Improved Thor-Delta (TAID)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (In): Power source: Date center: Project manager: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thrust-augmented 62.75 Cylindrical .95 x .89 Battery In orbit ARC Charles TRW, F. Hall spacecraft plus with solar

3 2.09-meter cells the sun

booms

and

2 antennas

around

Cognizant

fabrication measurements of the interplanetary tail 3-146). and lunar milieu occultation. as it was affected by the

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Interplanetary Make synoptic sun; Same analyze as for

geomagnetospheric Pioneer 6 (table

All experiments returned million kilometers from

good earth.

data;

tail of earth's

magnetosphere

was detected

5.25

Table Pioneer

3-149.

8 Characteristics

Date

of

launch

Dec.

13, 1967

(ETR) Improved 3 2.09-meter Thor-Delta booms and (TAID) 2 antennas

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thrust-augmented 65.36 Cylindrical .95 x .89 with

Battery plus solar cells In orbit around sun ARC Charles TRW, Make sun; F. Hall spacecraft synoptic analyze fabrication measurements geomagnetospheric fluxgate analyzer, wave ray telescope, propagation, magnetometer, ARC Graduate Stanford Research University Center of of the Southwest University Minnesota of the interplanetary tail and GSFC lunar milieu occultation. as it was affected by the

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Type of Pioneer:

Interplanetary

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Single-axis Plasma Cosmic Radio Cosmic Electric Cosmic Celestial

ray gradient detector, field detector, TRW dust detector, GSFC JPL good and

mechanics,

Results:

All experiments improved designed to serve with Pioneer 8.

returned

data; two new

generally Apollo

the experiment were tracking added. network

instrumentation A TETR also

was 1 satellite

on this mission

experiments

as a target

for the new

was launched

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

309

Pioneer Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA Nov. 8, 1968 (ETR)

Table 3-150. 9 Characteristics

Thrust-augmented 65.36

Improved Thor-Delta booms

(TAID)

Cylindrical with 3 2.09-meter .95 x .89 Battery plus solar cells In orbit around the sun ARC Charles F. Hall

and 2 antennas

Project manager: Contractor: Type of Pioneer: Objectives:

TRW, spacecraft fabrication Interplanetary Make synoptic measurements of the interplanetary milieu as it was affected by the sun; record solar occultation of the spacecraft as seen by earth tracking stations; explore area ahead of earth as it orbits around the sun. Triaxial fluxgate magnetometer, ARC Plasma analyzer, University of Chicago Cosmic ray-anesotropy detector, Graduate Research Center of the Southwest Cosmic ray gradient detector, University of Minnesota Radio wave propagation, Stanford University Electric field detector, TRW Cosmic dust detector, GSFC Celestial mechanics, JPL All experiments returned good data. A TETR 2 satellite designed to serve as a target for the new Apollo tracking network was also launched with Pioneer 9.

Experiments, responsible institution:

Results:

Ranger

Project Ranger, like the early Pioneers, was established in response to increasing scientific interest in the moon and to the successful lunar flight program of the Soviet Union. The design of the spacecraft was first suggested during studies done at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) when advanced planners were considering Vega-launched lunar and planetary missions. After the Vega launch vehicle program was cancelled (see chapter 1) in favor of the Air Force Atlas-Agena B in December 1959, the design group at JPL was directed to adapt its Vega lunar spacecraft and experiment packages to an Atlas-Agena B mission. Lunar photography was considered a prime objective since it would support future manned lunar landings and provide a valuable scientific data base. The lunar program, tentatively named Ranger in 1960 and assigned to JPL, called for two lunar near-misses, or probes (called Block I), and three impact missions (Block II). Ranger 1 and 2 were to be launched in highly elliptical earth orbits that would take them near the moon so that their eight scientific instruments could measure radiation, solar emissions, and magnetic fields in the cis-lunar environment and serve as a test for the new hexagonally-shaped solar-powered spacecraft. Because of launch vehicle failures, the first two Rangers (1961) were boosted only

310

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

into low earth orbit, to reenter shortly thereafter. The next three Rangers, the capsules for which were built by the Aeronautics Division of Ford Motor Company, also failed. Equipped with television camera systems provided by RCA, Ranger 3 and 4 impacted the moon, but without the ability to transmit telemetry. Ranger 5 missed the moon by 725 kilometers. Block III spacecraft carried only a televsion system-no other onboard experiments-in an effort to simplify the mission and ensure a successful lunar impact with photographs. Even before Ranger 6, too, failed to return any data, NASA Headquarters directed JPL to terminate its follow-on Ranger activities, which had called for Block IV and V spacecraft that could survive a hard landing. The failures of all six Rangers led to investigations by Congress, JPL, and independent boards appointed by NASA. With an increased number of design and hardware reviews, revised schedules, closer monitoring of the subcontractors, and more intense participation by NASA Headquarters personnel, Ranger 7, 8, and 9 were all highly successful missions. They returned over 17 000 highquality images of the lunar surface, which were studied by hundreds of scientists and by manned spaceflight specialists looking for their first Apollo lunar landing site. Early program failures, budget cuts, and plans for Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor programs forced NASA to terminate Ranger after the third successful mission. Newton W. Cunningham led the NASA management of Ranger as program manager within the Office of Lunar and Planetary Programs. At JPL, J. D. Burke, who had been deputy director of the Vega program, was Ranger project manager from October 1960 until December 1962, when Harris M. Schurmeier took the post. JPL not only oversaw the work of many subcontractors, but also performed most of the spacecraft integration and testing in-house and established a deep space tracking network with which to communicate with the spacecraft. For more information, see R. Cargill Hall, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210 (Washington, 1977); and Hall, Project Ranger: A Chronology, JPL HR-2 (Pasadena, CA: JPL, 1971).

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

311

Table Chronology of Ranger

3-151. and Operations

Development

Date April 1958 JPL's Functional Design spacecraft Group capable and JPL

Event was established to

study

possibilities

for

a

160-kilogram Feb. 6-7, 1959 NASA

of a Mars officials

mission. established management respon-

Headquarters

sibilities for Vega and proposed payloads for lunar Lunar probes would be followed by lunar orbiters with Dec. Dec. 11, 1959 21, 1959 The JPL gram the Vega first probe mission vehicle tentatively scheduled

and deep space missions. and then lunar landers, for August 1960. B. pro-

launch

program

was cancelled lunar

in favor and

of Atlas-Agena flight

was directed with missions

to establish through

a post-Vega 1962.

interplanetary photography

High-resolution

was judged B-launched

the most urgent goal of this lunar reconnaissance missions Jan. Jan. 12, 1960 21, 1960 NASA The first with Jan. 26, 1960 chose eight experiments near-misses impact

new program. were suggested for

Five Atlas-Agena for 1961-1962. near-lunar

the first two

missions. for February for August 1961, 1961. and new

of two

lunar

(Block

I) was scheduled (Block II) scheduled Ranger. deputy

the first

of three

missions

The lunar spacecraft was tentatively designated J. D. Burke were named program director and Lunar Program Headquarters to proceed study Office. officially with approved Ranger. for Ranger design

C. I. Cummings director of JPL's

Feb.

5, 1960

NASA

the Agena

B program

and

gave

JPL

permission March 1, 1960 JPL awarded

contracts

to North Motor

American Co.;

Aviation, reports were

Hughes Aircraft, and due on April 15. March March April 8, 25, 27, 1960 1960 1960 Sterilization A letter JPL guidelines

the Aeronautics

Div. of Ford

were

established. to RCA for value). to July 1961. the first flight of which was were Headfor a lunar impact of TV camera system.

contract

was awarded a contract million, was Ranger January

awarded ($4.8

to Ford contract slipped

the development

five rough-landing

capsules May June 7, 30, 1960 1961 The JPL first

mission for for

plans

follow-on 1963, (Block were

missions, delivered emphasis plans

scheduled four Ranger quarters July Aug. 12, 23, 1961 1961 First Ranger achieve Nov. 18, 1961 Ranger achieve Dec. Jan. April June 1, 1961 26, 23, 1962 1962 1962 Final Ranger Ranger Initial

to Headquarters; on lunar

included

missions

III) with

photography.

approved

these

follow-on

in August.

launch

of an Atlas-Agena launched orbit. on the on the

B was successful. fifth countdown; the spacecraft did not

1 was

its planned 2 was

launched orbit.

fourth

countdown;

the

spacecraft

did

not

its planned approval

was given

for lunar

four

experiments was not

for

the Block

II

Rangers.

3 was launched; 4 was launched; planning was

impact

achieved. before impact failed. contributed launch were dates being a

telemetry started for for

transmissions a Block

IV series. capsule.

Northrop Tentative

preliminary (1964) were considered.

design released

study

a soft-landing

in October;

by late fall as many

as 20 flights

312

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-151. Chronology ofRanger Development and Operations (Continued)
Date Event

Oct. Oct.

18, 1962 29, 1962

Ranger

5 was

launched; established 30. was

it did not a Ranger

impact board

on the

moon. who submitted its final

Headquarters report

of inquiry,

on November Schurmeier

Dec. Feb.

7, 1962 12-13, 1963

H.

M.

named

JPL meeting, 1V only;

project

manager,

replacing that Block

Burke. Ill and IV ex-

At a Ranger spacecraft periments

reprogramming would incorporated into

it was decided missions, for planning

be impacting-photography

with

additional

Block

V (12 hard

landers)

was approved. March 8, 1963 Northrop fabricate July 12, 1963 Headquarters beyond eliminated, Dec. Jan. 13, 1963 30, 1964 Headquarters Ranger impact. Feb. 2-3, 1964 JPL and independent board's final for Ranger report the next 6 review was issued Ranger boards were established. The indeBlock was Block selected to provide support for Block III and V and to

V spacecraft. directed III. While was JPL asked JPL to terminate Vall its efforts Block on IVimpact landers missions were not

Block

redesignated the possibility. all activities but

JPL

to study to cancel

directed

beyond no

Block

Ill. before

6 was launched

successfully,

it transmitted

telemetry

pendent Feb. 16, 1964

in March. spacecraft was returned to RCA for

A TV subsystem reexamination. The House

April-May

1964

of Representatives on NASA launched Oversight

Committee investigated with with with

on Science Project good good good data data data

and

Astronautics

Sub-

committee July Feb. March 28, 1964 Ranger Ranger Ranger

Ranger. return. return. return.

7 was

successfully successfully successfully

17, 1965 21, 1965

8 was launched 9 was launched

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

313

Table Ranger Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Aug. 23, 1961 (ETR) B

3-152.

1 Characteristics

Atlas-Agena 306.18

Hexagonal base with 2 trapezoidal Diameter, 1.5 Overall height, 3.6 Full span, 5.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Aug. 29, 1961 JPL J. D. Burke Block I

solar panels and 1 pointable

high-gain

antenna

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant center: NASA

Project manager: Type of Ranger: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution:

Test spacecraft systems for a lunar probe; collect data on solar plasma, particles, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays near the moon and in deep space. Electrostatic analyzer for solar plasma, JPL Photoconductive particle detectors, State University of Iowa Rubidium vapor magnetometer, GSFC Triple coincidence cosmic ray telescope, University of Chicago Cosmic ray integrating ionization chamber, California Institute of Technology and JPL X-ray scintillation detectors, Sandia Corp. Micrometeorite dust particle detectors, GSFC Lyman alpha scanning telescope, Naval Research Laboratory Injected into low earth orbit rather than highly eccentric orbit because of launch vehicle malfunction (Agena stage failed to restart); some spacecraft systems were checked out successfully and some data returned before reentry.

Results:

Table Ranger Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Nov. 18, 1961 (ETR) B

3-153.

2 Characteristics

Atlas-Agena 306.18

Power

source:

Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Type of Ranger: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results:

Hexagonal base with 2 trapezoidal Diameter, 1.5 Overall height, 3.6 Full span, 5.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells JPL J. D. Burke Block I

solar panels and 1 pointable high-gain

antenna

Test spacecraft systems for a lunar probe; collect data on solar plasma, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays near the moon and in deep space. Same as for Ranger 1 (table 3-152).

particles,

Injected into low-earth orbit rather than highly eccentric orbit because of launch vehicle malfunction (Agena stage altitude control system failed); little significant data received.

314

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Ranger Date of launch Jan. 26, 1962 (ETR) B base 1.5 height, 5.2 plus solar the sun cells 3.6 with antenna,

3-154.

3 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Shape: Dimensions (In):

Atlas-Agena Hexagonal radar Overall Full Diameter, altimeter

2 trapezoidal and

solar

panels,

1 pointable

high-gain

antenna,

a

a landing

capsule

span,

Power Date center:

source: of reentry: NASA

Cognizant

AgZn batteries In orbit around JPL J. D. Burke

Project manager: Contractors:

Aeronutronic Radio Block Collect

Div.,

Ford

Motor

Co.,

lunar

capsule

subsystem Div., TV camera on subsystem the moon and at a

Type of Ranger: Objectives:

Corporation II in-flight

of America-Astro-Electronics data sight; on gamma data rays; make

a rough activity

landing and

predetermined

transmit

on seismic

temperature

TV pic-

Experiments, responsible institution:

tures prior to impact. TV cameras, JPL et al. Gamma Single-axis sity Surface scanning pulse radio, JPL excessive velocity because of launch vehicle failed); missed the moon by 37 000 kilometers; computer so the and sequencer were caused too weak the high-gain for proper 27-28. signals were ray spectrometer, seismometer, University California of California Institute at San Diego and et al. Columbia Univer-

of Technology

Results:

Injected into lunar trajectory at malfunction (Atlas guidance system a failure antenna in the to lose spacecraft its earth central orientation

transmission;

useful

spectrometer

data

on radiation

received

on January

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS 3-155.

315

Table Ranger Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg): April 23, 1962 (ETR) Atlas-Agena 331.12 B

4 Characteristics

Hexagonal base with 2 trapezoidal solar panels, 1 pointable radar altimeter antenna, and a landing capsule Diameter, 1.5 Overall height, 3.6 Full span, 5.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Impacted on moon JPL J. D. Burke

high-gain

antenna,

a

Power

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractors: Type of Ranger: Objectives:

Aeronutronic Div., Ford Motor Co., lunar capsule subsystem, America-Astro-Electronics Div., TV camera subsystem Block II

Radio Corp.

of

Experiments responsible institution: Results:

Collect in-flight data on gamma rays; make a rough landing on the moon at a predetermined sight; transmit data on seismic activity and temperature and TV pictures prior to impact. Same as for Ranger 3 (table 3-154).

The spacecraft impacted the backside of the moon on April 26; a possible failure of the spacecraft central computer and sequencer caused the master clock to stop; no telemetry was received.

316

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Ranger Date of launch Oct. 18, 1962 (ETR) B base 1.5 height, 5.2 plus the solar sun cells 3.6 with antenna,

3-156.

5 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 342.46 Hexagonal radar Overall Full Diameter, span,

2 trapezoidal and

solar

panels, capsule

1 pointable

high-gain

antenna,

a

altimeter

a landing

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA

AgZn batteries In orbit around JPL J. D. Burke

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractors:

Aeronutronic Radio Block Collect Corp. II

Div.,

Ford

Motor

Co.,

lunar

capsule Div., TV

subsystem camera landing and subsystem on the moon and TV at a

of America-Astro-Electronics data sight; impact. Ranger on gamma data 3-154). rays;

Type of Ranger: Objectives:

in-flight

make

a rough activity

predetermined Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Ranger passed gamma power tures before Same as for

transmit 3 (table

on seismic

temperature

pic-

failure

rendered

all systems

and

experiments of data were

useless; received

spacecraft from the

within 725 kilometers of the moon; four hours ray experiment before battery depletion.

Table Ranger Date of launch Jan. 30, 1964 (ETR) B base 1.5 height, 4.6 plus solar cells on moon batteries 3.6 with

3-157.

6 Characteristics

(location): Launch Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): vehicle: (kg): Atlas-Agena 364.69 Hexagonal omnidirectional Diameter, Overall Full Power Date source: of reentry: NASA AgZn span,

2 rectangular antenna

solar

panels,

pointable

high-gain

antenna,

and

low-gain

Cognizant center:

Impacted JPL H. M.

Project manager: Contractors: Type of Ranger:

Schurmeier Corp. III of America-Astro-Electronics pictures of the lunar surface U.S. Div., TV camera impact Survey, subsystem for scientific Unversity study and

Radio Block Obtain for TV nia

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

television

before

the support of Apollo. cameras, University of Arizona, at San TV Diego, JPL failed; no data spacecraft were

Geological

of Califor-

Ranger February

cameras

impacted

in

Sea

of

Tranquility

area

on

2, 1964;

returned.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table -158. 3
Ranger Date of launch July 28, 1964 (ETR) 7 Characteristics

317

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 365.6 Hexagonal

B base with 2 rectangular antenna solar panels, pointable high-gain antenna, and

omnidirectional Diameter, 1.5 Overall Full height, 4.6

low-gain 3.6

span,

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA manager:

AgZn lmpacted JPL H.

batteries on

plus moon

solar

cells

Cognizant center: Project

M. Schurmeier Corp. III of America-Astro-Electronics pictures of Apollo. University Diego, JPL 4316 high-quality indicated photographs that of the moon; surface impacted would Sea of of Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Califorof the lunar surface Div., TV camera impact subsystem for scientific study and

Contractor: Type of Ranger:

Radio Block Obtain for

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

television

before

the support

TV cameras, nia at San Spacecraft Clouds for area

transmitted on July landing.

31; findings

the lunar

be suitable

a manned

Table Ranger Date of launch Feb. 17, 1965 (ETR) B base with

3-159.

8 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 366.87 Hexagonal

2 rectangular antenna

solar

panels,

pointable

high-gain

antenna,

and

omnidirectional Diameter, 1.5 Overall Full height, 4.6 batteries

low-gain 3.6 plus solar

span,

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA

AgZn

cells

Cognizant center:

Impacted JPL H.

on moon

Project manager: Contractor: Type of Ranger:

M. Schurmeier Corp. Ill of America-Astro-Electronics pictures of Apollo. of Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, University of CaliforJPL 7137 20, 1965. photographs of the moon; impacted in Sea of Tranof the lunar surface Div., TV camera impact subsystem for scientific study and

Radio Block Obtain for the

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

television support Diego,

before

TV cameras, nia at San Spacecraft quility area

University

transmitted on Feb.

318

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Ranger Date of launch March 21, 1965 (ETR)

3-160.

9 Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 366.87 Hexagonal

B base with 2 rectangular antenna solar panels, pointable high-gain antenna, and

omnidirectional Diameter, 1.5 Overall Full height, 4.6 batteries on

low-gain 3.6 plus moon solar

span,

Power Date Cognizant center:

source: of reentry: NASA

AgZn

cells

Impacted JPL H. M.

Project manager: Contractor: Type of Ranger:

Schurmeier Corp. III television pictures of the lunar surface U.S. before impact Survey, for scientific study and of America-Astro-Electronics Div., TV camera subsystem

Radio Block Obtain

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

for the support of Apollo. TV cameras, University of Arizona, nia at San Spacecraft March Final 24, mission Diego, JPL 5814

Geological

University

of Califor-

transmitted 1965. of Project

photographs;

impacted

in

crater

of

Alphonsus

on

Ranger.

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS Lunar Orbiter

319

The Surveyor taking. An orbiter

lunar orbiter project as approved in 1960 was a two-part underwould be used for lunar reconnaissance and a lander for surface problems increasing with the Centaur launch vehicle, early demands from the Office of Manned

exploration. However, development failures with Project Ranger, and

Space Flight for information on the lunar surface that would assist them in finding landing sites for Apollo, led Office of Space Sciences personnel to look for an alternative to the Surveyor orbiter. In 1962 and 1963, working groups at Headquarters and NASA's Langley Research Center were formed to study the requirements of an orbiter mission and suggest a center to manage its development and operations, and by March 1963 designers at Langley had completed plans for a lightweight orbiter. This was the Virginia center's first major spaceflight project, and the personnel at Langley were especially anxious for it to be a successful one. Proposals from five companies for an orbiter were studied during 1963, with a contract being awarded to the Boeing Company in May 1964. This also was Boeing's first spacecraft venture. The 385-kilogram orbiter constructed by Boeing carried a photography system developed by Eastman Kodak and three scientific experiments sponsored by Langley and JPL-selenodesy (the lunar equivalent to geodesy), meteoroid detection, and radiation measurement. While the scientific and photographic returns of the Lunar Orbiter missions would, of course, be of high interest to scientists, the data would contribute to the Surveyor lander project and to the Apollo lunar landings, the agency's most popular and visible program. Lunar Orbiter 1 through 5 were all successful, returning hundreds of high- and medium-resolution orbital photographs of the moon that were orders of magnitude better than those returned by Ranger or Surveyor. By the end of the third mission, the manned program's requirements of Lunar Orbiter had been met. In addition to prospective landing sites, other areas of the moon were photographed, and by the end of the project a broad systematic survey had been accomplished, including the moon's dark side. Scientists and designers of lunar landers received much useful data on radiation, gravity, and micrometeorites, and the manned program's tracking network had several opportunities to practice tracking a spacecraft in the vicinity of the moon. The highly successful Lunar Orbiter was managed at NASA Headquarters by the Office of Lunar and Planetary Programs, with Lee R. Scherer as program manager. At Langley, C. H. Nelson served as project manager. The Boeing Company was the prime spacecraft contractor, with Eastman Kodak supplying the essential photographic subsystem and RCA providing the communications subsystem. For more information on Lunar Orbiter, see Bruce K. Byers, Destination Moon: A History of the Lunar Orbiter Program, NASA TM X-3487 (Washington, 1977).

320

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date Long-range suggested biters ty and by May 1960 planners that general the of Lunar Orbiter

3-161. Development Event at the National Advisory agency with Committee being magnetic the first formed field, for and Aeronautics send orplace radioactivitaking and Operations

May

1958

new

civilian data

space

should

to the moon

to gather

on its mass,

information

on its surface,

mission

1960. approved for the Surveyor coverage project lunar and program, surface 3-167). demands from lunar surface, on which the Apollo program and delays in the the Surveyor orbiter to consist exploration. of an orbiter JPL and a

NASA lander

photographic for the

was assigned

responsibility Sept. 1962

(see table at JPL, on the

Because of problems for more detailed development of the

with Ranger information Centaur

launch

vehicle

would be launched, nate hardware and ing Oct. 1962 group was Office was group contract Research managing study

the Office of Space Sciences (OSS) was examining alterlaunch vehicles for a lunar orbiter mission. An OSS workto study the problem. Flight-Office for did. to study the feasibility of that Space of Space Sciences working The a (STL)

formed of

A joint group OSS study

Manned to study orbiter,

Space giving which

formed

the requirements NASA were project. planning asked

an Agena-class Laboratories

orbiter.

recommended for an

Technology

Jan.

1963

Langley center

Center a lunar

personnel orbiter

Feb. March

1963 1963

STL's Langley mission;

was reviewed

at a major approval

meeting for

at Langley. a lightweight orbiter

formulated

a project began for

document proposals. and

five companies for proposals

to develop

Aug.

30,

1963

A request

an orbiter

mission

spacecraft established

was released at Langley

to

industry, and a Lunar Orbiter under the direction of Clifford Sept.-Nov. 1963 A Langley Source Evaluation

Project Office H. Nelson. Board studied

was

proposals

from

Hughes

Air-

craft, Boeing, Lockheed for to be used posal Dec. 20, 1963 Boeing shroud. May 7, 1964 Boeing's tract Oct. 1964 and with

TRW (of which STL was orbiters and from Eastman the proposed Boeing orbiter.

now a division), Martin Kodak for a photographic The board favored

Co., and system pro-

Boeing's

recommended

it to Headquarters. contractor for the Lunar Orbiter and the launch

was selected

as prime

contract

was

signed

by NASA's

administrator

($75.8

million,

con-

value). was awarded to Eastman Kodak for design the photographic review was held. sub-

A subcontract system. A Lunar

Orbiter awarded review

preliminary to RCA for the first

spacecraft for

Feb. July

1965 25, 1986

A subcontract A flight Space

was

the communications spacecraft was held

subsystem. at the Kennedy

readiness

Center. Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter for I was 2 was 3 was 4 was launched launched launched launched sixth successfully successfully successfully successfully were not with with with with good good good good data data data data return. return. return. return.

Aug. Nov. Feb. May July Aug.

10, 1966 6, 1966 4. 1967 4, 1967 24, 1967

Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar Plans Lunar

a possible 5 was

mission

approved with good

by Headquarters. data return.

1, 1967

Orbiter

launched

successfully

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

321

Table Lunar Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): Aug. 10, 1966 (ETR) Atlas-Agena 385.6 D Orbiter

3-162. I Characteristics

Dimensions Power

(m):

Truncated cone main equipment arch) Stowed, 1.64 x With Antennas

with 4 solar panels projecting from base 2-part primary structuremounting deck, and an upper module supported by trusses and an 1.67 and panels deployed,

5.6 x 3.7

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractors:

NiCd battery plus solar cells Impacted on moon Langley Research Center (LaRC) Clifford H. Nelson

Objectives:

Boeing Co., prime Eastman Kodak, TV camera subsystem Radio Corp., of America, communications subsystem In lunar orbit, obtain high- and medium-resolution photographs of various types of lunar terrain suitable for Surveyor and Apollo landing sites; provide information on gravitational field micrometeorites. 610-ram Panoramic through tracking exercises; measure radiation and detect

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

and 80-ram Xenotar

lenses, LaRC

Selenodesy, LaRC, JPL Meteoroid detection, LaRC Radiation measurement, LaRC Transmitted 207 images of the lunar surface covering 41 000 square kilometers of candidate Apollo sites and 4.9 million kilometers of the far side of the moon; highresolution images were smeared, medium-resolution excellent. Mission was terminated by crashing the spacecraft onto the surface on October 29 (perilune, 58 kilometers). First U.S. spacecraft to enter lunar orbit.

Remarks:

322

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Lunar Nov. 6, 1966 (ETR) Orbiter

3-163. 2 Characteristics

Date

of

launch

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Atlas-Agena 385.6 Truncated tureand main an arch) 1.64 antennas battery

D cone with 4 solar mounting panels deck, projecting and an from upper base module (2-part primary struc-

equipment x plus 1.67 and

supported

by trusses

Dimensions Po wer Date source:

(m):

Stowed, With NiCd

panels solar

deployed,

5.6

x

3.7

cells

of reentry: NASA manager:

Cognizant cen ter: Project Con tractors:

Impacted LaRC Clifford Boeing Eastman

on moon

H.

Nelson camera subsystem of various provide radiation types and of lunar of detect

Co., prime Kodak, TV

Objectives:

Radio Corp. of America, communications subsystem In lunar orbit, obtain high- and medium-resolution images terrain suitable for field Lunar Surveyor through Orbiter and tracking 1 (table Apollo landing sites; measure gravitational micrometeorites. Same as for exercises; 3-162).

information

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Transmitted tion

211

high-

and

medium-resolution photographed

photographs i 3 primary

and Apollo

monitored target sites

radia(36 000 onto the

in the lunar

environment;

square kilometers). Mission was terminated lunar surface on October 11, 1967 (perilune,

by crashing the 196 kilometers).

spacecraft

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Table Lunar Feb. 4, 1967 (ETR) Orbiter 3-164. 3 Characteristics

323

Date

of

launch

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Atlas-Agena 385.6 Truncated main arch) Stowed, With

D cone with 4 solar panels mounting x 1.67 and plus panels solar deployed, 5.6 x 3.7 deck, projecting and an upper from base (2-part supported primary structureand an

equipment 1.64

module

by trusses

Dimensions Power Date source:

(m):

antennas battery

NiCd

cells

of reentry: NASA

Cognizant center:

Impacted LaRC Clifford Boeing Eastman

on moon

Project manager: Contractors:

H. Nelson Co., prime TV camera subsystem of various types of on detect

Kodak,

Objectives:

Radio Corp. of America, communications subsystem In lunar orbit, obtain high- and medium-resolution photographs lunar terrain suitable field for Surveyor through and Apollo landing sites;

provide radiation

information and

gravitational Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Transmitted ing sites;

tracking

exercises;

measure

micrometeorites; provide target for tracking Same as for Lunar Orbiter 1 (table 3-162).

network.

211 mediumonly 72°70 of the

and high-resolution total planned

images images were

of Apollo taken due

and Surveyor to malfunction

landin

readout system on February onto the surface on October

24. Mission 9 (perilune,

was terminated 55 kilometers).

by crashing

the spacecraft

324

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Lunar Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: May 4, 1967 (ETR)

Table 3-165. Orbiter 4 Characteristics

Atlas-Agena D 385.6 Truncated cone with 4 solar panels projecting from base (2-part primary structure-main equipment mounting deck, and an upper module supported by trusses and an arch) Stowed, 1.64 x 1.67 With antennas and panels

Dimensions

(m):

deployed,

5.6 × 3.7

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractors:

NiCd battery plus solar cells Impacted on moon LaRC Clifford H. Nelson

Boeing Co., prime Eastman Kodak, TV camera subsystem Radio Corp. of America, communications subsystem Obtain a broad systematic photographic survey of the moon, assessing various surface features; gather data on gravity, micrometeorites, and radiation. Same as for Lunar Orbiter 1 (table 3-162).

Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Transmitted

193 medium-

and high-resolution

images,

99% of the planned

number

by June 1; southern polar region photographed for the first time. Mission was terminated by crashing the spacecraft onto the surface on October 6 (perilune, 2705 kilometers).

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-166.
Lunar Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Aug. 1, 1967 (ETR) D Orbiter 5 Characteristics

325

Atlas-Agena 385.6

Truncated cone with 4 solar panels projecting from base (2-part primary structuremain equipment mounting deck, and an upper module supported by trusses and an (m): arch) Stowed, 1.64 x 1.67 With antennas and panels deployed, NiCd battery plus solar cells Impacted on moon LaRC Clifford H. Nelson

Dimensions

5.6 × 3.7

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractors:

Objectives:

Boeing Co., prime Eastman Kodak, TV camera subsystem Radio Corp. of America, communications subsystem Obtain photographs of scientifically interesting areas on both sides of the moon; gather data on gravity, micrometeorites, radiation; provide a target for tracking exercises. Same as for Lunar Orbiter 1 (table 3-162).

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Remarks:

Transmitted 212 medium- and high-resolution images of lunar surface until August 28; these images completed coverage of the far side. Mission was terminated by crashing the spacecraft into the surface on January 31, 1968 (perilune, 194 kilometers). Last mission of the Lunar Orbiter series.

Surveyor

Originally photographs ment NASA's placed Surveyor but weight and

perceived of the lunar

in

1960

as and

an

orbiter-lander information a lunar Research 3-161). several importance men could In its

project on the

that

would

yield

surface Surveyor missions. (see have the

scientific was

moon's that

environsupported Orbiter rethe moon, most expedition, limits, with a inof

its structure, manned Apollo

as flown Langley table

lander Center's

project

Lunar

the

Surveyor

orbiter would and

initial

configuration, to the

soft-lander constraints scientific designers magnetic camera, Surveyor early 1961, mission

carried growing Before

scientific

instruments

of Apollo be sent crust on

eliminated a lunar

Surveyor's spacecraft its soil,

objectives. needed properties, sampling would NASA planning

information and scoop, supply chose at the radar

on the and

moon's

and

its bearing Equipped

thermal footpads, with

reflectivity. and these proposal

television strument, In and

magnetic the designers

an alpha-scattering critical for data. a Surveyor for seven

Hughes Jet

Aircraft's Propulsion

lander lunar

began

Laboratory

(JPL)

326

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

flights, the first of which was planned for launch on Atlas-Centaur in 1963. Unfortunately, the new Centaur stage did not cooperate, and repeated schedule delays with the launch vehicle forced Surveyor managers to postpone the lander's first mission. Surveyor's designers also had to pare down the spacecraft's size so that it was compatible with Centaur's more limited lifting capabilities-from an original 1134 kilograms with a 156-kilogram payload to a 953-kilogram spacecraft with 52 kilograms of instruments. It was 1966 before Atlas-Centaur was operational, but the new booster launched all seven Surveyors into the proper trajectories. Surveyor lander was roughly triangular in shape with two equipment compartments and a vertical mast to hold a solar panel and several antennas° The threemeter-high craft was supported on three landing legs with shock absorbers and footpads. Its controlled landing was accomplished by three vernier engines and a retrorocket. The first two landers were equipped with only a television camera (capable of both 25- and 6-degree fields of view) for taking post-landing photographs. Surveyor 1 landed on the moon on June 2, 1966, three days after it started its journey from the Eastern Test Range. Transmitting more than 10 000 high-quality images, it remained operational until the following January. Trouble with the vernier engines caused the second lander to crash into the moon, but Surveyor 3 with added features returned an abundance of data. Besides 6315 photographs, the earth-bound specialists received information on the composition and surface-bearing strength of the lunar crust as the television camera focused on a surface sampler as it dug trenches in the soil and on thermal and radar reflectivity. Surveyor 4 failed; minutes before it was due to land something went wrong, and the spacecraft either exploded or crashed onto the moon's surface. The last three missions all returned thousands of photographs and supplied data on chemical elements in the soil, touchdown dynamics, and the surface's magnetic properties. Mission specialists had a great deal of control over the Surveyor spacecraft and could correct its trajectory if needed and otherwise maneuver it. Surveyor 6was even restarted and moved three meters on the surface. Apollo designers had met all their objectives with Surveyor by the end of the sixth flight, follow-on Block II or III missions. Scientists, and too, NASA managers cancelled any especially geologists, benefitted

from the vast photographic archives made possible by Surveyor (some of the photographs were in color). Surveyor 7 landed in an area of high scientific interest outside the Apollo target area. Surveyor was managed by the NASA Headquarters Office of Lunar and Planetary Programs within the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). Benjamin Milwitzky served as program manager. At JPL, Walker E. Gibberson led the Surveyor team in its early days, with Robert J. Parks taking over in 1965. Howard H. Haglund assumed the role in late 1966. Hughes Aircraft Company was the prime spacecraft contractor. No single source can be suggested for further reading, but several volumes published by NASA record the results of the project. Among them, the following is perhaps the most useful: NASA, Office of Space Science and Applications, comp., Surveyor Program Results, NASA SP-184 (Washington, 1969).

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

327

Table Chronology Date May 1960 NASA orbiter approved for of Surveyor

3-167. Development and Event Operations

the Surveyor Laboratory for Ranger.

launch and was (JPL)

program a lander assigned

to consist for surface project

of two

parts-an The for

photographic

coverage

exploration. responsibility

Jet Propulsion Surveyor and July 1960

Four Surveyor study contracts American, Space Technology JPL providing proposals also

were awarded to Hughes Laboratories, and McDonnell Eight study contracts

Aircraft, Aircraft, for

North with

design requirements. were let. as contractor

experiment

Jan.

19,

1961

Hughes contract 1963 on

was selected

to build

seven

Surveyor was

landers; for

a letter August

was issued on March an Atlas-Centaur. Corporation on Surveyor. test

1. The

first launch

scheduled

March

6, 1962

Martin-Marietta generator for The first

was

selected

to

build

a

thermoelectric

use

May

8, 1962

Atlas-Centaur of Centaur demands at Langley

launch

was unsuccessful. problems, early failures surface with with for the Ranger, Orbiter, Centaur and the orto be stage

Mid-1962

Because increasing biter forced

development for information

on the lunar and replaced Problems Surveyor Center. first

Apollo,

portion

of Surveyor

was dropped Research of the

by Lunar

managed

the postponement testing second of the

launch.

Early Nov. Dec. Aug.

1963 27, 1963

Initial The

first proof

test model

was completed.

Atlas-Centaur launched launched into a highly retrorocket

test launch a Surveyor a Surveyor elliptical system

was successful. model model successfully. successfully, lunar putting transfer by the dummy

11, 1964 11, 1965

Atlas-Centaur Atlas-Centaur spacecraft

orbit

to simulate

orbit. Hughes and

Feb.

1, 1966

A soft-landing JPL. Atlas-Centaur double ignition, Surveyor

was tested

successfully

April

7, 1966

launched and

a Surveyor the dummy

model, spacecraft

but

the

vehicle

failed

to achieve

remained a soft-landing

in earth test

orbit. under its own

May

11, 1966

The power.

spacecraft

accomplished

May June

30 1966 1, 1966

Surveyor A General on

1 was launched Accounting Surveyor 2 was

successfully, Office report

landing charged

on

the moon with

on

June

2. $2.5

NASA

spending

million Sept. 20, 1966 Surveyor lunar Dec. 13, 1966 NASA Surveyor Orbiters, April July Sept. Nov. Jan. June 17, 1967 Surveyor Surveyor before 8, 1967 7, 1967 7, 28, 1968 1968 Surveyor Surveyor Surveyor JPL's

experiments

it had not but to vernier

required. the spacecraft failure. (Block Ranger II) and spacecraft, a possible Lunar crashed into the

launched

successfully, 22 due

surface dropped rover and

on September plans because Surveyor

engine

for three of good I and

additional results because

Surveyors with later of budgetary landing but on the

considerations. the moon spacecraft on April failed 19. minutes 10. 9. 9.

3 was launched 4 was its scheduled launched

successfully, successfully, successfully, successfully, successfully, office

14, 1967

landing. landing landing landing on the moon on the moon on the moon on September on November on January

5 was launched 6 was launched 7 was launched Surveyor project

was closed.

328

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Surveyor Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): May 30, 1966 (ETR) Atlas-Centaur 995.2

3-168. Characteristics

1 (Surveyor-A)

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results:

Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Landed on the moon June 2, 1966 JPL Robert J. Parks Hughes Aircraft Co., prime Demonstrate spacecraft capability to maneuver, communicate, moon; photograph surface. TV cameras, GSFC, LaRC, JPL, U.S. Geological Survey, Observatory, University of Chicago and soft-land Lamont on the

Geological

Remarks:

Soft-landed on the moon June 2 in the Ocean of Storms area; returned more than 10 000 high-quality images and selenological data; completed primary mission July 13 with communications reestablished periodically through January 1967. First spacecraft to soft-land on the moon.

Table Surveyor Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m):

3-169. Characteristics

2 (Surveyor-B)

Sept. 20, 1966 (ETR) Atlas-Centaur 995.2 Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Impacted onto the moon Sept. 22, 1966 JPL Robert J. Parks Hughes Aircraft Co., prime Demonstrate spacecraft capability moon; photograph surface. TV cameras, GSFC et al. to maneuver, communicate, and soft-land on the

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Spacecraft crashed onto the lunar surface on September 22 when one of its three vernier engines failed to ignite during a mid-course maneuver.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-170.
Surveyor Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): April 3 (Surveyor-C) Characteristics 17, 1967 (ETR)

329

Atlas-Centaur 997.9 Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Landed on the moon April 19, 1967 JPL H. H. Haglund Hughes Aircraft Co., prime TV cameras, U.S. Geological Survey Surface sampler, California Institute of Technology Soft-landed on the moon April 19, 1967, within an Apollo landing area; returned 6315 images and data on a soil sample; experiments functioned until early May when lunar night began. The visual range of the TV cameras was extended by the use of two flat mirrors.

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Table Surveyor Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): July 14, 1967 (ETR)

3-171. Characteristics

4 (Surveyor-D)

Atlas-Centaur 1037.4 Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Impacted onto the lunar surface July 16, 1967 JPL H. H. Haglund Hughes Aircraft Co., prime Soft-land on the moon in Sinus Medii; obtain photographs

Dimensions

(m):

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

of surface;

conduct

ver-

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

nier engine experiment; manipulate surface with scoop and observe with TV camera; obtain touchdown dynamics information and thermal and radar reflectivity data. TV cameras, U.S. Geological Survey Surface sampler, California Institute of Technology Hight was successful until two seconds before retrorocket half minutes before scheduled landing; spacecraft impacted an explosion. burnout, two and onethe moon, possibly after

330

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
Table Surveyor 3-172. Characteristics

5 (Surveyor-E)

Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m):

Sept. 8, 1967 (ETR) Atlas-Centaur 1006 Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Landed on the moon Sept. 10, 1967 JPL H. H. Haglund Hughes Aircraft Co., prime Soft-land on moon; obtain TV photos of the surface; conduct vernier engine experiment; determine abundance of chemical elements in soil; obtain touchdown dynamics information and thermal and radar reflectivity TV cameras, U.S. Geological Survey Alpha-scattering instrument, University of Chicago Surface sampler, California Institute of Technology Magnetic footpads, JPL data.

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Experiments, responsible institution:

Results:

Soft-landed on the moon in Sea of Tranquility area on September 10; returned 18 000 images, some converted to color; obtained data on lunar surface radar and thermal reflectivity; performed other investigations as planned. Complete signal was lost on December 16, 1967.

Table Surveyor Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Nov. 7, 1967 (ETR) Atlas-Centaur 1008.3

3-173. Characteristics

6 (Surveyor-F)

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Triangular aluminum frame containing 2 equipment compartments supported by 3 landing legs with footpads; a vertical mast supported a solar panel and antennas Height, 3 Width with legs extended, 4.2 AgZn batteries plus solar cells Landed on the moon Nov. 9, 1967 JPL H. H. Haglund Hughes Aircraft Co., prime Soft-land on moon; obtain TV photos of the surface; conduct vernier engine experiment; determine abundance of chemical elements in soil; obtain touchdown dynamics information and thermal and radar reflectivity data. Same as for Surveyor 5 (table 3-172)

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Soft-landed in Sinus Medii area on November 9; returned 29 500 images of the lunar surface, Earth, Jupiter, and several stars; obtained data on touchdown dynamics and surface characteristics; on November 17 the spacecraft was restarted and moved about 3 meters. Signals were lost on December 14, 1967.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

331

Table Surveyor Date of launch 7 (Surveyor-G)

3-174. Characteristics

Jan.

7, 1968 (ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Atlas-Centaur 1040.1 Triangular landing aluminum legs with 3 with legs extended, plus solar Jan. 4.2 cells 9, 1968 batteries frame containing a vertical 2 equipment mast supported compartments a solar panel supported and antennas by 3

footpads;

Dimensions Power source:

(m):

Height, Width AgZn Landed JPL

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

on the moon

H.

H.

Haglund Aircraft on Co., moon; data. 5 (table 3-172). sampler; prime obtain TV photos touchdown of the surface; dynamics manipulate information lunar and material and obtain thermal

Hughes Soft-land with radar

the surface reflectivity as for

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Same

Surveyor

Landed

near

lunar

crater of the failed

Tycho

on

January

9; returned

21 274 images,

including

some stereo pictures scattering experiment into Remarks: Last position. mission Signal

surface and of rocks that were of special to contact surface, but the sampling arm on February 20, 1968. series.

interest; lightmanipulated it

was lost

of the Surveyor

Mariner

Exploration of earth's nearest planetary neighbors was a goal entertained by NASA scientists from the agency's earliest days. Missions to Venus and Mars would require more sophisticated spacecraft than the Explorers sent into orbit around earth or the sun to measure and observe the phenomena of interplanetary space. Spacecraft directed toward earth's moon and the other planets would require complex communications, data storage, and guidance and control equipment, computers, and scientific instruments with which to sound distant atmospheres. The weight of this new hardware would require a launch vehicle more powerful than those available to NASA in the early 1960s. From the first preliminary studies, space agency planners built their designs for Mariner planetary explorers around the powerful Centaur upper stage under development at General Dynamics. And it was Centaur's availability, or lack of it, that determined the direction the first 10 years of planetary mission planning would take. From 1960 through 1968, 10 distinct Mariner projects troubles with Centaur and the budget caused the cancellation were approved, of four of them. but The

first Mariners--"A," a Venus flyby mission, and "B," instrumented Mars and Venus landings-were proposed in 1960, but they never became flight projects. Proposals for Mariner-Venus 1962 (also called Mariner R) led to the launches of Mariner I and 2, Venus flyby projects. Only Mariner 2 reached its target, returning 42 minutes of

332

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
3 and 4, flyby mis-

dataabouttheatmosphere andsurface theplanet. ariner of M

sions, were approved in late 1962 as Mariner-Mars 1964. Again, only one of the pair was successful. Mariner 4 reached Mars in 228 days, sending back 21 Y2 photographs of the Red Planet's surface and information about its atmosphere. Mission planners and scientists, anxious to send orbit-landers to Mars and Venus, designed a heavy, sophisticated spacecraft called Voyager in 1962, but Voyager plans were never translated into flight hardware. Money and launch vehicles were once again the problems. The proposals or cancellations of Mariner-Mars 1966 (flyby), Advanced Mariner 1969 (Mars orbiter-lander), Mariner-Venus 1967 (flyby), Mariner-Mars 1969 (flyby), Mariner-Mars 1971 (orbiter), and Mariner Venus-Mercury 1973 (flyby) were all affected in some way by Voyager's postponements and cancellation. The one other Mariner launched during NASA's first decade was Mariner 5, which took advantage of the 1967 Venus launch windows. The spacecraft flew by this cloudshrouded planet on October 19, 1967 and reported on its atmosphere, mass, and solar wind interaction. The first five Mariners were in the 200-260-kilogram class and were launched by Atlas-Agena B or D vehicles. Their hexagonal or octagonal frame bases held scientific instruments designed by personnel from NASA's centers and from American universities. Solar panels provided spacecraft powers, and the Deep Space Network at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) was responsible for tracking and communications. Many companies contributed components to the Mariners, acting as subcontractors to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where the spacecraft were assembled and tested. At NASA Headquarters, the Mariner program was managed by Fred D. Kochendorfer of the Office of Lunar and Planetary Programs until 1963, when Donald P. Hearth began acting as Pioneer and Mariner manager. Glenn A. Reiff took over in 1965. In mid-1967, Reiff took responsibility for Mariner-Mars 1967 only, and Newton W. Cunningham managed Mariner-Mars 1969, with Earl W. Glahn becoming manager of Mariner-Mars 1971 in late 1968. At JPL, Jack N. James was Mariner project manager until January 1965, when Dan Schneiderman assumed the job. For an overall look at Mariner history, see chapters 2, 3, 6, and 9 of Edward C. and Linda N. Ezell, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978, NASA SP-4212 (Washington, 1984). Many NASA publications have been issued on the Mariner projects and their results; three useful ones are JPL, Mariner-Venus 1962 Final Project Report, NASA SP-59 (Washington, 1965); JPL, Mariner-Mars 1964 Final Project Report, NASA SP-139 (Washington, 1967); and JPL, Mariner-Venus 1967 Final Project Report, NASA SP-190 (Washington, 1971).

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

333

Table Mariner Proposal Year Proposed* A 1960 Venus

3-175. 1960-1968 Results

Proposals, Mission

Mariner

flyby (1962,

Cancelled unavailability Replaced posal.

in

1961

because

of

the

1964, 1965) Mariner B 1962 1960 1961 Mars or Venus lander (1964) Venus flyby (1962)

of Centaur. Mariner-Mars 1966 pro-

by

Mariner-Venus (also called Mariner R) Mariner-Mars

Led to the launches 1962.

of Mariner 1 and 2 in

1964

1962

Mars flyby (1964)

Led to the launches 1964.

of Mariner 3 and 4 in

Mariner-Mars (to replace Mariner Advanced B)

1966

1963

Mars flyby (1966)

Cancelled in 1966 and replaced by a proposal for Advanced Mariner 1969. Cancelled in 1964 for budgetary reasons.

Mariner

1964

Mars orbiter-lander (1969)

1969 (to replace Mariner-Mars 1966) Mariner-Mars (in answer to Voyager ment) 1969 1965

Mars flyby (1969)

Led to the launches 1969.

of Mariner

6 and 7 in

postpone1967 1965 Venus flyby (1967) Led to the launch of Mariner 5 in 1967.

Mariner-Venus (in answer to Voyager ment)

postpone1971 1967 Mars orbiter (1971) Led to the launches 1971. of Mariner 8 and 9 in

Mariner-Mars (in answer to Voyager tion) Mariner

cancellaVenusLed to the launch of Mariner 10 in 1973.

1968

Mercury 1973 (proposed by the Space Science Board) *Does not necessarily indicate

Venus and Mercury flybys (1973)

official proposal;

for further

details see table 3-176.

334

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date 1958-1959 Several resulted launch May July 19, 1960 1960 NASA's A study mission strumented July Nov. Feb. 15, 1960 1960 1961 Mariner JPL feasibility in conceptual vehicle; planetary was that begun would landing A and of Mariner

3-176. Development and Event Operations

studies designs the earliest program at the Jet on Venus

for for

unmanned spacecraft was

lunar using scheduled Mariner. Laboratory and

and for

planetary 1962 to Venus.

missions

the planned

Atlas-Centaur

mission

was named Propulsion in 1962 or Mars

(JPL)

for

a Mariner for

A

fly by Venus

a Mariner

B mission

an in-

in

1964. Headquarters. Mariner A. to Venus landing in 1962, from 1964, and

B were

approved

by NASA design of

completed plans revised

the preliminary for Mariner plans

Revised 1965; tion.

A called

for missions

for Mariner

B dropped

the Venus

considera-

Aug.

1961

A study

was begun R), A was

at JPL

for a Mariner-Venus 1 and 2.

1962 flyby

mission

(also

call-

ed Mariner Aug. 30, 1961 Mariner Centaur; Early 1962 JPL began

which

led to Mariner due 1962 study to the

cancelled

projected

unavailability

of

the

Atlas-

Mariner-Venus a design which B's Mars

was approved. 1964 craft for a flyby mission

for a Mariner-Mars 3 and 4.

to Mars, April 9, 1962 Mariner sidered.

led to Mariner landing option

was dropped

and

the Venus

landing

recon-

May July Aug.

1962 22, 27, 1962 1962

Mariner-Venus Mariner Mariner December The 1 launch 2

1962 was

spacecraft unsuccessful

were

delivered when the

to KSC. vehicle passed malfunctioned. by Venus on

the launch spacecraft

launch 14.

was

successful;

Nov. March

1962 1, 1963

Mariner-Mars approval

1964

project for

was

tentatively

approved. 1964 was signed; which the Atlaswas still

A project Agena behind

document was

Mariner-Mars for

launch vehicle schedule.

substituted

Atlas-Centaur,

March

14, 1963

The Mariner B mission with a lander. The selection A Mariner-Mars Mariner B. A Mariner-Mars begun. of

was changed

to a pre-Voyager

checkout

flight

to Mars

April May

11, 1963 6, 1963

10 experiments 1966 flyby

for project

Mariner-Mars was proposed,

1964 which

was announced. took the place of

June-Dec.

1963

1964

spacecraft

proof-test

model

was assembled

and

testing

Dec. Jan.

19, 1964

1963

Mariner-Mars

1966

was

approved. Mariner 1969 orbiter-lander mission to Mars

Initial plans for were formulated. 1964

an Advanced

July 28,

Mariner-Mars 1966 was effectively cancelled, with official termination coming on September 4; it would be replaced by Advanced Mariner 1969. A project Mariner-Mars Mariner properly. approval 1964 document spacecraft for Advanced Mars 1969 was signed. Space Center. to jettison

Aug. Sepl. Nov.

2, 1964 11, 1964

arrived

at the Kennedy

5, 1964

3 launch

was unsuccessful

due to the failure

of the shroud

Nov.

19, 1964

Lewis would

Research replace

Center of a metal

undertook shroud one

the supervision for the next Mariner that had failed on

of

Lockheed's Mariner 3.

design

and

development

launch;

the metal

shroud

the fiberglass

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

335

Table Chronology Date Nov. Nov. 20, 28, 1964 1964 Advanced Mariner of Mariner Development

3-176. and Operations Event (Continued)

1969 was cancelled successfully;

because

of budgetary passed

considerations. by Mars on July

Mariner 4 was 14, 1965. A Mariner-Mars Voyager

launched

the spacecraft

Dec.

22,

1965

1969

flyby

project

_was tentatively (this

approved

when 6 and

the 7).

Venus-Mars 1967

project flyby

was postponed project (this for

led to Mariner when 5). 1969 was signed. by Venus

Dec.

25,

1965

A Mariner-Venus Mars project

was approved led to Mariner Mariner-Mars

the Voyager

Venus-

was postponed document

March June

28, 14,

1966 1967

A project Mariner 19.

approval 5 launch

was successful;

the

spacecraft

passed

on October

Nov.

1967

Mariner-Mars 1971 Mariner 8 and 9). Mariner Venus-Mercury

was

proposed

after

cancellation

of Voyager

(this

led to

June

1968

1973 first

was proposed Mariner-Mars for work

by the Space 1969 spacecraft 1971

Science

Board

(this

led to Mariner Aug. Nov. 23, 1968 A project JPL was

10). The

was assembled. signed.

approval authorized

document to begin

Mariner-Mars on Mariner-Mars

was 1971.

14, 1968

Table Mariner Date Launch Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): of launch vehicle: (kg): July 22, Atlas-Agena 202.8 Hexagonal Base, 1.04 Overall Span Power Date source: of reentry: NASA AgZn with I (Mariner

3-177. R-I) Characteristics

1962 (ETR) B

(location):

frame base x .36 3.66 panels

with

2 solar

panels;

antennas

mounted

atop

the base

height, battery

deployed, cells

5.05

plus solar

Cognizant center:

Destroyed JPL Jack

on range

Project manager: Contractor:

N. James (JPL) construction and testing of components built by many subcontrac-

In-house tors.

Objectives:

Send spacecraft to near-vicinity munications with the spacecraft in interplanetary space Microwave radiometer, Infrared Fluxgate radiometer, magnetometer,

of Venus; throughout

establish and maintain two-way comflight; obtain data on the environment the planet's surface characteristics.

Experiments, responsible institution:

and near Venus; JPL et al. JPL et al. JPL, California

survey

Institute State

of Technology University of Iowa

Energetic particle detectors, JPL, Cosmic dust detector, GSFC Solar Results: plasma spectrometer, from course JPL

CalTech,

Booster deviated after liftoff.

and was destroyed

by range

safety

officer

290 seconds

336

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Mariner Aug. 27, 1962 B frame x .36 3.66 deployed, cells height, with panels base with 2 (Mariner (ETR)

3-178. R-2) Characteristics

Date

of launch

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 202.8 Hexagonal Base, Overall Span 1.04

2 solar

panels;

antennas

mounted

atop

the base

5.05

Po wet source: Date of reentry: NASA

AgZn battery plus solar in orbit around sun JPL Jack N. James (JPL) construction

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor:

In-house tors.

and

testing

of

components

built

by many

subcontrac-

Objectives:

Send spacecraft to near-vicinity munications with the spacecraft in interplanetary space Mariner and 1 (table near Same as for

of Venus; throughout Venus; 3-177).

establish and maintain two-way comflight; obtain data on the environment the planet's surface characteristics.

survey

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Passed strument

within

34 762 kilometers of until the made

of Venus and 1963, planet.

on December surface measurements of

14 and the planet

made

a 42-minute going 87.4

ininto

survey orbit;

atmosphere comprehensive 4,

before wind; of

heliocentric sions received kilometers. Remarks." First

of the solar distance

transmismillion

January

from

a maximum

spacecraft

to scan another

SPACE SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

337

Table Mariner Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): 3 (Mariner

3-179. 1964) Characteristics

C, Mariner-Mars

Nov. 5, 1964 (ETR) Atlas-Agena 260.8 D

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Octagonal base with 4 solar panels Base, 1.27 x ,46 Overall height, 2.89 Span with panels deployed, 6.88 AgZn battery plus solar cells In orbit around sun JPL Jack N. James In-house (JPL) construction and testing of components built by many subcontractors. Fly by Mars and study the planet's atmosphere and surface; develop operational techniques for interplanetary missions; take measurements of the interplanetary environment; provide engineering experience in spacecraft duration flights away from the sun. Cosmic dust detector, GSFC, Temple University operations during long-

Experiments, responsible institution:

Results:

Cosmic ray telescope, University of Chicago TV system, California Institute of Technology Plasma probe, MIT, JPL Magnetometer, JPL, UCLA Trapped radiation detector, State University of Iowa Ionization chamber, California Institute of Technology, JPL Occultation, JPL, Cornell, Stanford University Spacecraft failed to jettison and battery power dropped; there was no indication that the solar panels were able to open and replenish power supply, and communications were lost; spacecraft in permanent heliocentric orbit.

338

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Mariner Date of launch Nov. 4 (Mariner 28, 1964 D base height, with panels plus sun battery around with 2.89 deployed, solar cells 4 solar (ETR) D,

3-180. 1964) Characteristics

Mariner-Mars

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Atlas-Agena 260.8 Octagonal Base, Overall Span 1.27

panels

× .46 6.88

Power Date

source." of reentry: NASA

AgZn In orbit JPL Jack

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives."

N.

James (JPL) Mars construction and provide flights away for Mariner study and testing of components and built surface; by many develop subcontracoperational enlongduring

In-house tors. Fly by

the planet's missions; the sun. 3-179).

atmosphere take

techniques vironment; duration Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Spacecraft proach; ble in somewhat the Same as

for interplanetary engineering from 3 (table

measurements in spacecraft

of the interplanetary operations

experience

flew by Mars dense-packed 22V2 less dense

on July

14, 1965, impact received; carbon probe

with carriers

9844

kilometers and thought

being atmosphere

the closest

apvisi-

lunar-type photographs than expected;

discovered

on the 1% of Mars to be a major after 8 days.

ionosphere dioxide ceased working

measured constituwas Mission

tent of the atmosphere; terminated in December Remarks: First close-up images

solar plasma 1967. of Mars.

Other

Lunar

and

Planetary

Projects

Two NASA's phase. Surveyor, beyond kilograms, strumented charges to Earth." for the at a At

other space one and

lunar science time, the

and and

planetary applications lunar

projects program, program first by the

were but called funded Saturn land, at the

funded not for in

during beyond three 1961, the

the

1960s

by study

paper

unmanned

vehicleswas the

Ranger, next some deposit explosive step 2270 in-

Prospector. soft-lander. would take points for

Prospector, Launched "rove many seismic close

Surveyor Prospector packages, various

and pick surface, report

weighing samples, detonate all its

across looks

measurements, at the the craft, Jet Propulsion and that were from by the

and

findings (JPL) even wanted require in and

back had to when

_t Prospector's a sample large on the return to The more class

designers task store first than of for

Laboratory 1963 Apollo

plans use

planners would

spacecraft moon. cut third

equipment Prospectors $23.5 million lunar

astronauts for FY 1963 was

landing When budget, roster.

scheduled the

launch lunar eliminated

1965-1966. planetary from the

Congress this

unmanned

spacecraft

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

339

Table Mariner Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): June 5 (Mariner 14, 1967 (ETR) D

3-181. 1967) Characteristics

E, Mariner-Venus

Atlas-Agena 244.9

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center." Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Octagonal frame base with 4 solar panels Base, 1.27 x .46 Overall height, 2.89 Span with panels deployed, 5.48 AgZn battery plus solar cells In orbit around sun JPL Dan Schneiderman In-house tors. (JPL) construction

and antennas

and testing of components

built by many subcontrac-

Experiments, responsible institution:

Fly by Venus within 3218 kilometers to provide data on atmosphere, radiation, and magnetic field; return data on interplanetary environment before encounter with Venus; provide first exercise of turnaround ranging technique of planetary distance. Ultraviolet photometer, University of Colorado et al. S-ban occultation, JPL, GSFC, Stanford University Dual frequency occultation, Stanford University Magnetometer, JPL et al. Plasma probe, MIT, JPL Trapped radiation detector, State University of Iowa Celestial mechanics, JPL Spacecraft passed within 4000 kilometers of Venus providing data on atmospheric structure, radiation, and magnetic field; mass of Venus was further defined by processing flyby trajectory data; solar wind interaction with Venus shown to be different from earth interaction. Mission was terminated in December 1967.

Results:

Voyager, considered 1100-kilogram planet's portance Voyager's preliminary $43 million surface. and way. in

as

an

advanced spring of orbit with Apollo,

mission 1960. Mars It

concept was

for proposed and

planetary that drop launch

exploration, as early as capsule the budget used had million, flight lunar to

was 1967 to

first this the imin for

the

spacecraft Delays cost of

or

Venus the

a landing vehicle, federal

developing and an and

Saturn

growing stood pay

ever-tightening technology but price for had

Supporting studies

research in FY By FY design

funds FY risen 1966

were NASA

design for

1962-1963, 1968, and the

requested the sum

Voyager. full-scale 1973. was venture. office was

to $71.5 first manned allow

needed

to start for that

development With an

for Voyager's expensive not

to Mars, project

rescheduled under another separate Before work for and way

Congress

balked.

as yet unproved, And had Voyager been

Congress promised established on been August spent

would to

NASA

to undertake in fact, that a

large

be large; it.

so large,

program Voyager millions

to manage 29, at JPL 1967,

cancelled had

thousands the

of man-hours best mission to waste, approaches had

of

of dollars orbiter-lander consideration). personnel who

on defining (the not Venus go

a combination from Viking

investigation The would data

of Mars did Viking

been

dropped Project

generated two

however. missions to

oversee

orbiter-lander

340

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA BOOK

Mars in 1976 would make use of the many mission design studies, hardware and scientific evaluations, and landing site surveys conducted in Pasadena. At NASA Headquarters, Donald P. Hearth acted briefly as Voyager program manager before Oran W. Nicks was named to that position in 1968. Donald P. Burcham led the effort at JPL, where Voyager design studies prepared by General Electric, Avco, and others were evaluated. For further information on Voyager, see chapter Ezell, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, (Washington, 1984). 4 of Edward 1958-1978, C. and Linda N. NASA SP-4212

DESCRIPTION--LIFE

SCIENCES

PROGRAM

Except for a brief time (March 1960 to October 1961) during NASA's first I0 years, the life sciences was not centrally organized as a program on par with manned spaceflight or space science, but was variously divided among Science and Applications (OSSA), the Office of Manned Space the Office of Space Flight (OMSF), and

the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART). Life sciences meant many things at NASA, and it was this multitude of different interpretations that kept it from becoming a strong program in its own right. For the team charged with sending man into space and eventually to the moon, life science investigations could help answer many questions: What kind of environment would man require inside his spacecraft? What were the effects of prolonged weightlessness on the cardiovascular system? What were the maximum acceleration forces he could withstand during launch and reentry?* Crew training and selection would also require a medical doctor's expertise, as would monitoring the health of a crew in flight. Management of "aerospace medicine" was assumed by NASA's manned spaceflight experts. The designers of flight garments, spacecraft systems, and hardware with which astronauts and pilots would work also needed the advice of specialists who understood the physical and psychological needs and limits of man. Such "bioengineering" projects were sponsored by OMSF and the advanced research and technology office. The study of terrestrial life forms exposed to the conditions of space (space biology) and the search for extraterrestrial life (exobiology) was left to the agency's space scientists. As most of the space biologist's work was done in laboratories under controlled conditions that simulated the environment of space, not many flight projects were totally devoted to biological payloads. Some experiments were performed on sounding rockets (e.g., BIOS 1, a 1961 Journeyman-launched reentry experiment sponsored by the Goddard Space Flight Center) and on high-altitude balloon flights (with monkeys, hamsters, insects, and microscopic specimens being sent aloft). The one spaceflight project funded exclusively by the life sciences program, Biosatellite, was

*Long before NASA was established, the Air Force had set up several aviation and aerospace medicine institutions committed to answering the same kind of questions. For more information on Air Force programs in this field and how the existence of Air Force medical research centers affected NASA's organization in the early 1960s, see John A. Pitts, The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Program to 1980, NASA SP-4213 (Washington, 1985), chapters l and 2.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

341

judged onlya partialsuccess following (see tables). cientists S attempted observe to theeffects prolonged eightlessness of w andradiation onthegrowthof plants and animals arried c onsmall atellites, retrorocket s buta failure terminated first misthe
sion, and bad weather and hardware problems contributed to the second spacecraft's early return. Much of the data that was generated by the space biology program in laboratories and with other small flight experiments was directly applicable to the design of manned spacecraft and life support equipment Exobiology was a more "purely" scientific endeavor, the manned would most and to aerospace medicine. and it did not contribute to

spaceflight program. But finding life elsewhere in the solar system certainly have had a profound impact on scientists concerned with

discovering the origins and composition of earth-based life forms. Exobiologists studied data returned by lunar and interplanetary spacecraft and pored over photographs of the moon, Venus, and Mars for clues, chemical or geological, that might lead them to some extraterrestrial life or to an environment that seemed conducive to harboring carbon-based life. With the increasing sophistication of interplanetary spacecraft capable of long-duration flights, scientists began designing hardware for life-detecting instruments that could be sent near or to Venus and Mars. Project Voyager would have been the exobiologists' first opportunity for a lander mission on another planet, but its cancellation in 1967 put a temporary end to years of work on Mars- and Venus-bound experiments. Most of this activity, however, was redirected to Project Viking in the 1970s. Before March 1960, biology manned spaceflight and advanced Administrator T. Keith Glennan mittee and established a separate and biotechnology was the exclusive concern of technology directorates, but in the spring of 1960 took the advice of his Bioscience Advisory ComOffice of Life Sciences, with Clark T. Randt as

director (see table 3-1). Five assistant directors (for bioengineering, grants and contracts, space biology, program planning, and aerospace medicine) were assigned to Randt. This office would supplant the Special Committee on Life Sciences, which had been formed by Glennan in 1958 to serve as an advisory body to Project Mercury personnel. The Bioscience Advisory Committee also recommended that NASA establish a central laboratory for life sciences research. Ames Research Center in California was chosen as the most likely site for such a facility, and Richard S. Young was assigned to Ames in early 1961 to establish more formal life sciences activities there. However, the first new facilities at Ames were not constructed until 1963-1964. These new laboratories were equipped with the tools required by space biologists and exobiologists, including a large animal shelter (vivarium) to house the thousands of laboratory animals required for research. With the change of administrations in Washington in November 1961 came a change in NASA's organization. The new administrator, James E. Webb, abolished the Office of Life Sciences Programs and reassigned the personnel throughout the agency, mainly to the new Office of Manned Space Flight. A director of bioscience programs, Orr E. Reynolds, was named in the space sciences directorate, but his staff and budget were small. Reynolds served as the head of NASA Headquarters' bioscience program throughout the remainder of NASA's first decade and beyond. Reporting to Reynolds were chiefs of exobiology, environmental biology, physical biology, behavioral biology, and planetary quarantine. For further reading, see the following: on how life sciences fit into NASA's space science and applications program, Homer E. Newell, Jr., Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science, NASA SP-4211 (Washington, 1980), chap.

342

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

16; n Ames o Research Center's rolein thelifesciences, Edwin Hartman, dvenP. A
tures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center, NASA SP-4302 (Washington, 1970), pp. 321-23, 325, 426-28, 478-87, 496-502; and Elizabeth A. Muenger, Searching the Horizon: A History ofAmes Research Center, 1940-1976, NASA SP-4304 (Washington, 1985), chap. 5; and on space medicine, John A. Pitts, The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Program to 1980, NASA SP-4213 (Washington, 1985); on exobiology, Edward C. and Linda N. Ezell On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978, NASA SP-4212 (Washington, 1984), chap. 3; and on NASA's changing organization, Robert L. Rosholt, An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101 (Washington, 1966).

Biosatellite

First with balloons

and later with sounding

rockets

and airplanes,

biologists

and

physicians had been observing the effects of high altitudes on living specimens for many years before NASA was organized. In an environmentally controlled spacecraft, scientists could study phenomena that were relative to their laboratory investigations but often impossible to simulate on earth (for example, prolonged weightlessness). Internal discussions among NASA personnel concerning a recoverable biological probe or satellite mission date from early 1959, with a National Academy of Sciences Space Science Board summer study group endorsing the suggestion in 1961. During radiation and weightlessness ing systems react to being flights Center, Six Biosatellite to Ames Research such a mission, specialists could observe the effects of on plants, insects, and small animals and study how livdeprived from their normal day-night cycle. were approved by NASA in 1962 and the project assigned Moffett Field, California.* The missions would become

increasingly complex over time, progressing from two 3-day flights with a payload of plant and insect matter, to two 21-day flights with a more sophisticated general biology package, and culminating in two 30-day flights with a primate on board. The response from the scientific community for experiments was enthusiastic, with some 170 proposals being submitted for consideration. The 3-day missions could accommodate 14 relatively simple experiments (13 were actually flown); 4 investigations could be selected for the 21-day missions; and 4 areas of investigation were allowed for the 30-day primate mission. In January 1964 after more than a year's evaluation, the Bioscience Program Office at NASA Headquarters recommended 22 experiments to be included in the Biosatellite program. Experiments on the first two flights would be exposed to one of two environments: radiation and weightlessness, or weightlessness only with no radiation. Provisions were made in the capsule for an essentially radiation-free area to house control experiments or those that did not require exposure to radiation, where radiation exposures were to be precisely timed (1 rad/day), and for an area for an area

*For more on this project's management and the conflict it raised between the Office of Space Science and Applications and the Office of Advanced Research and Technology, see John Pitts, The Human Factor: Biomedicine in the Manned Space Progam to 1980, NASA SP-4213 (Washington, 1985), pp. 82-84.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

343

that wouldbe constantlyrradiated a gamma i by matter.Wasps,lour beetles, f drosophilae, spiderwort plants, read b mold,andlysogenic bacteria ere forthe w used radiation-weightlessness experiments. General biology investigations (noradiation) wereaccomplished frogeggs, moebae, with a wheat eedlings, s andpepper lants. p The21-day missions erenot flown,but a greatdealof workwasdoneon w readying theirexperiment payloads efore b theywerecancelled. Theinvestigators hadplanned studytheeffects subgravitynmammal to of o body(white rats)composition andbiorhythms, higher lant(arabidopsis) a p lifecycle, ndthegrowth a and development human of tissue (liverandrespiratory). cells Onlyoneof the30-day rimate p missions (Biosatellite was launched, and that 3)
took place in the post-1968 period. Like all complex missions, it required a long lead time during which to prepare the payload. Biosatellite Ys objectives were to determine the physiological effects of orbital flight on a subhuman primate (Macaque nemestrina), to provide information about possible hazards to manned flight, and to observe basic physiological phenomena. Of special interest were neurophysiological, cardiovascular, and metabolic functions. A request for proposals for the design and development of the Biosatellite spacecraft was issued to industry in March 1963, with three firms (General Electric, Northrop Aircraft Corporation, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation) being awarded preliminary design study contracts the next month. GE's plans for a twosection craft were approved that summer and a letter contract awarded in March 1964. A reentry vehicle carrying the experiment capsule, equipped with retrorocket and heat shield, would return the payload to earth, while an adapter section housing the bulk of the spacecraft's systems would remain in orbit. A parachute-aerial recovery system was adapted for Biosatellite from an existing Air Force capability. Recoveries were targeted for the Pacific with a post-recovery laboratory available at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. The capsule had to be delivered to the investigators waiting at Hickam within six hours of the deorbit maneuver. General Electric's initial cost projection of $24 million had been grossly miscalculated. While the basic spacecraft did not pose many unforeseen design problems or expenses, the development and integration of so many experiments from so many different organizations led to ever-increasing costs and delays. Biologists and engineers were not accustomed to working together and did not communicate well, and biologists were not familiar with the complexities and restrictions of spaceflight hardware. Biosatellite 1 was not sent on its way until September 1967, nearly two years late. Both 21-day missions were eliminated because of money and time problems and an increasingly critical Congress. And funds for only one primate mission were made available. The launch and orbital phases of the Biosatellite 1 mission were successful, but the retrorocket system failed, and the capsule did not reenter as planned. Although teams searched the area of Australia and the Tasman Sea where the spacecraft should have reentered when its orbit decayed in January 1967 (Operation Lost Ball), nothing was found and no data Biosatellite 2 was more successful, were returned from the flight. The but the spacecraft did not complete next year, all its re-

quired orbits. During its second day of flight, Biosatellite 2 frequently refused to accept commands, and meteorologists reported that a tropical storm was due to hit the prime recovery area soon. Fearing that they might lose all contact with the satellite, the flight control team commanded the recovery vehicle to deorbit one day early. Recovery was complete on September 9, 1967. The Biosatellite 3 mission, launched

344

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA BOOK

in 1969, appeared

did

not

go according and the Orr the

to plan the team

either. called project was Charles

On the was

the

eighth

day

of flight,

the

primate

unresponsive, of

spacecraft static chief, Wilson, Center

down. during taking as project was the its seven to over years. Director for retiring from direcAt of

Managment Headquarters, Bioscience Carlton March tion for Bioletti, 1965 until

Biosatellite P. Dallow Reynolds. team at

Thomas Programs led the assistant

Biosatellite A. Research Project

reporting

Ames

manager under assistant the

project's director

termination. for

Biosatellite rather than

of Ames's life The sciences. best

development

director

single

source Summary

for

further Report

information (Moffett Field,

is J. CA:

W.

Dyer,

ed., Research

Biosatellite Center,

Project 1969).

Historical

Ames

Table Chronology Date April 1959 of Biosatellite

3-182. Development and Operations Event

NASA's Office of Space Science included among its goals a recoverable payload mission that would subject living things to the environment of space. In a planning document, the Office of Space Hight Programs suggested a flight project with biological experiments to study the effects of space environment on living things (frog eggs, germinating seeds, bacteria, algae). Several contracts were let for studies. The Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences considered methods by which NASA could held solve basic biological problems and suggested the study of the effects of weightlessness, disassociation of living systems from day-night cycles, and radiation on various living things. NASA announced biological project unofficially Ames Research project, that specialists at its centers were studying plans for a

Nov. 1960

Summer

1962

July 1962 Oct. 1962 Dec. 1962

of three to six flights. of a biological satellite called Biosatellite.

Center was assigned the management

Six Biosatellite flights (3-, 21-, and 30-day missions) launched by Thor-Delta vehicles were approved by NASA Headquarters, with the first launch scheduled for late 1965. The Bioscience Subcommittee of NASA's Space Science Steering Committee reviewed preliminary proposals for experiments. The name Biosatellite A request for proposals Biosatellite spacecraft. General Electric, were awarded eight-week was officially reserved for the project. studies of a Corp.

Jan. 1963 March 1, 1963

was issued for design and development Aircraft preliminary Corp., and Lockheed proposals contract.

April

11, 1963

Northrop

Aircraft

design study contracts. further for experiments

May 1963 Aug 21, 1963 Jan. 16, 1964 Feb. 1964 March 19, 1964

Panels of specialists convened to evaluate to be carried on Biosatellite missions. GE was selected for negotiations The Bioscience Programs classes of missions. Payload selection

for a Biosatellite

Office recommended

22 experiments

for the three

was made by the Office of Space Science and Applications. a letter contract for design and fabrication of six spacecraft.

GE was awarded

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table -182. 3 Chronology of Biosatellite Development and Operations (Continued) Date Event Dec. 1966 14, Biosatellite 1 was launched successfully, but controlled reentry was
achieved three days later because a retrorocket was established. cost overruns. the payload was recovered failed.

345

not

Jan. 1967 Spring967 1 Sept. 7,1967

A failure analysis review board Publicity Biosatellite was generated

over Biosatellite successfully;

2 was launched

on

September 9, one day ahead of schedule because the spacecraft responding satisfactorily to commands and because inclement threatened the recovery area.

was not weather

July 1968 30,
July-Aug. 1968

GE's contract spacecraft.

was modified to cover continuation

of work on four remaining a primate for a

A month-long laboratory test of systems designed to maintain 30-day mission was completed. NASA terminated plans for Biosatellite

Dec. 16, 1968

C and D 21-day missions.

Table Biosatellite Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m):

3-183. Characteristics

1 (Biosatellite-A)

Dec. 14, 1966 (ETR) Thrust-augmented Thor-Delta (TAD) 381 (reentry vehicle, 199.6; adapter section, Cylindrical cone adapter with heat shield and instruments

181.4) reentry vehicle

section, plus a blunt-cone

Po wer so urce: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, r_._ponsible institution: Results:

Adapter section, length, 2.06; diameter, 1.02-1.45 Reentry vehicle, length, 1.22; diameter at base, 1.02 Total length, 2.44 Diameter at point of mating with Delta, 1.37 AgZn batteries Feb. 15, 1967 Ames Research Center (ARC) Charles A. Wilson prime on the growth of plants

C. M. Wignet General Electric,

Observe the effects of weightlessness and gamma radiation and animals over a three-day period; recover payload.

Total of 13 experiments using pepper plants, spiderworts, corn and wheat seedlings, amoeba, frog eggs, mold, flour beetles, wasps, bacteria, and fruit flies; the experiments came from several universities, private labs, and ARC No useful data were obtained return of the payload. because a retrorocket failure prevented the controlled

346

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Biosatellite Sept. 7, 1967 (ETR)

3-184. Characteristics

2 (Biosatellite-B)

Date

of

launch

(location): Launch vehicle." Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Thrust-augmented Thor-Delta (TAD) 381 (reentry vehicle, 199.6; adapter section, Cylindrical with heat Adapter Reentry Total cone shield section, vehicle, length, batteries 2.44 of mating with Delta, 1.37 adapter length, length, and 2.06; 1.22; instruments diameter, diameter

181.4) section, plus a blunt-cone reentry vehicle

1.02-1.45 at base, 1.02

Diameter Power source: AgZn

at point

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager:

Oct. 4, 1967 ARC

Charles C. General

A. Wilson Electric, prime and gamma radiation recover payload. on the growth of plants

Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results:

M. Wignet

Observe the effects of weighlessness and animals over a three-day period; Same as for Biosatellte 1 (table

3-183).

Because area, being cell the September

of decreasing capsule 9, with both was

communications deorbited ahead surviving.

reception of schedule; Some

and

bad the

weather capsule did related were show

in the recovery was recovered the effects rapidity on various on of of

all specimens to prolonged enhancing exposure

specimens effects

submitted processes; from

weightlessness, and antagonistic experiments.

apparently

to the shown

specimens

radiation

DESCRIPTION

-METEOROLOGY

PROGRAM

Meteorology is a field to which space science has been conspicuously applied. As defined by Morris Tepper, leader of NASA's meteorology program during the agency's first decade, meteorology is "concerned with the observation, description, explanation and prediction of the atmosphere, specifically its state and its motion." __ Early observers used ground readings, kites, and balloons (radiosondes) to gather information on wind, temperature, barometric pressure, precipitation, and other factors that affected local weather conditions and coordinated their findings as best they could. But it was obviously necessary to collect data from larger areas and from greater altitudes to generate more accurate forecasts. With the development of airplanes and then rockets, plus improved global communications networks, the meteorologist had new tools. Weather-sensing instruments carried on aircraft could be sent expeditiously over long distances, and sounding rockets could take measurements above 30 kilometers and photograph the cloud cover (first accomplished in 1947). But the greatest boon to meteorology was the satellite, a plat-

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

347

formhighabove earththatcouldrecord continuously andovera largeareacloud coverandothercriticalreadings. A weather satellite adbeen h proposed possible asa project theInternational for Geophysical Year(1957-1958), andtheNavalResearch Laboratory flewa cloud coverexperiment onits Vanguard 2 satellite in 1959. Interested in reliable weather
forecasts and the reconnaissance abilities of satellites, the military community had been studying the feasibility and effectiveness of television-equipped weather satellites since the late 1940s and had contracted with several private firms for preliminary hardware and mission studies. Having been awarded such a contract by the Air Force in 1951, the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) went on to perform independent research that led to the development of an orbital camera system. Their efforts attracted the attention of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA). A joint RCA-ABMA project led to the construction of the prototype satellite Janus, the forerunner of the Tiros satellite. When NASA was established in 1958, it inherited this weather satellite project. Project Tiros (Television Infra-Red Observation Satellite) was highly successful, from its first research and development flight in 1960 through its operational use as a Weather Bureau-Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) satellite in 1965-1969. Nimbus, a second-generation meteorology observatory, was first orbited in 1964 (see also Applications Technology Satellite). The other half of NASA's meteorology flight program was sounding rockets. Being primarily concerned with the region below 105 kilometers for temperature and other readings, some NASA scientists benefited from the frequent use of small, inexpensive Arcas rockets for the bulk of their soundings. Satellites could not provide data about the upper stratosphere or the mesophere since their orbits exceeded approximately 100 kilometers. Small sounding rockets carried balloon payloads aloft, which were ejected, inflated, and then tracked by radar. Density of the air and wind velocity were determined by the balloon's rate of descent and motion. Sensors carried by small rockets recorded temperature and other characteristics during their flights up and down, giving investigators vertical profiles of a particular area. In 1965, NASA's small meteorology sounding rockets were launched from 14 different sites around the world-from Point Barrow to McMurdo Sound, and from Midway Island to Ascension Island. With larger sounding rockets such as the Nike-Cajun, experimental techniques were improved, new hardware tested, and readings taken in the upper atmosphere. By listening to acoustic grenades ejected from rockets, specialists computed the wind and the temperature of the intervening air. In another experiment, rockets released trails of sodium vapor that were tracked by ground observers and recorded on film, yielding data on wind speed and direction. Air density and pressure circulation systems, the influence of tidal forces on the atmosphere, and geographical and seasonal variations in the atmospheric structure were other areas of research to which the meteorology sounding rocket was applied. The NASA Headquarters meteorology program was variously organized during the 1958-1968 period, but Morris Tepper was its only director. Until mid-1961, the program was part of the Applications and Manned Flights Programs Office, under the Office of Space Flight Programs. In 1971, meteorology was one of the elements of the satellite and sounding rocket program, part of the Office of Space Flight Programs. From late 1961 until May 1963, Tepper's people were a division of the new Office of Applications, and with the organization of the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) in mid-1963 meteorology was assigned to it until 1966. The

348

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

program finished out the decade as part of the Space Applications Programs Office of OSSA. William K. Widger was in charge of meteorological satellites until 1962; Michael L. Garbacz assumed these duties in 1963. William C. Spreen was the meteorology sounding rockets manager for most of the decade. Richard L. Haley worked as advanced technology and projects manager or as Nimbus program manager from 1964. Meteorology flight projects were assigned to the Goddard Space Flight Center, where they were managed first by the aeronomy and meteorology division, part of the Office of Space Science and Satellite Applications (William G. Stroud, chief), and then from 1965 on by the projects directorate. Since the data returned by the meterology satellites were of immediate use to many parties, NASA worked with various agencies to ensure that the information was disseminated through the National Weather Satellite Center to the proper authorities and users and that the agency met the needs of the Department of Defense, ESSA (formerly the Department of Commerce Weather Bureau), and other groups. Interagency coordination committees further oversaw and reviewed the government's requirements. Since weather forecasting was by necessity a global undertaking, NASA also worked with private international meterological organizations and foreign government agencies in setting up workshops, establishing sounding rocket launch facilities and recovery operations, and developing direct data readout capabilities.

Tiros/TOS/ESSA

The development of weather reconnaissance satellites was initiated several years before NASA was established in 1958. In 1956, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) awarded a contract to the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) that would allow the company to continue the development and fabrication of a weather satellite it had been studying since 1951. With the creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) by the Department of Defense in early 1958, authority for RCA's Project Janus was transferred to this new group. By the time NASA assumed responsibility for the nation's weather satellite programs in April 1959, RCA's satellite had advanced through several design configuations-from a rod-shaped 9-kilogram payload that would be boosted by a Jupiter C missile, to a 39-kilogram spin-stabilized disk (Janus II) that would be launched by a Juno II, to a much heavier disk-shaped satellite (the Tiros configuration). This last design was slated at first for launch by a Juno IV vehicle (development of which was dropped) and then by a Thor-Able. Less than a year after NASA started managing the Tiros (Television Infra-Red Observation Satellite) project, Tiros 1 was launched successfully from the Eastern Test Range. Nine more research and development flights followed (1961-1965), culminating in the first Tiros Operational System (TOS) launch in 1966 (ESSA 1). But even by the 1962 flight of Tiros 4, the U.S. Weather Bureau was able to send daily transmissions of cloud cover maps provided by NASA to weather services around the world, and by April 1965 had issued more than 2100 storm bulletins to some 50 countries based on Tiros data. Early fears voiced by the Soviet Union that Tiros was no more than a "spy in the sky" were clearly unfounded since the images sent to earth by the weather satellite showed only the largest of geographical features beneath the weather systems.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

349

Thebasic configurationftheTirossatellitehanged o c littleovertheyears. was It an18-sided hatbox-shaped cylinder itha diameter 1.07 w of meters nda height f a o .48to .57meter, eighing to 147 w 120 kilograms. Tiroswascovered ithsolar ells w c that charged nickelcadmium batteries, hichpowered criticaltwo-camera w the televisionystem. s Onthefirsteightmissions, thecameras mounted nthebotwere o tom of the spacecraft, on Tiros 9 the two cameras were positioned on the but
satellite's curved outer ring pointing in opposite directions; as the spacecraft turned on its side it rolled through space like a slow-turning wheel on an imaginary track (the so-called cartwheel mode). Early Tiros satellites were launched in east-west orbits, but later weather satellites were put into polar north-south paths, which provided more ideal photographic lighting conditions and better coverage. The television system became more sophisticated, too, with the addition of an automatic picture transmission (APT) system on Tiros 8, which allowed for the transmission of real-time cloud cover pictures to any APT ground receiver within audio range of the satellite in a fashion similar to radio photograph transmissions. An advanced vidicon camera system (AVCS) could take 6 or 12 pictures per orbit at 260-second intervals, each image covering an area 3160 by 3160 kilometers, thereby obtaining global coverage. Images were stored in an onboard tape recorder for transmission to the National Environmental Satellite Center. In addition to the television cameras, some Tiros spacecraft carried infrared-scanning and temperature-probing instruments. The Weather Bureau (later the Environmental Science Services Administration) participated in the Tiros project from its beginnings in the late 1950s, and this Department of Commerce agency was responsible for disseminating data returned by satellites to weather services and scientists. A formal agreement on an operational satellite system was first reached by NASA and the Weather Bureau in March 1964. Once Tiros became operational, the Bureau assumed its management, while NASA was charged with spacecraft-launch vehicle development and procurement on a costreimbursable basis. Tiros Operational System missions (ESSA 1 through 9) were all successful, providing daily information on cloud cover, upper winds, pressure, and precipitation on a global scale. This kind of data made possible daily weather forecasts, storm and marine advisories, gale and hurricane warnings, cloud analyses, and polar and Great Lakes navigational information. At NASA Headquarters, Morris Tepper as chief of meteorology programs was in charge of Tiros management, sharing the responsibilities with William K. Widget in 1962. In mid-1963, Michael L. Garbacz was named flight project program manager decade. and led the Tiros-TOS Tiros, assigned to the team at Headquarters Goddard Space Flight for the remainder of the Center, was managed by

William G. Stroud (Tiros 1), Rudolf A. Stampfl (Tiros2), Robert M. Rados (Tiros3 through ESSA 1), and William W. Jones (ESSA 2 through 8). RCA served as prime spacecraft contractor. For further reading on the early history of Tiros, see John H. Ashby, "A Preliminary History of the Evolution of the TIROS Weather Satellite Progam," NASA HHN-45, Aug. 1964; and GSFC and U.S. Weather Bureau, Final Report on the Tiros I Meteorological Satellite System, NASA TR-R-131 (Washington, 1962).

350

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

o__

o_
_J

z

t---

z

1
_a:
'-rtu ,,_Z

D

I I
I I

z_ O_u
,t,

I
I
t

¢/3

E

t
_

_
o_
I.-- _._ e¢o

_

z

o

.L

T
z _0

_z
,< Z tu

_
_

[
,-' Z

_-_

_-_

.__

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

351

Table Chronology Development Date 1946 In a report for the Air of

3-185. Tiros/TOS/ESSA and Operations Event Force, could Douglas Aircraft (Project to which RAND) orbiting suggested satellites

that weather forecasting could be put. 1951

be one of the uses

RAND contracted with the Radio Corporation of America the feasibility of using cameras on orbiting satellites. RCA, merce acting Weather on its own, Bureau satellite. submitted and The the Army proposals Ballistic to Missile (called

(RCA)

to study

1956

the Department Agency Janus),

of Comweather con-

military

for a television-equipped (ABMA)

reconnaissance

tracted with RCA for work on such a spacecraft ed with Jupiter C in the spring of 1958. Feb. 1958 The Advanced the television meteorology March 1958 RCA nance Satcllite). Summer-Winter 1958 Tiros which for April 13, 1959 was assigned was cancelled, Research satellite satellite. Janus mission Projects project, with Agency new (ARPA) emphasis

to be launch-

assumed being

responsibility

for

placed

on its use as a

redesigned Missile

for was

use called

with

the Juno

II launch as

vehicle redirected

(Army toward

Orda

Command);

the

satellite Tiros

effort (Television

meteorology

Infra-Red

Observation

a new more powerful launch vehicle-first and then Thor-Able. RCA's contract with of 10 satellites. transferred to NASA, with Goddard Space

Juno IV, ARPA called

the manufacture Tiros assigned first A-I flight was

Project being

Flight

Center

project model

management of Tiros

responsibility. for systems integration.

Sept. March April Oct.

26,

1969

The Tiros Tiros

was readied facility

7, 1960 1, 1960 10, 1960

was shipped launched

to the launch successfully. held on

in Florida.

1 was

An interagency meeting was meteorology satellite system. Tiros NASA Tiros The cover 2 was launched

the establishment

of

an

operational

Nov. June July April

23, 1961

1960

successfully. contract to RCA for four Tiros satellites.

awarded

a letter

12, 1961 15, 1962

3 was launched U.S. maps Weather based

successfully. Bureau on Tiros began daily international transmissions of cloud

4 photographs.

June Sept.

19, 1962 18, 1962

Tiros Tiros

5 was launched 6 was launched

successfully. successfully; for the first time two Tiros satellites were

in operation Feb. June Dec. March 12, 1963 19, 1963 21, 1963 1964 RCA Tiros Tiros NASA satellite July 15, 1964 RCA gram. Jan. July 22, 1964 Tiros Tiros

simultaneously. a letter contract for _even Tiros satellites.

was awarded 7 was launched 8 was launched and the

successfully. successfully. Bureau reached an agreement on an operational

20,

Weather utilizing

system, was awarded

an improved for the

Tiros. Tiros Operational Satellite (TOS) pro-

a contract

9 was launched 10 was launched

successfully successfully

(first

of the cartwheel-mode by the Weather

spacecraft). Bureau).

2, 1965

(funded

352

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 3-185. Chronology Tiros/TOS/ESSA of Development andOperations (Continued)

Date Feb. 3,1966 Feb. 1966 28, May 1966 11, Oct. ,1966 2 Jan. 1967 26, April 1967 20, Nov. 1967 10, Aug. 1968 16, Dec. 1968 15,

Event
ESSA which tion, ESSA NASA improved ESSA ESSA ESSA ESSA ESSA ESSA 1 was would formerly launched be funded successfully by the (first satellite of the Science TOS Services system, all of Environmental Administrathe Weather Bureau).

2 was launched announced Tiros. 3 was 4 was 5 was 6 was launched launched launched launched that

successfully. it would negotiate with RCA for a design study of an

successfully. successfully. successfully. successfully. successfully. successfully.

7 was launched 8 was launched

Table Tiros 1 (Tiros-A-l)

3-186. Characteristics

Date

of launch

April

1, 1960 (ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA manager: (kg):

Thor-Able 122.5 18-sided 1.07 x NiCd GSFC W. G. H. Stroud Products TV techniques Div., prime spacecraft eventual and TV worldwide cameras meteorological In orbit polyhedron .48 plus solar cells

batteries

Cognizant center: Project

Project scientist: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

I. Butler

RCA-Astro-Electronic Test experimental system. TV system

leading

to an

information 2-camera

Transmitted cover images

22 952 images from

over

89 days orbit.

April

l-June

17; provided

first

global

cloud

near-circular

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

353

Table Tiros Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager." Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: 2 (Tiros-B,

3-187. -A-2) Characteristics

Nov. 23, 1960 (ETR) Thor-Delta 127 18-sided polyhedron 1.07 x .48 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC Rudolf A. Stampfl RCA, prime spacecraft and TV cameras Test experimental TV techniques and infrared equipment leading to an eventual worldwide meteorological information system 2-camera TV system Wide-field radiometer, GSFC Scanning radiometer, GSFC Transmitted 36 156 images over 376 days; (November 23, 1960-December 4, 1961); combined infrared and photographic measurements; wide-angle photography substandard, but useful cloud pictures received.

Table Tiros Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: 3 (Tiros-C,

3-188. -A-3) Characteristics

July 12, 1961 (ETR) Thor-Delta 129.3 18-sided polyhedron 1.07 × .48 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert plus solar cells

M. Rados

RCA, prime spacecraft and TV cameras Develop satellite weather observation system; obtain photographs of earth's cloud cover for weather analysis; determine amounts of solar energy absorbed and emitted by earth. 2-camera TV system Omnidirectional radiometer, University of Wisconsin Wide-field radiometer, GSFC Scanning radiometer, GSFC Transmitted 35 033 images over 230 days (July 12, 1961-February 1962); one camera failed, but the other worked until February 1962; spotted 50 tropical storms during hurricane season 1961.

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

354

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Tiros Feb. 8, 1962 4 (Tiros-D,

3-189. -A-9) Characteristics

Date

of launch

(ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 129.3 18-sided 1.07 x polyhedron .48 plus solar cells

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert RCA, Develop data for 2-camera Wide-field Scanning Transmitted wide-angle weather M. prime

Cognizant center:

Project manager." Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Rados spacecraft and TV cameras satellite system; obtain cloud cover and radiation

principles

of a weather

use in meteorology. TV system radiometer, GSFC GSFC images images over of 161 days; Project early after photos June data excellent 14, also 1962; used because photos in a joint of used new in U.S. of the became less clear University of Wisconsin radiometer, radiometer, 32 593 lens, analyses but

Omnidirectional

in support

Mercury;

Weather Bureau-Canadian St. Lawrence River.

Department

of Transportation

ice reconnaissance

Table Tiros Date of launch June 19, 1962 5 (Tiros-E, (ETR)

3-190. -A-50) Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weigh t (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA

Thor-Delta 129.7 18-sided polyhedron 1.07 × .56 NiCd GSFC Robert RCA, Develop 2-camera Wide-field Scanning Transmitted ing August; greater M. prime Rados spacecraft and TV cameras satellite system; obtain cloud cover data for use in of a weather batteries plus solar cells

In orbit

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

principles TV system

meteorology. Omnidirectional radiometer, GSFC GSFC over 321 days; inclination spotted than hurricane 5 tropical previous season. storms Tiros worldwide durat a higher satellites to provide University of Wisconsin

radiometer, radiometer, launched

58 226 images of the

coverage

August-September

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

355

Table Tiros Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Transmitted 6 (Tiros-F,

3-191. -A-51) Characteristics

Sept. 18, 1962 (ETR) Thor-Delta 127.5 18-sided polyhedron 1.07 × .56 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert M. Rados RCA, prime spacecraft and TV cameras Develop principles of a weather satellite system; obtain cloud cover data for use in meteorology. 2-camera TV system plus solar cells

68 557 images over 389 days; one camera failed December

1, 1962; pro-

vided data for hurricane season; provided operational support for the Army's Project Swift Stride cold regions study, for Columbia University and Texas A&M projects, and for Project Mercury.

Table Tiros Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: June 7 (Tiros-G,

3-192. -A-52) Characteristics

19, 1963 (ETR)

Thor-Delta 134.7 18-sided polyhedron 1.07 × .56 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert plus solar cells

M. Rados and TV cameras by ac-

RCA, prime spacecraft

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Launch satellite capable of viewing earth's surface, cloud cover, and atmosphere TV cameras and radiation sensors; control satellite attitude by magnetic means; quire and process collected data. 2-camera TV system Omnidirectional radiometer, University of Wisconsin Electron temperature probe, GSFC

Transmitted 125 331 pictures over 1809 days; coverage extended to 65 degrees N and 65 degrees S latitudes; launch date selected to provide maximum coverage during the hurricane season in the northern hemisphere; electron temperature probe malfunctioned after 26 days; tracked hurricanes in 1963, 1964, and 1965; provided support for Ranger, Mariner, and Gemini missions.

356

NASA

HISTORICAL Table

DATA 3-193.

BOOK

Tiros Date of launch Dec. 21, 1963

8 (Tiros-H, (ETR)

-A-53)

Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 120.2 18-sided 1.07 x polyhedron .56 plus solar cells

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert RCA, Launch quire means;

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

M. Rados prime and spacecraft capable automatic system and and TV cameras of viewing data picture APT cloud from system cover and and atmosphere control system. by TV cameras; acsatellite its attitude by magnetic

satellite process TV evaluate

collected

transmission

(APT)

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

2-camera

Transmitted perimental ground

102 463 camera with

images subsystem APT

over

1287

days; which

first

of the series be queried

to carry by

real-time multiple

exlocal

(APT),

could

stations

receivers.

Table Tiros Date Launch Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA of launch vehicle: (kg): Jan. 22, 9 (Tiros-l,

3-194. -A-54) Characteristics

1965 (ETR)

(location): Thor-Delta 138.3 18-sided 1.07 x polyhedron .48 plus solar cells

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert RCA, Evaluate M. prime new

Cognizant cell ter:

Project manager." Con tractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Rados spacecraft cartwheel and TV cameras Tiros spacecraft; explore the use of sun-

configuration

synchronous orbits. 2-camera TV system

Transmitted polar orbit.

88 892 images

over

1238 days;

increased

coverage;

ejected

into elliptical

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-195.
Tiros Date of launch July 2, 1965 (ETR) 10 (OT-I) Characteristics

357

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 131.5 18-sided 1.07 x polyhedron .48 plus solar cells

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

Cognizant center: Contractor: Objectives:

RCA,

prime

spacecraft

and

TV cameras data for Weather Bureau requirements; prove out

Provide additional Tiros Operational 2-camera TV

operational System.

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

system

Transmitted 79 874 pictures ricane breeding areas. First Weather Bureau-funded

over Tiros

730

days;

more

daily

data

on

typhoon

and

hur-

Remarks:

spacecraft.

Table ESSA Date of launch Feb. 3, 1966 (ETR) 1 (OT-3)

3-196. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 138.3 18-sided 1.07 polyhedron × .56 plus solar cells

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert RCA, ESSA 2-camera M. prime APT

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Rados spacecraft and TV cameras

operational

satellite. TV system

Transmitted Funded and

111 144 images managed

over

861 days.

by ESSA.

358

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table ESSA Date of launch Feb. 28, 1966 (ETR) Improved 2 (OT-2)

3-197. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Dimension Date Project (kg): s (m): manager: of reentry:

Thrust-augmented 131.5 1.07 × .57 W. Jones operational operated 3-196 for In orbit William ESSA

Thor-Delta

(TAID)

Objectives: Results: Remarks:

satellite. as planned. spacecraft description.

All systems See table

Table ESSA Date of launch Oct. 2, 1966 (ETR) Improved 3 (TOS-A)

3-198. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weigh t (kg): (m):

Thrust-augmented 147.4 1.07 x .57 In orbit ESSA replace operational ESSA 1. operated 3-196,

Thor-Delta

(TA1D)

Dimensions

Date of reentry: Objectives: Results: Remarks:

satellite;

included

advanced

vidicon 97 076

camera over

system 241 days.

(AVCS);

All systems See tables

as planned; for

transmitted

images

3-197

spacecraft

description.

Table ESSA Date of launch Jan. 26, 1967 (WTR) Improved

3-199. 4 (TOS-B)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Date of (kg): (m): reentry:

Thrust-augmented 131.5 1.07 × .57 In orbit ESSA All January operational operated 1967; 3-196, 29,

Thor-Delta

(TAID)

Dimensions Objectives: Results: Remarks:

satellite; transmitted 3-197 for

two

ATP but

camera one

systems; camera over

replace system

ESSA became

2. inoperable on

systems

as planned, spacecraft

27 129 images

110 days.

See tables

description.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-200.
ESSA Date Launch Weight Dimensions of launch vehicle: (kg): (m): April 20, 1967 (WTR) 5 (TOC-C) Characteristics

359

(location): Thrust-augmented 147.4 1.07 × .57 In orbit ESSA All operational operated 3-196, 3-197 satellite; for two AVCS; replace description. ESSA 3. Improved Thor-Delta (TAID)

Date of reentry: Objectives: Results: Remarks:

systems

as planned. spacecraft

See tables

Table ESSA Date of launch Nov. 10, 1967 (WTR) Improved 6 (TOS-D)

3-201. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Date (kg): (m): of reentry:

Thrust-augmented 129.7 1.07 × .57

Thor-Delta

(TAID)

Dimensions Objectives: Results: Remarks:

In orbit ESSA operational operated 3-196, 3-197 satellite; for two APT camera description. systems.

All systems See table

as planned. spacecraft

Table ESSA Date of launch Aug. 16, 1968 (WTR) 7 (TOS-E)

3-202. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weigh t (kg): Dimensions Date Objectives: Results: Remarks: (m): of reentry:

Long-tank 147.4 1.07 x .57 In orbit ESSA replace

Thrust-augmented

Thor-Delta

operational ESSA 5. operated 3-196,

satellite;

two

AVCS;

take

readings

with

a flat-plate

radiometer;

All systems See tables

as planned. for spacecraft description.

3-197

Table ESSA Date Launch Weight Date of launch vehicle: (kg): (m): of reentry: Dec. 15, 1968 (WTR) 8 (TOS-F)

3-203. Characteristics

(location): Long-tank 136.1 1.07 × .57 In orbit ESSA All See operational operated 3-196, 3-197 tables satellite; for two ATP camera systems. Thrust-augmented Thor-Delta

Dimensions Objectives: Results: Remarks:

systems

as planned. spacecraft description.

360 Nimbus

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Shortly after the launch NASA officials informed

of the first Tiros weather satellite Congress of their plans for

in the spring of 1959, a second-generation

meteorology payload that would orbit earth on a near-polar trajectory. This new satellite would provide sophisticated global coverage for an extended lifetime. _3 The spacecraft's stabilization system would be designed to give the flight team greater control over the spacecraft's position and, thereby, over the readings and photographs Nimbus would take. advanced vidicon camera systems In addition that could to automatic picture transmission produce very high-quality cloud and cover

photographs, Nimbus spacecraft would be equipped with high-resolution and medium-resolution radiometers for nighttime infrared readings, which would give meteorologists information on heat retention on a global scale. Mapping water vapor and stratospheric temperature patterns also would be made possible with data returned by Nimbus. Project Nimbus, approved by NASA Headquarters officials in the summer of 1959, fell behind schedule and overran its budget, which prompted the scrutiny of Congress. A horizon scanner, which would allow the spacecraft to be operated in a sun-synchronous orbit, and overall hardware weight gains were the spacecraft's major problems. The butterfly-shaped Nimbus (360-410 kilograms) was developed and fabricated by General Electric's Spacecraft Department under the direction of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Rotating solar paddles, although they malfunctioned on Nimbus 1, provided enough storable energy to power the spacecraft's instruments for nighttime use. By using Nimbus cloud cover photographs, which covered almost 2 million kilometers per sequence, NASA and the Weather Bureau (and additionally the Department of Defense) hoped to establish an operational weather observation system. Because of early setbacks with the development of hardware and reported plans for reducing the expected lifetime of the spacecraft, the Weather Bureau abandoned its plans and its funding support for a Nimbus Operational System (NOS) in September 1963. NASA, however, continued Nimbus as a research and development project aimed at developing an observatory system that would meet the future needs of the nation's atmospheric and earth scientists. The first Nimbus spacecraft was orbited in August 1964. The images received from Nimbus 1 were remarkably clear and much better than Tiros images, but a hardware problem forced the mission's premature termination on orbit 371, in the second month of operations. By using the more powerful Thrust-augmented ThorAgena B, NASA was able to design a heavier payload for Nimbus 2. This second spacecraft returned data for more than 32 months (1966-1969), including the "satellite programs. pictures" Because that became a popular feature on television a Thor engine malfunctioned on the long-tank news and weather Thorad-Agena D

during the launch of the third Nimbus, the entire vehicle was destroyed 121 seconds after liftoff on May 18, 1968. The Nimbus B mission, repeated in 1969, was more sophisticated than the first two, having two infrared spectrometers, an interrogation and location system for determining the position of other man-made objects in space, two radiometers, an ultraviolet radiation flux experiment, and an image dissector camera system system capable of taking daytime pictures of the entire earth with a resolution of 3.2 kilometers at picture center. The 570-kilogram satellite was powered by a new radioisotope thermoelectric generator (SNAP-19) augmented

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

361

by with

solar

cells.* development

The of

seven-mission of experiment data on the cloud nation's

Nimbus hardware cover,

program and temperature, satellite

(1964-1978) image systems, and program

contributed provided other for

widely scientists

to the

a variety and

weather-related remote-sensing

phenomena, research. Richard early through Stroud Harry 1964, the was Press

became

principal

L. was

Haley, named

advanced Nimbus first project decade.

technology program At the manager

and

projects in early Space

program 1965. Hight

manager the

since program G. when

He saw Center, August

agency's Nimbus took the

Goddard February was the

William 1961,

manager General

from Electric

1960 prime

to

job.

contractor.

*For more on the SNAP-19

RTG and sources

for nuclear onboard

electric power, see chapter

4.

Table Chronology Date April 1959 of Nimbus

3-204. and Operations Event

Development

An advanced meteorology satellite research and development project was described by NASA at FY 1960 authorization hearings before the House of Representatives and at FY 1959 supplementary appropriations hearings. A Nimbus research Headquarters. and development program was approved by NASA

Aug. March June

1959 8, 1960 1960

The Weather Bureau solicited proposals for an engineering infrared spectrometer for a weather statellite.

design study of an

The Weather Bureau Panel on Observations over Space Data Regions issued a report suggesting the need for a research and development satellite beyond Tiros. NASA issued a request The Radio development for Nimbus. Corporation for proposals of America for Nimbus spacecraft (RCA) was awarded design. a contract for

Fall 1960 Dec. 1960

and fabrication

of an advanced vidicon camera system (AVCS)

Feb. 3, 1961

General Electric (GE) was selected as contractor for spacecraft fabrication and subsystems integration for two Nimbus satellites. GE was chosen over Temco, RCA, Grumman Aviation Corp. Aircraft Engineering Corp., Bendix, and Republic

April

1961

The Panel on Operation Meteorological Satellites, an interagency group, recommended expanding the Nimbus research and development project into a Nimbus Operation System (NOS); this would be a joint undertaking (NASA and the Weather Bureau). A preliminary project Space Flight Center. development plan was prepared at NASA's Goddard

Nov. Jan.

1961 1962

The Nimbus spacecraft underwent a rigorous test program at GE. NASA and the Weather Bureau signed an agreement providing for implementation of NOS. The Weather Bureau approved the preliminary project development
plan.

Aug-Sept.

1962

The House of Representatives Science and Astronautics committee held hearings on the effects of postponing launch.

Applications Subthe first Nimbus

362

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date of Echo Development

3-204. and Operations Event (Continued)

Dec.

1962

The tional

Weather System was

Bureau (TOS). qualified the adequacy Bureau for Nimbus.

reprogrammed

funds

from

NOS

to the Tiros

Opera-

Jan.

1963

AVCS questioned

as

a subsystem. of Nimbus provided for

The

Department

of

Defense

(DoD)

military with

requirements. DoD-Weather Bureau re-

June

1963

The

Weather

NASA

quirements July 1963 The Bureau Sept. 1963 DoD and project

development

plan

was

revised

to

incorporate

DoD-Weather

recommendations. the Weather Bureau advised the Bureau of the Budget that NASA's

research and placed under withdrawing Sept. 18, 1963

development their control; from NOS

program for meteorology satellites the Weather Bureau advised NASA 4. operating procedures

should be that it was

as of October for developing

GE was awarded a contract bus control center. NASA research approved advised and by the Weather development NASA

for the Nim-

Oct.

1963

Bureau project;

of its intentions a revised on October B launch project 10.

of continuing development

a Nimbus plan was

Headquarters in the Thor-Agena

Aug.

11, 1964

A faulty Nimbus Nimbus September

relay box launch. 1 was 23,

vehicle

postponed

the

first

Aug.

28,

1964

launched 1964,

successfully, because

but

the spacecraft

ceased

operating

on

of malfunctions. report by failing accused to react NASA to new of spending $1.2 weight

Jan.

29,

1965

A

General goals.

Acccounting

Office on Nimbus

million design June 1965

unnecessarily

spacecraft

The project and operation

development of a second launched board and

plan

was revised mission.

to reflect

the cancellation

of NOS

Nimbus successfully. and NASA the

May Aug.

15, 13,

1966 1966

Nimbus A into NASA

2 was

review OAO,

House Oversight

of

Representatives Subcommittee

Science began

and

Astronautics OGO, attempted

Committee

inquiries

Nimbus launch

(Nimbus using

1) failures. a long-tank vehicle Thorad-Agena was destroyed D failed 121 seconds

May

18, 1968

An

Nimbus

because the Thor after liftoff. June Dec. 28, 1968 1968 Nimbus Hittan system 2's tape Associates, for the

malfunctioned;

the entire

recorder Inc., Nimbus

became was chosen B spacecraft.

inoperable. to evaluate the SNAP-19 nuclear power

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-205.
Nimbus Date of launch Aug. 28, 1964 B 1 (Nimbus-A) Characteristics (WTR)

363

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): (kg):

Thor-Agena 376.5

Hexagonal upper section housing sensory ring Height, Width Ring 2.9 with diameter, batteries paddles 1.52 plus solar

with

solar

array

paddles

connected

by a truss

to a lower

extended,

3.4

Power Date

source: of reentry: NASA

NiCd

cells

Cognizant center:

May 16, 1974 GSFC

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Harry General Prove

Press Electric basic Co., Spacecraft design; obtain systems radiometer, over 27 GSFC days; tracking data returned orbit from all sensors as exarDept., obtain nighttime prime high-resolution infrared TV radiometer cloud mapping on images; a global

spacecraft APT role; camera infrared 27 000 were

demonstrate scale. Experiments, responsible institution: Results: APT and

readings

AVCS

High-resolution Transmitted pected; ray mission paddies

pictures

was terminated unable

on September

23, 1964, the sun.

371, when

the solar

to continue

Table Nimbus Date of launch May 15, 1966 2 (Nimbus-C)

3-206. Characteristics

(WTR) Thor-Agena section ring extended, solar cells 3.4 with B solar array paddles connected by a truss to a lower

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thrust-augmented 413.68 Hexagonal housing upper sensory 2.9 with diameter, paddles 1.52 plus

Dimensions

(m):

Height, Width Ring

Power

source:

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center." Project manager: Contractor." Objectives:

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

Harry GE,

Press prime long lifetime meteorology satellite observatory; ground demonstrate stations; map role of

Demonstrate direct vapor

readout of infrared nighttime and stratospheric temperature and AVCS camera infrared systems radiometer,

cloud cover to APT patterns. GSFC GSFC all systems

water

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

APT

High-resolution Medium-resolution Transmitted

infrared images

radiometer, over

210 000

978 days;

operated

as expected.

364

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK DESCRIPTION-COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM

As early munications transmissions,

as 1945, writer-scientist Arthur C. Clarke proposed that an active comsatellite be developed to assist with the relaying of long-distance and by the early 1960s the need for such high-altitude relays could not

be ignored. Because of its elevation, a satellite could offer a simultaneous line-ofsight connection between two points that are shielded from one another by the curvature of the earth. Two kinds of satellites were possible: passive satellites that would act as mirrors, retransmitting no more than they intercepted, and active satellites that would receive and amplify a signal before retransmitting it to the ground. _4 During the 1950s, the Navy established a communications system that used the moon as a passive reflector for radar waves (Communication by Moon Relay), and the Air Force launched an Army-built active communications satellite experiment (Project Score, 1958), by which President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent taped Christmas greetings. Advanced planners at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) recommended in the spring of 1958 that the new space agency take an active part in satellite communications research with studies of channel requirements, reflector and active relays, and radio wave propagation. They thought that a passive reflector could be launched by NASA as early as FY 1959.15 Project Echo was NASA's first flight experiment in the communications field. The first launch of a large reflector balloon took place in 1960. NASA's Relay and Syncom satellites began providing active relay capabilities in 1962 and 1963. Also in 1962, the agency launched two Telstar satellites for the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T). Like weather satellites, orbiting communications relays were directly and immediately applicable to the general public's welfare. Demonstrations of what this new technology could accomplish were a popular part of the program; these included television, teletype facsimile, and voice operations. On television sets around the world, viewers watched as astronaut L. Gordon Cooper was recovered from his Mercury capsule after orbiting the earth (1963, via Relay 1), as Pope Paul VI visited the Middle East (1964, via Relay 1), as Khrushchev toured Poland (1964, via Relay 2), and as Olympic athletes competed in Tokyo (1964, via Syncom 3). Special demonstrations soon gave way to daily routine service. NASA launched six INTELSATS for the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) in 1965-1968, establishing tions satellites capable of voice (240 transmissions. a global operational network of communicachannels), television, and teletype facsimile

COMSAT, which served as the operational arm of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), was authorized by Congress in August satellite 1962 to exploit field. Allocating the commercial possibilities of the frequencies for space communications new communications was the responsibili-

ty of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). NASA was assigned the task of launching these commercial spacecraft, furnishing technical assistance, and cooperation with COMSAT on research and development projects. Within NASA, the International Affairs Office interacted with the State Department in arranging for the many ground stations required around the world for various communications satellite projects. The National Communications System coordinated U.S. government needs (see table 3-208). As shown in the organizational chart (fig. 3-5), all these groups had to work together to deliver an operational communications system.

366

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

SPECIAL TO FOR THE

ASSISTANT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR OF

TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT [ E.ASST DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF I I EXECUTIVE AGENT NCS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

E2GE___C_:LAN 2,N_J
FOR

ASSISTANT

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

[
I --DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELE-

MANAGER, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

--'-I
I I

....

I'

1

I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS-SYSTEM

I
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TELE-

i
I I I

I
NATIONAL

I
AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION &

i'
i I

I
FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY

I I
I I I AGENCY-/

I DIPLOMATIC .JcoMMUNICATIONSJ SYSTEM

/NATIONAL SPACE

IFEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

=.IAVIATION

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMUNICATIONS

I
ARMY

i
NAVY AIR

I FORCE

Figure

3-5.

The National

Communications

Systems

encompasses

total

Federal

assets.

At NASA Headquarters, communications satellites were the concern of the Office of Space Flight Development until a reorganization in 1962 placed them under the purview of the Office of Applications. In June 1963, communications and navigation programs became a directorate of the new Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). In a 1966 reorganization of OSSA, communications programs became part of the Space Applications Programs Office. Until January 1966, Leonard Jaffe led the Headquarters communications team through its various management reassignments. A. Marion Andrus, associated with advanced communications systems since the early 1960s, was named program chief in 1966. Joseph R. Burke was satellite projects program manager from 1963 through 1965; from 1966 through 1969 Wayne C. Mathews, John Kelleher, and Jerome Friebaum all took a turn as manager. A separate navigation satellite manager, Eugene Ehrlich, assumed responsibility for this special class of communications satellites in late 1965 (by March 1966 this office had been expanded to include traffic control activities). Goddard Space Flight Center was assigned the hardware development and program management of the various communications satellites. Goddard's Office of Space Science and Satellite Applications oversaw the communications satellite projects until 1965, when the projects directorate assumed the task. Goddard had responsibility for launching the INTELSAT series and providing related services, while COMSAT controlled operations.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

367

In 1963, OSSA combined the responsibility for navigation and communications satellites, their technical requirements being very similar. With increasing traffic in the air and on the sea, it was becoming necessary to develop a system by which a central body could monitor and control traffic in congested areas and respond to emergency situations. Plans called for an operational system by the early 1970s. Large direct broadcast (real-time) satellites made up another class of communications satellites under study for flight projects to begin A general introduction Pierce, Press, The Beginnings Inc., 1968). at NASA in the 1960s. Advanced planners were calling in the 1970s. to communications satellites can be found in J. R. Communications (San Francisco: San Francisco

of Satellite

Table 3-207.
Comparison, Item Orbit Attitude Control Output Power Baseband Width Channel Disposition 10 Watts, 3 MCS, 96 KCS Two one one nels, Operating Modes TV 300 l-way 2-way Frequencies (MCS) 1725 4170 Up Down 4390 4170 Up Down 7363 1815 Up Down TWT wideband 2-way telephone transponders at a time, (TV) each each and two chanonly having One wideband for signal (TV) 2-way strength transmitter or, I-way One 2-way circuit telephone Two telephone for chaneach 3 Watts, TWT 2 Watts, TWT Elliptical Magnetic coil Relay Elliptical Magnetic coil Relay, Telstar, Syncom Telstar Circular, Nitrogen Syncom 22 300 jets mi.

3 MCS

4 KC per

channel

identical usable wideband one for

channel; phone, at satellite

narrow-band

(12 telephone) direction

is equalized

nels, one direction

by adjusting power TV 1-way

1-way or, data channel or, circuits

wideband data or, 60 telephone circuits 2-way

12 telephone

368

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Organizational Communication

3-208. Interactions Satellite Programs
ITU

& Navigation

ECHO

NASA Flight Programs RELAY SYNCOM

NAV ATS PROGRAM

CSC PROGRAM

PARTICIPATION

DOD STATE TREASURY INTERIOR COMMERCE FAA USIA FOC BROADCASTERS COM SAT CORP FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NAT'L SPACE COUNCIL DIR. TELECOMM'S. MGMT.

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X

X X

NAV = Joint Navigation Satellite Committee CSC =Communications Satellite Corp. ITU =International Telecommunication Union From NASA Hq., "Program 1964. p. 21. Review Document, Communication & Navigation Programs," Sept. 22,

Echo

Echo passive Aeronautics ment. assessing of earth's tracked tempts launch efforts.* In

was reflector

NASA's was

first initially

communications sponsored by

satellite the

flight

project. Advisory (IGY) J.

The

balloon-like for experiafter density could Twice be atbut team's radio

National Year

Committee air density O'Sullivan, the that drag.

(NACA) 1956 the

as an International Langley

Geophysical research facility,

at NACA's value

William designed

of prospective proposed serve launch as

IGY that

experiments a low-density measure spheres I and Vanguard

to measure structure

atmosphere, optically were vehicle made would to

inflatable of

a good

aerodynamic with IGY the

O'Sullivan's with Juno

along

payloads, Langley with small

malfunctions of the type

thwarted were means, equipped

If a satellite beacons, it could

O'Sullivan by radar

envisioned and optical

be followed

significantly

increasing

*An attempt

on August

14, 1959, to launch a Beacon

inflatable

satellite also failed because Juno ll's 9

fuel supply was depleted prematurely. The air density experiment was finally realized as Explorer (February 16, 1961), Explorer 19 (December 19, 1963), and Explorer39 (August 8, 1968).

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

369

the period during each orbit it could be tracked. And if the satellite carried a reflector or acted as a reflector as a whole, sending back radar signals to a specific point, it could be tracked day or night. According to O'Sullivan, "it was a simple next step" to consider using the satellite for communications purposes. _7 As early as April 1958, NACA Director Hugh L. Dryden had told Congress that such a passive satellite could be orbited and inflated in space. To be sure, Langley's air density balloon would have to grow considerably in size to provide the maximum surface from which to bounce signals, and the surface would have to possess increased reflectivity characteristics. John R. Pierce of Bell Telephone Laboratories had been contemplating such a communications experiment since 1955, and by 1959 Bell and the new civilian space agency, which had inherited NACA's balloon project, were working together on a passive communications satellite project called Echo. Technicians at Langley (now a part of NASA) had three major requirements in designing a balloon satellite that measured 30.48 meters in diameter and would inflate in orbit into a perfectly smooth surface: a suitable material for the sphere, an inflation system, and a canister in which to launch the folded-up balloon. And since there was no way to run ground tests that simulated the space environment on such a large sphere, NASA would have to relay on suborbital flight tests. The G. T. Schjeldahl Company fitted and cemented together 82 _eparate fiat gores of aluminized Mylar film (.5 millimeter thick) supplied by E. I. Dupont to form the Echo sphere. Benzoic acid was selected as the sublimating agent (i.e., going from a solid to a gaseous state without liquifying) that would be used to inflate the structure. Kaiser-Fleetwing manufactured a spherical metal canister impregnated with plastic to contain the deflated satellite. The Langley crew assembled the first Echo test model by the fall of 1959. In October, it was launched to an altitude of 400 kilometers (Project Shotput), where the sphere ruptured. On the fourth try (April 1960), the balloon inflated successfully at 375 kilometers. After a first launch attempt failed, Echo 1 was placed in orbit and inflated on August 12, 1960. For the next four and a half months, it was utilized for experiments by Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Even after the balloon's skirt had been damaged repeatedly by micrometeoroids and its orbit affected by solar wind, Echo 1 was used to reflect a variety of communications signals to and from ground stations around the globe.* As it was visible from the ground, it also served as a popular symbol of the peaceful and practical uses of space research. The second-generation Echo was larger (41.15-meter diameter), heavier, and more durable. Fabricated from 106 gores of Mylar three layers thick bonded between two sheets of soft aluminum foil, the improved Echo maintained its rigidity for a longer time. Pyrazol was used as the inflating medium, and a new canister was made by the Grumman Aircraft Company from magnesium forgings. First testinflated in a dirigible hanger, the new Echo was tested several times under suborbital conditions (Project Big Shot). Echo 2 was put into orbit on January 25, 1964, and used successfully for more than a year by a number of groups for communications

*The Echo 1 configuration was also used for PAGEOS 1, launched on June 23, 1966. It served as a point source of light for a tracking network; the resulting data were used for mapping and other geodetic purposes (table 3-137).

370
tests, including a cooperative

NASA HISTORICAL DATA
investigation by

BOOK

American,

Soviet,

and

British

specialists. In early 1963, satellite* satellite NASA when managers it learned Since had cancelled that the plans for an advanced of Defense satellite passive had com-

munications its active cells tions At Joseph was

Department repeater

dropped by solar

project, orbit would

Advent. clearly direct Echo projects Space

an active more

powered

in synchronous system, NASA R. Burke NASA

potential to that by

as a commercial area. Leonard Overall Langley Jaffe's project Research

communica-

its research was

Headquarters, as satellite

managed

office, management Center

with

program Center,

manager. with

assigned

to Goddard for the payload.

Flight

being

responsible

*NASA had let several feasibility study contracts to determine the best shape, structure, and materials for a future passive communications satellite. The agency briefly contemplated a three-balloon experiment dubbed Rebound.

Table Chronology Date Jan. 26, 1956 of Echo

3-209. and Event Operations

Development

William J. O'Sullivan of NACA's Langley Memorial Laboratory considered a low-density inflatable structure aerodynamic drag as a possible experiment for the International Year (IGY).

Aeronautical to measure Geophysical

April 22, 1958

NASA Director Hugh Dryden in testimony before the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration said that large aluminized balloons could be inflated after being placed in orbit and used for communications tests. Launched erected. by a Nike-Cajun, a 3.66-meter inflatable sphere was successfully

April

15, 1958

May 1958

NACA launched kilometers.

a 4.l-kilogram

inflatable

sphere

to an altitude

of

80

Oct. 22, 1958

An attempt to launch a 3.66-meter inflatable sphere (called Explorer 6, but not the same spacecraft that was launched in August 1959) failed when the required orbit was not achieved. Because of Vanguard launch vehicle malfunctions, .76-meter inflatable sphere into orbit failed. Personnel at NASA's Langley flatable sphere satellite. NASA launched Research an attempt to place a

April

13, 1959

April-Sept.

1959

Center constructed sphere

a 30.48-meter

in-

Oct. 28, 1959

a 30.48-meter

inflatable

to an altitude (Project

of 400

kilometers Jan. 16, 1960 NASA

with a Sergeant-Delta; a 30.48-meter

the sphcrc ruptured inflatable sphere

Shotput). of 400

launched

to an altitude (Project

kilometers Feb. 27, 1960

with a Sergeant-Delta;

the sphere ruptured

Shotput).

NASA launched a 30.48-meter inflatable sphere to an altitude of 400 kilometers; radio transmissions were reflected via the sphere from Holmdel, New Jersey, to Round Hill, Massachusetts, before it ruptured (Project Shotput).

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-209. Chronology Echo of Development andOperations (Continued) Date April ,1960 1 May 1960 13, July 1960 15, Aug.2, 1
1960 A 30.48-meter inflatable NASA at 380 kilometers An attempt to launch malfunctioned. Hughes Aircraft

371

Event
sphere was launched and inflated (Project Shotput). successfully by

an Echo satellite

failed when the Thor-Delta

vehicle

Co. was awarded

a seven-month

contract

for developing their reflectivity

techniques to rigidize structures in sunlight or shadow. Echo 1 was launched 18.

so that they would maintain

successfully;

experiments

were performed

on August

Feb. 21, 1961

NASA awarded a contract spheres for Project Echo. The first test inflation dirigible hanger. A suborbital Thor-Agena

to the G. T. Schjeldahl

Co.

for nine inflatable

May 18, 1961

of an improved

Echo balloon

was conducted

in a

Jan. 15, 1962

test of a modified Echo inflation system was launched from the Western Test Range (Project Big Shot). for launching two Echo-type helium balloons characteristics for an advanced Echo. /-type balloon was launched; it ruptured

by a

Sept. 28, 1962

Plans were announced mine skin smoothness A 30.48-meter kilometers. Echo

to deter-

Oct. 20, 1962

at 35

Dec. 5, 1962

The U.S. and the USSR agreed to cooperate with Echo.

in the coming year's experiments

Feb. 25, 1963

NASA announced that in light of the formation of the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) and the cancellation of the Department of Defense Advent active communications satellite project, the agency would focus its efforts on synchronous-orbit active satellites. NASA cancelled advanced passive and intermediate-altitude communications satellite projects. Langley issued a request for proposals for a feasibility lenticular passive communications satellite. study for an inflatable

May 13, 1963

Aug. 12, 1963

Schjeldahl was selected to build three second-generation project which was cancelled. Echo 2 was launched successfully.

Echo satellites,

a

Jan. 25, 1964

372

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Echo August Thor-Delta 75.9 (m): (plus 10.9-kilogram (inflatable) 30.48 transmitters 24, 1968 project payload J. Mackey, Jr. Mylar fabrication canister aluminized Co., Inc., management powered canister) 12, ! (Echo

3-210. Characteristics

A-11)

Date

of launch

1960 (ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg):

Shape: Dimensions Power source:

Spherical Diameter, Beacon May GSFC, LaRC, Robert

by NiCd

batteries

plus solar

cells

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA centers: Project manager: Contractors:

E. I. Dupont, G. T. Schjeldahl Kaiser-Fleetwings, Radio

polyester

film

Corporation a passive

of America, communications as passive experiments

tracking reflector of

beacons into radio circular and orbit; test feasibility signals for of using long-range television

Objectives:

Inject

passive satellites transmissions. Experiments responsible institution: Results: Communications and the Jet

reflectors were

conducted

between

Bell Telephone

Laboratories

Propulsion use due some had of

Laboratory. radio visible reflector to the for naked global eye; communications; orbit characteristics It remained after that lost some numerous perturbed sucby 41/2 the

Demonstrated cessful solar pressure months, but satellite's skin

transmissions;

to high area-to-mass ratio. experiments were conducted begun to deteriorate and

100°70 useful for time even though of its shape.

it had

Table Echo Date of launch Jan. 25, 1964 B 348.4-kilogram (inflatable) 41.15 plus solar management cells (WTR) 2 (Echo C)

3-211. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Agena 243.6 (plus Spherical Diameter, NiCd June GSFC, LaRC, Herbert

canister,

beacons,

and

other

equipment)

batteries 8, 1969 project

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractors:

payload L. Ecker polyester of America, film inflation system

E. I. Dupont, aluminized Mylar G. T. Schjeldahl Co., fabrication Viron Aero Div., Geo Geophysics Astro Aircraft Corp., Co., Corp. beacons canister

Grumman Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Demonstrate rigidization advance the state of the Communications lins and Radio Co., the Naval data

technique applicable to passive art represented by Echo 1. were conducted Laboratory, for many Laboratory. used took communications joint experiments

communications Laboratories, U.S.

satellites; ColForce, also Union

experiments Naval Electronics inflated on the and upper Research

by Bell Telephone Lincoln Laboratory,

Air tracking

Successfully provided and

experiments; with the

atmosphere; place

Soviet

the United

Kingdom

in 1964.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND
Telstar

373

In October 1960, American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T) asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for approval of its plans for an active communications satellite experiment. The following January, the FCC allocated AT&T the frequencies it had requested, and in July NASA announced that it would launch and track two Bell Telephone Laboratories-designed satellites (Telstars) for AT&T on a reimbursable basis. With Telstar, AT&T hoped to demonstrate the transmission of multichannel two-way telephone, television data, and facsimile signals via satellite and gain experience with very large ground station antennas. In addition to its microwave repeater and other communications-related instruments, Telstar was equipped with an array of sensors and measuring devices by which to study the characteristics and intensity of radiation in the Van Allen Belt. Bell built a large ground and Germany antenna in Maine, and communications constructed ground stations that would agencies in England, operate with Telstar France, and with

the experimental active communications satellite (Relay) NASA was planning to launch in the near future. NASA stations that were being built in Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere for Relay also could be used for Telstar. From its first day in operation, July 10, 1962, a variety of experiments and tests. In November, began acting erratically however, transmissions Telstar 1 was used successfully for the satellite's command channel

and on the 23d ceased responding. The following January, resumed unexpectedly for a few weeks; it was theorized that

radiation had affected Telstar's performance. Telstar 2 was launched on May 7, 1963. Specialists immediately began a series of tests and demonstrations involving ground stations in England, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. Although affected periodically by radiation damage, the satellite remained operational for two years. Telstar was a commercially financed project. NASA provided only the support requested by AT&T. At NASA Headquarters, Telstar was managed by Satellite Projects Program Manager Joseph R. Burke. Charles P. Smith was the project manager at the Goddard Space Flight Center, where NASA's Minitrack network was used for Telstar tracking operations.

374

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology of Telstar

3-212. and Operations

Development

Date 1959 An ad feasibility Aug. 24, 1959 hoc group was formed

Event at Bell Telephone communications outlined plans for Laboratories satellite. an active repeater comto study the

of developing

an active

A Bell company munications

memorandum experiment. with and

satellite

1960

Bell

experimented that would

tested Telstar.

many

of the

components

for

the

active

satellite Oct. 21, 1960 The plans which Jan. 19, 1961 FCC year. July 27, 1961 NASA

become

Federal

Communication_ Telephone Bell satellite.

Commission & Telegraph

(FCC)

was

asked satellite

to

approve

for an American would use the authorized

(AT&T)

experiment,

the AT&T

experiment

and

allocated

it frequencies

for

one

announced satellites Commerce attorney satellite German Munich satellite.

that

it would

launch

and basis.

test

two

AT&T

active

com-

munications Aug. 23-24, 1961 The Senate the assistant Oct. Dec. 18, 1961 1961 The The AT&T West

on a reimbursable Committee general was Post that on heard Telstar

testimony costs. Telstar. that with

from

NASA

officials

and

officially Office could

designated announced be used

it would and

construct NASA's

a ground Relay com-

station

near

Telstar

munications June 5, 1962 NASA Telstar. July 10, 1962 Telstar sions Dec. May 30, 1962 AT&T Telstar 1 was began

announced

plans

for

a cooperative

program

for

testing

Relay

and

launched after plans

successfully; launch. to launch successfully.

demonstrations

of television

transmis-

shortly

announced

a second

satellite

in the

spring

of

1963.

7, 1963

2 was launched

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-213.
Telstar Date of launch July 10, 1962 (ETR) 1 Characteristics

375

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 77.1 Roughly Diameter, sphen_.al .88 plus solar cells with 72 flat faces

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor:

Charles

P.

Smith Laboratories art of long-range Van Allen solar built the spacecraft for American measure Telephone radiation & in

Bell Telephone Telegraph Co. Advance and near the

Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results:

communications Belt; measure sensor,

by satellite; radiation silicon damage transistors,

the inner

to transistors. all Bell Telephone

Proton-electron Laboratories

detectors, experiments.

aspect

Part

of

the

communications

system

suffered

radiation

damage

from

the

July

9,

1962, high-altitude January 3, 1963; conducted Remarks: First

Starfish nuclear test and was silent from November 23, more than 300 technical tests and over 400 demonstrations

1962, to were

successfully. satellite launched by NASA.

commercial

Table Telstar Date of launch

3-214.

2 Characteristics

May

7,

1963 (ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Po wer source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Thor-Delta 79.4 Roughly Diameter, spherical .88 plus with solar 72 flat cells faces

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Charles Bell

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor:

P. Smith Laboratories built the spacecraft for American Telephone &

Telephone Co.

Telegraph Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Transmitted

Continuation of first mission; study effects of radiation useful life of an active communications satellite; check Proton-electron detectors, Bell Telephone Laboratories

and means of extending new ground equipment

the

black

and

white

and

color

television until May

and voice

signals

between

stations periodical-

in the U.S., France and England; used ly affected the satellite's performance.

1965 although

radiation

376

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK

Relay

Along with passive communications satellite experiments (Echo), NASA planned a modest low-altitude active satellite project for the early 1960s. The Department of Defense had responsibility for a synchronous-orbit satellite system (Advent), so the space agency confined its research and development activities to low- and medium-altitude communications satellites. In November 1960, NASA awarded a contract to Space Technology Laboratories for a feasibility design study for an active communications satellite, and by the following January officials were briefing industry on the agency's requirements for Project Relay. As a result of the Soviet Union's "space spectaculars" of 1961 and President John F. Kennedy's subsequent support of a strong U.S. space program, NASA's communications satellite program received supplementary funds that made it feasible to support active satellite research. In May 1961, the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) was awarded a contract to fabricate three Relay satellites. Relay was designed with three objectives in mind: to test transoceanic communications, to measure radiation in its orbital path, and to determine to what extent these high- and low-energy electrons and protons would damage the satellite's solar cells and diodes (8.6 of Relay rs 78 kilograms were devoted to radiationmeasuring devices and solid-state component testing equipment). The roughly spherical Relay satellites were built with redundance as a major feature; they carried two sets of every major system of circuits. Relay's most important component, the microwave repeater, received frequency-modulated signals from one or two ground stations, amplified these signals, tripled their deviation, and retransmitted them. Test stations for sending and receiving transmissions were in the U.S. (Andover, Maine; Mojave, California; and Nutley, New Jersey); Fucino, Italy; Goonhilly Downs, England; Pleumeur-Bodou, France; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Raisting, Germany; and Isbaraki Prefecture, Japan. To coordinate and define the main international experiments and demonstrations that would be performed via Relay, an International Ground Station Committee was formed. Thor-Delta vehicles launched Relay 1 (December 13, 1962) and Relay 2 (January 21, 1964) into elliptical orbits, from which they successfully retransmitted television, telephone, and digital signals. Relay 1 did not function properly at first because of an abnormal power drain on its storage batteries, but the problem was traced to the voltage regulator in a transponder. A second transponder was used as a backup, and the mission went on as planned. By March 1963, Relay 1 had fulfilled its mission objectives and went on to transmit the first transpacific television signals between Japan and the U.S. in November. In fact, Relay 1 worked too well. It would not respond to commands to turn itself off in December 1963 and continued relaying signals until February 1965. Relay 2 was equipped with upgraded solar cells designed to extend the satellite's power supply, and its traveling wave tubes, power regulation system, and radiation shielding were also of an improved design. The second Relay's initial public demonstration took place on January 29, 1964, when a portion of the winter Olympics at Innsbruck, Austria, was televised and transmitted to the U.S. via Relay and ground stations in France and Maine. After a successful demonstration career, Relay 2 was retired in the fall of 1965. Relay was managed at NASA Headquarters Donald P. Rogers (Relay 2), working in Leonard by Joseph R. Burke (Relay 1) and Jaffe's Office of Communications

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

377 and

and Navigations Programs. At Goddard Space Flight Center, Joseph Berliner Wendell S. Sunderlin were project managers for Relay 1 and 2, respectively. For further reading, see GSFC, Final Report on the Relay I Program, SP-76 (Washington, 1965); and GSFC, Relay Program Final Report, NASA (Washington, 1968).

NASA SP-151

Table 3-215.
Chronology Date Nov. 21, 1960 The Unmanned Board, Spacecraft an interagency low-altitude a contract of an to Panel of Relay Development and Event of the Aeronautics issued and Astronautics on NASA NASA expressed CoorProgram its inOperations

dinating Philosophy tentions Late Nov. 1960 NASA spacecraft would Jan. 13, 1961

body, active

a "Statement in which satellites.

on Communications to develop awarded design

Satellites,"

repeater

Space

Technology satellite

Laboratories satellite system. satellite system

for that

a

study

active

communications

lead

to a commercial specifications up at the

communications for a low-altitude

Preliminary were drawn

communications Center. Project Relay, named

(Relay)

Goddard

Space

Flight for

Jan.

25,

1961

Industry quotations

was briefed was issued. signed for

on the requirements The project with

and Relay.

a request

for

was officially and satellites France

Feb.

1961

NASA

agreements testing

the U.K.

to establish and 1963

government (Relay and

programs Rebound). May 18, 1961 NASA

communications

in 1962

awarded

a contract Division, Post

to the for the

Radio

Corporation of three it would Telstar

of

America Relay

(RCA),

Astro-Electronics Dec. 1961 The West German Munich

development that

spacecraft. a ground

Office

announced with

construct Relay. and

station June Dec. Jan. Feb. 5, 1962 13, 1962 21, 25, 1964 1964 NASA Relay Relay Goddard since jectives

near

to be used a cooperative successfully. successfully. not Project for

AT&T's

and Relay

announced 1 was 2 was

program

for testing

Telstar.

launched launched

recommended I and 2 and was there

launching Syncom a third

a third were Relay

Relay meeting

(the their

backup schedules

satellite); and ob-

Relay

no need

mission.

378

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Relay Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg): 1 (Relay

3-216. Characteristics

A-15)

Dec. 13, 1962 (ETR) Thor-Delta 78 8-sided prism topped by an octagonal one end truncated .43 pyramid with a .46-meter mast on

Dimensions

(m):

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Prism maximum diameter, .74; height, Pyramid height, .41 Overall height, 1.3 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC

Joseph Berliner Radio Corp. of America, Astro-Electronics Div., spacecraft fabrication Investigate wide-band communications between intercontinental stations; develop operational experience in using active satellite communications system; measure energy particles; determine effects of energy particles and radiation on selected electronic components. In addition to the microwave communications experiments: Radiation monitor, Bell Telephone Laboratories, State University Diode damage, Bell, GSFC Solar cell damage, GSFC Proved that a satellite can be used successfully

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

of Iowa

as a microwave

repeater;

some map-

ping of the electron and proton fields was accomplished; conducted 2000 technical tests and 172 successful demonstrations; tests were terminated in February 1965; an initial power drain problem was overcome by ground control.

Syncom

Specialists agreed visible thought in the that an

in

communications repeater stations, with the satellite was the

at

Hughes

Aircraft

Company, orbit, where

as

elsewhere, always experts available (under nation's only

active

in geostationary desirable. technology large had satellite 450-kilogram already project, Syncom A. Rosen been But

it was

to its ground it could early

highly satellite

the and

California-based launch Advent chosen vehicles satellite as officials 1960. Williams their ambitious for the

be done Since General

1960s. at

Army's

development synchronous-orbit listen politely A task working ect to the time with on

Electric)

communications to Hughes' proposal led

NASA project and

could

for

its

in early Donald sold

group the

at Hughes design

by Harold since they late

had

been proj-

of Syncom at Hughes, in November to the

1958.

Having

management their proposal

informally and

approached during the the next

NASA two years

the

first made

1959, space on others

they of

repeated (DoD), Stanford satellite. made

presentations the President's Research The plans people at one

civilian

agency, Bell an effort

Department

Defense the for they their even their

Committee Institute, at Hughes and

Science, in

Telephone to gain

Laboratories, support that and

believed a Scout

so strongly launch vehicle

in their from

proposal NASA

time

to buy

launch

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-217.
Relay Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Jan. 21, 1964 (ETR) Thor-Delta 85.3 8-sided prism topped by an octagonal one end Prism maximum diameter, .74; height, Pyramid height, .41 Overall height, 1.3 NiCd batteries plus solar cells In orbit GSFC Wendell S. Sunderlin of America, Astro-Electronics Div., spacecraft fabrication truncated .43 pyramid 2 (Relay-B) Characteristics

379

with a .46-meter mast on

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Radio Corp.

Investigate wide-band communications between ground stations by means of lowaltitude orbiting spacecraft; measure the effects of the space environment on the system. In addition to the microwave Radiation damage, GSFC communications experiments:

Experiments, responsible institution:

Proton and electron detectors, Bell Telephone Laboratories Directional and omnidirectional electron and proton detectors, California at La Jolla

University

of

Result:

Television, teletype facsimile, and digital data transmissions were made with satisfactory results; conducted more than 1500 technical tests and 95 demonstrations; retired in September 1965.

own

payload clear partly budget. was the President program

from to

a Pacific the Army

island that the

near Advent Centaur Leonard the

the

equator. was stage Jaffe to still

By the several

spring years

of away

1961, from and

it was being already Syn-

becoming ready, over com With satellite was for

due to delays Meanwhile, logical John and Hughes. next F. DoD

with NASA's step

of the launch had become

vehicle, convinced satellite the

that

for

agency's mandate

communications accelerate

program.

Kennedy's support By August

communications project, the path

of a NASA 1961, NASA

synchronous-orbit had named

cleared Project At an

for

Hughes

its contractor

Syncom. altitude orbit of about 35 800 relative the globe. rays kilometers speed This above the appearing also would equator, the Syncom in one to the that

satellite location.

could

at the same of

of earth, could altitude

to be always ensure spacecraft attitude

In this

position, one-third

a single

satellite

give communications

coverage

appxoximately satellite's control, Another wave which systems the entire tube. had that solar

cells

received was

the sun's

continuously. stabilization the development with DoD, and

Precise two

attitude jets.

a necessity, activity J. to T.

achieved to Syncom

by spin was was

control

critical Mendel less

of a lightweight designing taking this advantage to provide and the and control

traveling component, of those for

at Hughes than being half

charged

weigh

a kilogram. for Advent, the stations,

were ground

already station

readied

offered crews,

pay

complex,

center

380

NASA HISTORICAL DATA BOOK with Syncom. Two 9.14-meter parabolic and aboard the USNS Kingsport would inteam was given 13 months to prepare for systems was launched on February 14, 1963,

necessary for conducting experiments antennas at Lakehurst, New Jersey, tercept signals. The NASA-Hughes-DoD the first launch. Syncom 1 with its many redundant

by a Thor-Delta launch vehicle. The orbit planned for the first Syncom was not a truly synchronous one. Since NASA still did not have a stable of powerful launchers, the angle of orbit injection would be influenced by the location of the Eastern Test Range launch site, 30 degrees north of the equator. The satellite would appear to move about 30 degrees north, then 30 degrees south, swinging every 24 hours in a huge figure eight, the center of which would remain approximately stationary over the equator. As part of the ground station complex, the USNS Kingsport would be able to track the satellite through this figure-eight configuration. But the ground crew lost all contact with Syncom 1 seconds after the satellite's apogee motor fired. Apparently, the kick of the apogee rocket knocked out the onboard electronics equipment. Consequently, NASA directed that a number of changes be made to the second spacecraft, including measures to maintain radio contact in case of main power failure. Syncom 2, launched in July 1963, transmitted excellent telephone, teletype, and facsimile signals, as well as video signals, even though the satellite was not designed for this particular capability. The third Syncom, the last in the series, was put into a true geostationary orbit by the more powerful Thrust-augmented Thor-Delta. It, too, operated perfectly. By late 1964, NASA had completed its slate of tests and demonstrations with the Syncom system. Since the Army had cancelled its Project Advent in 1963, the military was interested in using Syncom for its operations in Asia. DoD communications specialists were impressed by the reliability of the system and the high-quality transmissions over long distances that a relay at synchronous altitude allowed. If the ground station complex were supplemented with highly transportable stations that could be rushed to remote isolated areas, Syncom could be very useful during military activities. On April 1, 1965, the Syncom was officially transferred to the Department of Defense. 18 At NASA Headquarters, Syncom was managed from Leonard Jaffe's office by Robert E. Warren (Syncom 1), Joseph R. Burke (Syncom 2), and Henry N. Stafford (Syncom 3). Alton E. Jones led the Goddard Space Flight Center team during the first two missions, with Robert J. Darcey managing the third. For more information on the background of the project, see Edgar W. Morse, "Preliminary 1964. History of the Origins of Project Syncom," NASA HNN-40, Sept. l,

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

381

I

I

I

I

0

z
0

'
c01-o

Z

_o
I--

-

Z _

tr _ I'--A

i.=tr

_ >..m>
tr t_ _

.
t._

N
I--

e_

e_

0

0

I

I
0 tO 0 O_

I
0

L
0 O_

I
0

382

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date Late 1958 A task Company company's 1959 Rosen and group to led by investigate on of Syncom

3-218. Development and Event Harold A. Rosen was established satellite at Hughes Aircraft the Operations

communications radar. at Hughes communications its Syncom

experiments

beyond

work Donald

advanced Williams active proposed

studied

the problems

associated

with

a synchronous-orbit Sept. Feb. March 25, 4, 1959 17, 1960 1, 1960 Hughes Hughes Hughes without April-May July 11, 1960 1960 Hughes informally made formal

satellite. to NASA.

presentations its engineers

to NASA. to proceed with the development of Syncom

authorized NASA's made

support. Syncom Syncom presentations presentations to the to Department the President's of Defense Science (DoD). Advisory

Hughes made Committee. Hughes Glennan project. made

Aug.

16,

1960

another that

presentation Hughes apply

to NASA,

and

Administrator to a low-altitude

T.

Keith

suggested

its activities

satellite

Oct.-Dec.

1960

Hughes IT&T, Force,

made Stanford and

Syncom

presentations Institute, and military

to GT&E, Aerospace civilian

Bell Telephone Corporation,

Laboratories, the U.S. Air

Research

to British

delegations. urged agency managers to adopt a

Spring

1961

Leonard

Jaffe

at NASA satellite. its support

Headquarters

synchronous-orbit June 23, 1961 DoD satellite Aug. 10, 1961 Goddard development Agency Aug. March 21, 1961 Hughes In Senate announced project. Space plan

of a NASA

synchronous-orbit

communications

Flight

Center

personnel with

prepared the U.S. Army

a preliminary Advent

project

in coordination project. NASA Hughes contractor

Management

for a Syncom was named hearings,

for

Syncom. any future public communicasystem. spacecraft had

1, 1962

advocated should adopt assembly

that

tions Nov. 9, 1962 Hughes been Dec. Jan. 1962 1963

satellite

corporation that

Syncom of the

as its primary first Syncom

reported completed.

the final

A simulated NASA month.

Syncom that

training the first

mission launch

was

undertaken. would take place the next

announced

of Syncom

Feb.

14,

1963

Syncom when the

I was launched apogee motor that

successfully, was fired

but contact to place of the and on the

with satellite of

the spacecraft in the required the

was lost orbit.

Feb.

25,

1963

NASA Satellite agency satellites

announced Corporation would and 2 was 3 was focus cancel

in light (COMSAT) its efforts and

formation DoD's synchronous

Communications of Advent, the

cancellation active projects.

communications

passive

intermediate-altitude

July Aug. Dec.

26,

1963

Syncom Syncom

launched launched

successfully. successfully. in Asia and

19, 1964 31, 1964

NASA began the transfer of the Syncom system to DoD for use the Indian Ocean; the transfer was completed by April l, 1965.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND Table 3-219.
Syncom Date of launch 1 (Syncom-A) Characteristics Feb. 14, 1963 (ETR)

383

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: (kg):

Thor-Delta 68 (at apogee Cylindrical end motor burnout, 39) with an apogee motor nozzle protruding at one

(2 concentric

cylinders),

Dimensions Power Date source:

(m):

.74

x

.66 height including plus solar antennas cells and apogee motor, 1.7

Overall of reentry: NASA

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Alton Hughes Obtain Jones Aircraft experience

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives:

Co.,

spacecraft

design

and

fabrication in a 24-hour control; synchronous develop orbit;

using

communications for satellite

satellites attitude and

flight-test new techniques ground facilities. Experiments, responsible institution: Results: Communication with rocket; it was sighted No scientific experiments.

transportable

the satellite was lost 20 seconds traveling in a near-synchronous

after the orbit.

firing of

the apogee

Table Syncom Date of launch July 26, 1963 (ETR) 2 (Syncom-B)

3-220. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date source: of reentry: NASA (m): (kg):

Thor-Delta 66.7 (at apogee motor burnout, cylinders), 39) with an apogee motor nozzle protruding at one

Cylindrical end .74 x .66

(2 concentric

Overall

height

including plus solar

antennas cells

and

apogee

motor,

1.17

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Alton Hughes No

Jones Aircraft Co., spacecraft design and fabrication of the Syncom experiments. I mission.

Continuation scientific

Orbit

and

attitude

control

achieved; were

data, also of

telephone, transmitted Defense

and

facsimile

transmissions the satellite was

exnot

cellent; television designed for this Remark: Operation assumed

video signals capability.

although in April

by the Department

1965.

384

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Syncom Date of launch Aug. 19, 1964 (ETR) Thor-Delta motor burnout, 3 (Syncom-C)

3-221. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Power source: (kg):

Thrust-augmented 65.8 (at apogee

37.6) with an apogee motor nozzle protruding from

Cylindrical one end

(2 concentric plus solar

cylinders), cells

Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contraclor: Objectives:

NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Robert Hughes to a true the U.S.

J. Darcey Aircraft Co., of Syncom synchronous and the Far experiments. East, spacecraft 2 mission; orbit; provide design with and fabrication goal of placing the spacecraft link incommunications between

Continuation

the added by DoD.

an experimental

as requested

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

No scientific

Orbit

and

attitude orbit; video of the

control data, were signals 1964

were

achived; and

the

satellite

was put transmissions

into

near-equatorial were excellent; including in April 1965.

synchronous television coverage Remarks: Last See also

telephone, transmitted games assumed Applications

facsimile

through in Tokyo.

wide-band

transponder, of Defense (ATS).

Olympic and

of the series. INTELSAT

Operations

by the Department Technology Satellite

INTELSAT

In August 1962, Congress authorized the formation of the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) to manage the commercial applications of the nation's communications satellite program. By late 1963, COMSAT had issued a request for proposals to industry for an engineering design for a commercial communications satellite system. Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and Bell Telephone Laboratories were funded to study random medium-altitude satellites, TRW and ITT phased medium-altitude satellites, and Hughes Aircraft Company synchronous-orbit satellites. _9 Since global communications necessarily involved many countries, the International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium (INTELSAT) was established in August 1964 to develop, implement, and operate an international communications satellite system (see fig. 3-7). Each member nation (63 members in September 1968) of INTELSAT owned an investment share of the consortium proportional to its international traffic in a global satellite system. Individual nations owned and operated their own ground stations. COMSAT, as the management and operations arm of INTELSAT, continued with its plans for a family of commercial satellites. NASA's part in this scheme was a critical but limited one: the agency would launch the communications payloads on a reimbursable basis.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

385

As a result of its work on the NASA-managed Project Syncom, Hughes was able to submit a sophisticated proposal for COMSAT's first synchronous-orbit spacecraft. Called INTELSA T I (also Early Bird), the 38-kilogram satellite could maintain 240 two-way telephone circuits, but from only two stations at a time. INTELSATI, launched on April 6, 1965, was used for over 3½ years (spacecraft estimated lifetime had been 18 months). The next step in the INTELSAT series called for a larger, more powerful spacecraft with a wider band width capable of providing coverage over a greater area. Multiple-access capability was also introduced; each spacecraft transponder carried four 6-watt traveling wave tubes that could operate simultaneously. The first of four INTELSAT II satellites was launched in October 1966. A third series, built by TRW, was even larger. Each of three INTELSAT III satellites had a nominal capability of 1200 telephone circuits, obtained by using a new antenna system. While the spacecraft body was spinning, its antenna was despun to point always at earth. The first of this series was launched in September 1968. With three spacecraft operating above the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Indian Oceans, a truly global communications system was an accomplished fact by 1969 (see fig. 3-8). A fourth model of the INTELSAT spacecraft was being planned for the 1970s (see fig. 3-9 for a comparison of the different INTELSAT spacecraft). 20 NASA's activities were limited to launching and initial tracking operations. J. J. Kelleher managed the Early Bird launch for NASA Headquarters, and Wayne C. Mathews served as program manager for the INTELSAT II series. Jerome Friebaum assumed this post in June 1968. At the Goddard Space Flight Center, Charles P. Smith was project manager.

91 SIGNATORY OWNERS _= ur _._r,,,_]l_

IIIIIII1 "
CONTRACTORS CINTRIBUTIO 71 SIGNATO_'------_Y -5NON-SIGNATORY L,.,_TI11_ _ _ _ _W_I_PA_NIb I INTELSAT SPACECRAFT& LAUNCH SERVICES R&D

us .s i
EXECUTIVE ORGAN (SECRETARY GENERAL) MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACTOR (COMSAT)

,

Figure

3-7.

International simplified

Telecommunications cash flow diagram,

Satellite as of 1975.

Organ&ation

(INTELSA

T)financ&l

arrangements,

386

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

m

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

387

INTELSAT

IVA

INTELSAT

I

INTELSAT_II

INTELSAT _]

III

INTELSAT i

IV

YR OF 1st LAUNCH

1966

1967

1966

1971

1975

DIMENSIONS

(cm)

DIA HGHT

72.1 59.6

142 67.3

142 104

238 282 528 (DRUM) (OVERALL) 1385 7DO ATLAS/CENTAU

238 282 590 (DRUM (OVERALL) 1469 790 RATLAS/C ENTAUR

AT LAUNCH MASS (kg) IN ORBIT

68 38

162 86 IMPROVED THOR-DELTA

293 1 52 LONG-TANK THOR-DELTA

LAUNCH

VEHICLE

THOR-DELTA

PRIMARY

POWER

(W)

40 2

75 1 130 OMNI GLOBAL

120 2 225 DESPUN GLOBAL

4OO 12 36 DESPUN GLOBAL &

5O0 20 32-26 DESPUN GLOBAL HEMI &

TRANSPONDERS BW/TRANSPONDER ANTENNA COVERAGE (MHz)

25 OMNI-SGUINTED N, HEMISPHERE

SPOT

BEAMS

BEAMS

e.i.r.p./BEAM

(dBW)

11.5

15.6

23

22.5 (GLOBAL) 22 (GLOBAL) 33.7 (SPOT BEAM)29 (HEMI BEAM) 4000 6000

NO.

OF TEL.

CIRCUITS

240 (NO MULT. ACCESS) 1.5 30

240

1200

DESIGN

LIFETIME

(YR) ($000)

3 10

5 2

7 1

7 1

COST/CIRCUIT

YEAR

Figure

3-9.

Evolution

of the INTELSA

T family

of communications

satellites.

From paper,

B.L

Edelson,

H.

I4I. Wood, Astronautical

and

C.J.

Reber, 26th

"Cost

Effectiveness Sept.

in Global 21-27,

Satellite 1975, p. 3.

Communications,"

International

Federation

Congress,

388

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Date Aug. 31, 1962 The Communications of INTELSAT

3-222. Development Event Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) was authorized by and Operations

Congress. Feb. Dec. 1, 1963 22, 1963 COMSAT COMSAT a commercial Dec. 1963 Hughes of an orbit). March 1964 COMSAT of the satellite. July 1964 Satellite (RCA) TRW awarded proposed Hughes Early a contract Bird for the development operational and fabrication Aircraft initial Corp. issued was incorporated. for proposals satellite a proposal satellite for system. to COMSAT for commercial for the development use (synchronous an engineering design study for

a request

communications Co. submitted

communications

experimental

communications

design and and

studies ITT

were

begun

by

the

Radio

Corporation medium-altitude satellites),

of and

America satellites), Hughes March 1,

Bell Telephone (phased satellites)

Laboratories for

(random

medium-altitude COMSAT;

(synchronous-orbit 1965. Aug. 20, 1964 The arm. Nov. Dec. 1964 1964 Six companies NASA on April Sept. 6, 30, 1965 1965 and International

reports

were

due

on

Telecommunications of which COMSAT

Satellite

Consortium

(INTELSAT)

was established,

was the management

services-operations

submitted COMSAT project,

proposals signed with a formal an initial was

for COMSAT agreement launch

ground outlining for

stations. their March cooperation 1965.

a satellite

planned successfully.

INTELSA COMSAT fund support four

T I (Early asked new NASA's and the

Bird) Federal

launched

Communications private

Commission communications

for

authority and

to to

satellites Project TRW

to provide Apollo. opened satellite

services

Dec.

16,

1965

COMSAT development global

negotiations system. design

for

a contract

that

called

for

the in a

and

fabrication

of a second-generation

satellite

to be used

communications issued

Dec.

29,

1965

COMSAT

a request

for

study

proposals

for

a multipurpose

communications-navigation July 1966 NASA and COMSAT satellites. T II-A was reached

satellite. an agreement on the launching of two more

INTELSAT Oct. 22, 1966 INTELSA limiting Jan. March Sept. 11, 1967 22, 27, 1967 1967 INTELSA INTELSA INTELSA

launched, usefulness. launched launched

but

it failed

to achieve

synchronous

orbit,

the spacecraft's T II-B T II-C T II-D was was

successfully. successfully. successfully.

was launched

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS 3-222. and Operations (Continued)

389

Table Chronology Date Feb. 1968 April 1968 COMSAT of INTELSAT

Development

Event opened bids for the design of INTELSATS 1II, IV, and V.

COMSAT reopened bidding on a proposed INTELSAT Ili½, designed to supplement the INTELSAT II1 system until the advanced INTELSAT IV was ready. Hughes, Lockheed, and TRW bid on INTELSAT IV. The launch of INTELSATIIlF-1 was unsuccessful because the launch vehicle failed; the spacecraft and launch vehicle were destroyed. A contract between COMSAT approved by INTELSAT. INTELSA and Hughes for the INTELSAT IV series was

Sept. 18, 1968

Oct. 4, 1968

Dec. 18, 1968

T III F-2 was launched

successfully.

INTELSA Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results: April 6, 1965 (ETR) Thrust-augmented 68 in orbit Cylindrical .72 × .6 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

Table 3-223. T I Characteristics

Thor-Delta

plus solar cells

Charles P. Smith Hughes Aircraft Co. for COMSAT (who represented Establish a commercial communications system. No scientific experiments. INTELSAT)

Remarks:

Went into commercial operation on June 28, linking North America and Europe; transmitted telephone, color and black and white television, teletype, and facsimile signals; used for four years. NASA provided launching, initial tracking, and associated services on a reimbursable basis; satellite operation was the responsibility of COMSAT. Also called Early Bird.

39O

,NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table INTELSA T II-A

3-224. Characteristics

Date

of launch

Oct.

26,

1966

(ETR) Improved (162.2 at launch) Thor-Delta (TAID)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: _,_SA (kg):

Thrust-augmented 87.1 in orbit Cylindrical 1.42 x .67 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC Charles P. Smith plus

solar

cells

Cognizant center:

Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Hughes Aircraft Co. for COMSAT (who represented Commercial communications; Pacific link. No scientific experiments.

INTELSAT)

Satellite motor, sion chased data

failed which

to achieve limited for satellite

synchronous or up to 240 support. initial

orbit voice tracking, was the

due 8 hours

to a malfunction daily. Capable part associated of of

of the apogee of handling its capacity services on Also

kick televi-

use to approximately Apollo

transmissions provided basis;

channels; and

was pura reimcalled

by NASA

Remarks:

NASA bursable Lani

launching,

operation

responsibility

COMSAT.

Bird.

Table 3-225.
INTELSA T II-B Characteristics

Date Date

of

launch

Jan.

11,

1967 (ETR)

(location): of reentry: In orbit Commercial Placed NASA bursable communications; orbit 3-224 launching, See table Pacific over for initial link. the Pacific; tracking, spacecraft and used for Apollo support. on a reimassociated services in geosynchronous provided basis.

Objectives: Results: Remarks:

description.

Table INTELSA T II-C

3-226. Characteristics

Date

of

launch

March In orbit

22,

1967

(ETR)

(location): Date of reentry: Objectives: Results: Remarks:

Commercial

communications;

Atlantic

link.

Placed in geosynchronous orbit over Atlantic. NASA provided launching, initial tracking, and associated services on a reimbursable basis. Also called Atlantic 2. See table 3-224 for spacecraft description.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

391

INTELSA Date of launch (location): Date of reentry: Objectives: Results: Remarks: Sept. 27, 1967 (ETR) In orbit

Table 3-227. T II-D Characteristics

Commercial communications; Pacific link. Placed in geosynchronous orbit over Pacific. NASA bursable provided launching, initial tracking, and associated services on a reimbasis. Also called Pacific 2. See table 3-224 for spacecraft description.

Table INTELSA Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Sept. 18, 1968 (ETR) Long-tank Thrust-augmented 146.1 in orbit (286.7 at launch) Cylindrical 1.42 x 1.04 TIII

3-228. F-I Characteristics

Thor-Delta

Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor." Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results: Remarks:

Overall height with antennas, 1.98 NiCd batteries plus solar cells Spacecraft destroyed GSFC Charles P. Smith TRW Systems Group, TRW, Commercial communications; No scientific experiments. Inc., for COMSAT Atlantic link. (who represented INTELSAT)

When the launch vehicle control system malfunctioned, the entire vehicle was destroyed by the range officer. NASA provided launching and associated services on a reimbursable basis. An earlier designation for this satellite was INTELSAT III-A.

INTELSA Date of launch (location): Date of reentry: Objectives: Results: Remarks: Dec. 18, 1968 (ETR) In orbit

Table 3-229. T III F-2 Characteristics

Commercial communications; Atlantic link. Placed in geosynchronous orbit over Atlantic; capacity of 1200 telephone circuits. NASA provided launching, initial tracking, and associated services on a reimbursable basis. See table 3-228 for spacecraft description.

392

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

DESCRIPTION-APPLICATIONS SATELLITE (ATS)

TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Shortly after the Syncom project was approved by NASA, designers at Hughes Aircraft Company began investigating ways in which the basic configuration might be exploited in the future. Officials at Goddard Space Flight Center were enthusiastic about expanding the capabilities of this yet-to-be-tried synchronous-orbit satellite to include a multiple communications access capability between fixed points and a phased-array antenna. NASA Headquarters approved a feasibility study for such a spacecraft in 1962. Early the following year, Hughes personnel were anxious for the agency to sanction an Advanced Syncom flight project, but their proposals were poorly timed. Heated debates were raging in Congress during FY 1964 budget appropriations hearings over NASA's relations with the newly organized Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT), which had been charged by Congress to establish a commercial operational communications network. Some members of Congress believed that the privately-run COMSAT, which seemingly had a monopoly in the communications satellite field, would be the sole benefactor of NASA's advanced research and development communications projects; as they saw it the government NASA countered that space agency would be subsidizing a private corporation. its mandate was to further the state of the art; the agency had

no intentions of getting into the "communications satellite business." NASA's authorization for Advanced Syncom was $7 million less than the request, and managers at Headquarters decided to avoid future open criticism by dropping their plans for an advanced communications flight project. Advanced Syncom, however, was a sound design, and specialists at Hughes, Goddard, and NASA Headquarters sought ways to integrate their ideas for communications, meteorology, and navigation-traffic control satellites into a single package that could be carried on one spacecraft. In February 1964, NASA officials signed off on a project approval document for an Advanced Technological Satellite, which was renamed Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) that spring. The Department of Defense (DOD) also played a part in influencing NASA to redirect its plans from a synchronous-orbit communications satellite to a multipurpose project. Military officials had become convinced that Syncom, while highly useful, was also very vulnerable; feasibly it could be manuevered, interfered with, or put out of commission by an enemy ground station. For more secure communications, the military planned some 60 randomly spaced medium-altitude satellites. DoD specialists also were interested in an experimental gravity-gradient stabilized spacecraft, one plane of which would always face earth; and the military suggested that NASA explore this area of spacecraft design.* In May 1964, Hughes was instructed to build five Applications Technology Satellites, which would accomodate a variety of communications, meteorology, and

*A gravity-gradient

stabilized

spacecraft

required

long nearest greater one

booms earth than plane

attached

to a main

body

that

would

respond to earth's gravitational pull. Those booms since the gravity exerted on them would be slightly from earth. This would keep the spacecraft fixed

would tend that exerted always facing

to remain pointed at earth on the booms most distant earth, another always fac-

with

ing away.

SPACE SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND

393

scientific experiments. General Electric set to work designing a gravity-gradient system, and NASA sent letters to over 1000 prospective investigators explaining the multiple opportunities afforded them by ATS. The next two years saw the first spacecraft readied for launch, more than 60 investigations chosen for flight (see table 3-230), and the fabrication of experiment hardware by Control Data Corporation, Philco, and Bell Aerospace. NASA's Lewis Research Center was contributing a small ion engine that was to be tested for stationkeeping maneuvers, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was supplying the apogee motors for ATS as it had for the Syncom satellites. Ground stations were readied at Rosman, North Carolina, and in California's Mojave Desert. Sylvania was chosen to build a transportable ground system, which would be used in Toowoomba, Australia. _ A TS 1, launched in December 1966, was put into synchronous orbit over the equator (Pacific). Equipped with a collection of environmental measurement devices, communications hardware (VHF, FM, and microwave), and cameras for collecting weather data (including a joint NASA-Environmental Science Services Administration experiment), the first ATS performed all its operations successfully. More than 10 years later, it and A TS 3 were still being used for a variety of applications tasks, including transmitting medical data for isolated patients, supporting manned spaceflight activities (in the late 1960s), and providing communications links in emergency situations. A TS 3, launched in November 1967, carried a payload similar to that of A TS 1 into synchronous orbit over the Atlantic. It returned excellent high-resolution photographs stabilization system and an experiment electromagnetic radiation were first malfunction prevented that spacecraft similarly configured, likewise suffered along with other data. A gravity-gradient sponsored by DoD to measure albedo and included on A TS 2, but a launch vehicle from obtaining the proper orbit. ATS 4, launch vehicle failure and did not achieve or-

bit. Ground controllers were able to test-fire the new ion engine included in a payload for the first time on A TS 4 before the spacecraft reentered the atmosphere. Unexpectedly during the 1969 flight of ATS 5, large amounts of spacecraft fuel were expended to stabilize the satellite in its parking orbit. Fearing they would have trouble controlling the satellite, the flight team inserted it into synchronous orbit at the very first opportunity, rather than waiting for the planned orbit insertion. The spacecraft continued to tumble, however, jeopardizing some of the primary experiments. Although the first series of five Application Technology Satellites was fraught with launch vehicle and attitude control problems, the spacecraft itself was judged highly successful. A TS 1 and 3 outlasted their planned operations schedule several times and, as noted above, were used for a number of purposes that were not anticipated at the time of the project's initiation. A TS 1 and 3 also have been moved many times to provide services to several areas of the globe. A second-generation ATS was on the drawing boards as early as 1964. When Joseph R. Burke joined NASA Headquarters in 1961, he was assigned to the Syncom and advanced Syncom projects. He was a natural candidate for ATS program manager and served in that position through the first ATS flight series. At the Goddard Space Flight Center, Robert J. Darcey, a member of the center's Syncom team, was project manager for the first three missions. By the time A TS 4 was launched, he had become chief of Goddard's ATS office; Don V. Fordyce was project manager for ATS-D and ATS-E. The first series of Applications Techology Satellites made it clear to Govern-

394

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

mentagencies andprivateconcerns fundingspace that researchnddevelopment a projects couldbea wiseinvestment. Benefits oreimmediately m tangible thannationalprestige ndscientific a discoveries couldberealized several in fieldsfrom a multipurposeatellite. ccurate s A weatherorecasting, f studies waterresources, of forests ndlanduse, reciseositioningf air andwater essels navigationnd a p p o v for a traffic control,television broadcasting, point-to-point ommunications, c geodesy, cartography-allhese t areas wouldgainfromNASA'searlyexperiences withthe Applications echnology T Satellite.

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND APPLICATIONS

395

Table Applications Technology

3-230. Satellite Experiments SPACECRAFT

EXPERIMENT Microwave Communications VHF Communications WEFAX (see also meteorology Ground to Aircraft Propagational Effect of VHF Navigational Systems STADAN Calibration Millimeter Wave Communications (SSCCE) Meteorological Experiments Spin Scan Cloud Cover Experiment Black and White Color Advanced WEFAX Videcon Camera experiments)

A X

B X X

C X X

D X

E X

X X X

System (AVCS)

Image Dissector Camera System (1DCS) OMEGA Position Location Experiment (OPLE) Image Orthican Day/Night Camera Gravity Gradient Antenna Phased Array Mechanically Despun Nutation Sensor Subliming Solid Jet Hydrazine Rocket Resistojet Ion Engine Reflectometer Self-Contained Navigation System Environmental Measurements Experiments Omnidirectional Particle Telescope (UCSD) Omnidirectional Particle Telescope (Aerospace) Particle Detector (BTL) Proton/Electron Spectrometer (U. of Minn.) Solar Cell Damage (GSFC-Dr. Waddel) Thermal Coatings (GSFC-J. Triolo) Ion Detector (Rice Univ.) Magnetometer (UCLA) VLF Detector (BTL) Cosmic Radio Noise (GSFC-Dr. Stone) Electric Field Measuremet (GSFC-Dr. Aggson) Trapped Radiation Detector (UCB) Proton/Electron Detector (Lockheed) Spacecraft Charge Measurement (GSFC-Dr. From Gilbert D. Bullock, Aggson) Summary,"

X X X X X

X X

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X rev. April 1968, p. 12.

comp. and ed., "ATS Program

BTL = Bell Telephone Laboratories STADAN =Satellite Tracking and Data Acquisition UCB = University of California at Berkeley UCSD = University of California at San Diego WEFAX = Weather facsimile

Network

396

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Chronology Satellite Date Oct.-Nov. Feb. June 1962 1962 1961 Hughes the Hughes Space satellite June 18, 1962 A project for Feb. March Spring 14, 1963 A project Aircraft proposed Flight Company (ATS) of

3-231. Technology and Operations Event personnel of Syncom. Syncom for an was to NASA advanced issued for Headquarters stationary the study and Goddard began investigating ways to improve

Applications

Development

existing

configuration Center development

an advanced personnel. plan document satellite. Syncom. silent with shortly the first

communications of an advanced study

was prepared approval

at Goddard. Hughes after NASA launch was selected its apogee Headquarters scheduled to prepare motor for for the was an a feasibility fired. advanced half Syncom of 1964.

synchronous-orbit an advanced 1 went presented program, Syncom Hughes flight 1963

8, 1963

plans'to

second

Congressional communications tions Satellite Jaffe

debates took place over the relationship research and development program and Corp. testified (COMSAT). at congressional synchronous-orbit tasks. contract for advanced again until Syncom. and in the Syncom October. was hearings satellite that

between NASA's the Communica-

April

1, 1963

Leonard in using tions and Hughes's August;

NASA

was

interested

an advanced meteorology design in June proposed 2 was study

to accomplish

communicathrough

May June July Sept. Fall

1963 27, 26, 1963 1963

extended

it was extended an intermediate launched an

Hughes Syncom spacecraft Goddard

successfully, advanced Syncom

feasibility

of

the to

basic Headperthe

demonstrated. supported recommendations

1963 1963

quarters. NASA terminated sonnel at Goddard, advanced Syncom

its plans for an advanced Syncom flight project, and Headquarters, and Hughes studied ways to reorient design to include study for more integrating areas of research. for several advanced

Nov.

1, 1963

A four-month

feasibility

requirements

areas Syncom was

of research into one flight program was started at Hughes; came to be called Advanced Technological Satellite. Feb. 13, 1964 A project issued. The program letter ATS for five approval was document unofficially for Advanced Technological

Satellite

May May May June

1964 13, 14, 26, 1964 1964 1964

renamed

Applications for

Technology development and

Satellite fabrica-

(ATS). A NASA tion tion of the system

contract spacecraft. was ATS. a request ATS

was issued

to Hughes

General NASA carried

Electric issued on

selected for

to design proposals

and from

build

a gravity-gradient for experiments was

stabilizato be issued in

scientists request

spacecraft

(a second

to industry

September). Aug. Aug. Oct. Aug. 19, 1964 1964 4, 1964 11, 1965 Syncom Goddard ATS The 3 was launched successfully. personnel submitted a proposed Headquarters. Technology Satellite was officially approved. ATS Systems, experiBell Aerospace, and to prepare feasibility Electro-Optical studies for procurement plan for an advanced

to NASA name

Applications

Control Data Corp., Philco, Inc., were selected by NASA ment hardware. was issued chosen to build for

Aug. Sept.

25, 1965

1965

Sylvania NASA

a transportable proposals for

ground

system

for

ATS.

a request

a second-generation

ATS.

SPACE SCIENCE AND
Table Chronology Satellite Date March 1, 1966 GE, Fairchild-Hiller, design study and in December. (ATS) of

APPLICATIONS

397

3-231. Technology Operations Event Lockheed for were selected to receive ATS. six-month Studies were (Continued)

Applications and

Development

feasibility Dec. April Nov. May Aug. Aug. 6, 1966 5, 1967 5, 1967 22, 10, 12, 1968 1968 1968 1968 A TS 1 was The launch vehicle NASA

contracts successfully.

a second-generation

to be completed

launched

of A TS 2 was unsuccessful the satellite successfully. GE, was

because not put

the second into

stage

of the launch orbit. contract of orbit. of Space a the

malfunctioned; selected

the correct for competitive

A TS 3 was launched

Fairchild-Hiller,

and Lockheed

negotiations The launch launch An The space Science vehicle and

to develop spacecraft designs for ATS-F and ATS-G. of A TS 4 was unsuccessful because the Centaur stage failed; Applications. Academy of Sciences-National study. Research Council the satellite board was not injected into the required Office

A TS 4 failure National

review

was established

by NASA's

Summer

conducted

applications

summer

Table A TS Date of launch Dec. 6, 1966 (ETR) D (737.1 at launch 1 (ATS-B)

3-232. Characteristics

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: NASA (kg):

Atlas-Agena 351.5 in orbit Cylindrical 1.47 × 1.52 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC

including

adapter)

plus

solar

cells

Cognizant center."

Project manager: Contractor." Objectives: Experiments responsible institution: Results."

Robert Hughes Conduct orbit. See table

J. Darcey Aircraft a variety 3-230. Co., spacecraft design on and fabrication spacecraft in geostationary of experiments a spin-stabilized

Placed

into

synchronous communications, more than

orbit

over and

the control later.

equator

(Pacific);

the

15

experiments successfully;

(meteorology, still in operation

technology)

all operated

10 years

398

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table A TS 2 (ATS-A) Date of launch (location): Launch veh&le: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentry: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: April 5, 1967 (ETR)

3-233. Characteristics

Atlas-Agena D 323.4 in orbit (369.9 at launch) Cylindrical with 2 long booms and 2 solar panels 1.83 x 1.42 Overall length with booms extended, NiCd batteries plus solar cells Sept. 2, 1968 GSFC Robert J. Darcey Hughes Aircraft Co., spacecraft design and fabrication Evaluate gravity-gradient system for spacecraft stabilization; evaluate simultaneous transmission of voice, television, telegraph, and digital data; evaluate using gravitygradient satellite for meteorology applications; obtain data on earth's albedo and electromagnetic radiation in space (DoD). See table 3-230. 76.81

Ey,periments responsible institution: Results:

Because the launch vehicle's second stage engine malfunctioned, not inserted into a circular was judged unsuccessful. orbit; some experiments returned

the spacecraft data,

was

but the mission

Table A TS 3 (ATS-C) Date of launch (location): Launch vehicle: Weight (kg): Shape: Dimensions (m): Power source: Date of reentrv: Cognizant NASA center: Project manager: Contractor: Objectives: Nov. 5, 1967 (ETR) Atlas-Agena D 362 in orbit (714 at launch) Cylindrical 1.47 x 1.37 NiCd batteries In orbit GSFC plus solar cells

3-234. Characteristics
......................

Experiments responsible institution: Results:

Robert J. Darcey Hughes Aircraft Co., spacecraft design and fabrication In near-stationary equatorial orbit, perform communications, meteorology, stabilization and pointing technology, orbital technology, and space environmental degradation experiments. See table 3-230.

Transmitted excellent high-resolution photographs and other data as planned: into synchronous orbit over the Atlantic; still in use more than 10 years later.

put

SPACE

SCIENCE

AND

APPLICATIONS

399

Table A TS 4 (ATS-D)

3-235. Characteristics

Date

of launch

Aug.

10,

1968

(ETR)

(location): Launch vehicle: Weight Shape: Dimensions Power Date center: Project manager." Contractor: Objectives: source: of reentry: NASA (m): (kg):

Atlas-Centaur 385.4 in orbit (834.6 at launch booms with and adapter) 2 solar 76.81 panels

Cylindrical with 1.83 × 1.42 Overall NiCd Oct. 17, GSFC length batteries 1968

2 long with plus

booms solar

extended, cells

Cognizant

Don

V. Fordyce Aircraft Co., spacecraft design and system; voice, test ion station fabrication evaluate engine a day-night (black in-orbit Research for camera and system and television at the Radio white gravity-gradient transmit and digital additional telegraph, evaluate Japan. 3-230. stabilization simultaneous signals; ground

Hughes Evaluate for color), Kashima,

meteorology;

stationkeeping Laboratory,

maneuvers; See table

Experiments, responsible institution: Results:

Because orbit; the

the Centaur cesium

stage

failed

to ignite,

the spacecraft tested

did

not

reach

the desired

propellant

ion engines

were

successfully.

DESCRIPTION-GEODETIC

INVESTIGATIONS

Satellites are also a useful research tool for geodesists. By coordinating tracking data collected on a global scale, specialists can determine the exact positions of particular points on earth's surface, the exact shape of the planet, and the locations where the gravitational field is anomalous. This information gives cartographers the many reference points required to prepare a 1:25 000 scale map of the planet. Such precise measurements also are necessary to calculate launch trajectories. In addition, geologists can profit from information on deviations from the normal pull of gravity; such anomolies hint at what kind of materials lay beneath the earth's crust. In 1965, NASA established a National Geodetic Satellite Program to coordinate the activities of those government agencies (namely NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Commerce) that required geodetic data and the several groups working in the field (the National Geodetic Survey, Ohio State University, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and the European Satellite Triangulation Network among others). NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center with its tracking and data acquisition facilities was assigned a major responsibility for the agency's part in the national program. Jerome D. Rosenberg, who directed the national effort, was also geodetic satellites program manager at NASA Headquarters. Vanguard 1 provided the first geodetic data for investigators in the U.S., when analysis of its orbit indicated that earth's equatorial bulge was not quite as large as previously calculated and that the southern hemisphere was flatter than the northern half. This gives earth its pear shape. Although tracking data from all orbital

400

NASA

HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

spaceflights are applicable to the geodesist's mission, NASA devoted three flight projects exclusively to geodesy investigations-two Explorers and a passive balloon project. Explorer 29 and Explorer 36 (also called GEOS 1 and GEOS 2) were equipped with flashing light beacons and radio equipment by which to track them (see tables 3-94, 3-101). PAGEOS 1, passive like the Echo balloons, was tracked optically by stations around the world (table 3-137). The Explorer satellites helped geodesists define earth's gravity and pinpoint the magnitude and location of significant irregularities, improve tracking capabilities, and more accurately determine datum points. By simultaneously photographing the light source provided by the passive PAGEOS 1 with two or more widely separated ground-based cameras, specialists determined the relative spatial coordinates of each camera position. It took five years to collect enough data to provide a purely geometric determination of the planet's shape. In addition to geometric and gravimetric applications, information gathered by geodetic satellites was also useful to scientists working in the fields of earth geophysics and geology, meteorology and aeronomy, space dynamics and astronomy, and oceanography. For example, such data were helpful in determining continental drift, ice motion in Antarctica and Greenland, and snow and ice accumulation. Additionally, the findings were used to select the best sites for deepspace-probe tracking stations. For a detailed report on the subject, see S. W. Henriksen, ed., National Geodetic Satellite Program: A Report Compiled and Edited for NASA by the American Geophysical Union, 2 pts., NASA SP-365 (Washington, 1977).

CHAPTER FOUR

ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER

FOUR

ADVANCED RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

More than any other directorate, NASA's advanced research and technology arm was tailored after a pattern established by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). Although NASA's research agenda necessarily emphasized those problems posed by spaceflight, the agency also was charged with continuing the role NACA had played for 43 years in the field of aeronautics. Congress had approved NACA's formation in 1915 to address a variety of problems that the airplane and its new technology had brought to the military, the fledgling aviation industry, and the increasing number of civilian users of aircraft. From an advisory body that was limited to proffering opinions on such policy matters as licensing agreements and civil aviation legislation and to coordinating the research efforts and requirements of others, NACA had evolved into a national research organization with its own aeronautical laboratory by 1920. Sharing the fundamental work of "uncovering the basic, underlying, scientific principles applicable to all kinds of aviation" with the National Bureau of Standards, subcommittees within NACA claimed responsibility for various research topics-powerplants for aircraft, aerodynamics, materials and structures, aircraft construction, and operating problems-with aerodynamics and wind tunnel research being NACA's major field of interest for several decades. 1 In the mid-1940s, the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division at NACA's Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory expanded its duties to include the study of guided missiles and rockets.* By the time its functions were assumed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1958, NACA was conducting a wide variety of research at four centers across the country.t Certainly harder to define and usually less visible than the activities of NASA's manned program or of the space science and applications program, the basic and applied research conducted under the auspices of the agency's Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) was equally important. Without it, NASA specialists could not have provided in a timely fashion the advanced electronic equipment, engines, attitude control devices, and related items for the sophisticated missions NASA conducted during its first decade. Basic research (that which had no application to any specific mission and ranged from very fundamental studies into

*Through its Research and Development Board, the military assumed major responsibility for the new field of missiles and rockets and for nuclear propulsion and supersonic flight. tFor more information on NACA, seeAlex Roland, Model Research: A History of the NationalAdvisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915-1958, NASA SP-4103 (Washington, 1985).

403

404

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

thenature andproperties ofatoms totheanalysis different etals uitable of m s forthe wings ofsupersonic aircraft) ndapplied a research (missionriented) o necessarily precededheconstructionf hardwarendthedetailed t o a planning missions, of oftenby manyyears. Orperhaps didnotleadto hardwareevelopment it d atall,butto solvingsome problem applied in mathematics physics. 1967, ome or In s 80percent of OART's budget wentto futuremission support, 5percent proposed 1 to mission extension andnewstarts,and5 percento currentmission t support.In additionto OART's ownresearchrojects,his officealsoreviewed ndcoordinated p t a thesupportingresearch andtechnology (SRT) orkbeingdone w byproject ffices other o in directorates. SRT funds paid for fundamental scientificstudies,supporting technology "intended tasks tomeet articularechnological p t objectives..,inagiven time-frame, anticipation f theneeds futureNASAmissions," in o of andadvanced development projects thatrequired longleadtimes. 2 Broadly speaking, OARTmanagers charged ithachieving goals:1) were w four ( understanding general the phenomena underlying aeronautical andspace vehicle technology; (2)reducing thisunderstanding design to methods r procedures; o (3) testing vehicle components obtainnewdata;and(4)using to these datato develop advanced subsystems. 3Specifically, OART's various divisions ddressed topics a such asbasic research, nuclear ropulsion, p aeronautics, chemical propulsion, electronics andcontrolsystems, power,andhuman space factorresearch. Theorganizationf theOfficeof Advanced o Research andTechnology* was relatively tatic s from1963 through1968. JohnW.Crowley, former NACAassociate director f research, o servedsNASA's a firstresearch director. ponhisretirement U in less thana year,IraAbbott,t whohadalsobeen withNACAHeadquarters (since 1947), became director.n August 962, aymond. Bisplinghoffookthepostof I 1 R L t OARTdirector,o besucceeded MacC.Adams October 965 t by in 1 andJames . M Beggs June1968 table4-1). in (see Beginning 1968, everal hanges in s c wereinitiatedwithin OARTto simplify workingproceduresndto coordinate a moreefficientlyNASA'smanydiverse research projects. Thenumber f OARTcongressional lineitems o budget wasreducedfrom8 to 3; thenumber f workunits-the basis OARTreporting the o for by centers- as w reduced from5000 500;aresearch to council as w established toensure a morebalancedverall rogram; o p andprogam division directors ere w delegated increasinguthority issue a to instructions. These changes intended giveOART were to programs focus a anda consistency theyhadsometimes lacked. 4 Alongwith the NACA personnel based Washington, newspace in the administration inherited theNACAemployees andfacilities four research of centers. Because theirnature, anyof theprojects of m beingconductedt these a centers in 1958 henNASAassumed w authority themwere for assigned theresearchirecto d torate.Langley Memorial eronautical A Laboratory nearHampton, irginia,had V been NACA's first fieldstation. enamed R Langley Research Center y NASA,the b

*Before the Office of Advanced Research and Technology was established in the November 1961 agencywide reorganization, research tasks had been assigned to the Office of Aeronautical and Space Research, renamed the Office of Advanced Research Programs in 1959. "fAbbott chaired the NACA Ad Hoc Committee on NASA Organization, commonly called the Abbott Committe, from April to August 1958. This committee's suggestions contributed to the new agency's initial structure.

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND

405

centerwasinvolved with basicresearch a number f areas.* in o Moffett Field, California, asthesiteof NACA'ssecond w laboratory, named Ames Aeronautical Laboratory 1944 in (formerlycalledMoffett FieldLaboratory). AmesResearch Center ecame b NASA's facilityforbasic andapplied researchthephysical in andlife sciences. NACA's AircraftEngine Research Laboratory (renamed Lewis FlightPropulsionLaboratory 1948) egan in b operations Cleveland, in Ohio,in 1942. Asthe Lewis Research Center,hefacilitycontinued specializeadvanced t to in propulsion andspace ower ystems p s forNASA.NACAemployees firstassigned theAir were to Force facilityat Muroc,California (latercalled Edwards ir Force A Base) 1946, in whena groupfromLangley entwest o assist w t withtherocket-powered X-1flight researchrogram. heHigh-Speed p T FlightStationbecame NASA's FlightResearch Center.tInvestigators the FlightResearch at Center ereconcerned special w with problems ncountered e duringaeronautical flight, vehicleeentry r andlanding, nd a manned spaceflight withinandbeyond theatmosphere. additionto these In older research facilities,n 1964 ASAformally i N opened itsElectronics Research Center in
Cambridge, field.**5 Massachusetts, to strengthen the agency's capabilities in this important Planning a balanced, useful advanced research and technology program demanded more than the internal coordination and evaluation of NASA's many advanced missions requirements and the identification of problem areas where improvements in technological capabilities could enhance mission performance or decrease costs. OART managers also had to look to the military tt, to other government agencies (particularly the Federal Aviation Agency, the Department of Transportation, which absorbed the FAA in 1967, and the Atomic Energy Commission), to such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences and the President's Science Advisory Committee***, and to universities and private companies active in aerospace research to determine their research requirements and to solicit their support. To establish a smooth working relationship among the many external groups that could influence OART's program, several research advisory committees were formed to provide technical advice and assistance in many subject areas such as fluid mechanics, aircraft aerodynamics, chemical propulsion systems, materials, and aircraft operating problems.ttt As did the Office of Manned Space Flight and the Office of Space Science and Applications, OART did not rely exclusively on in-house personnel and facilities to do its work, but let contracts to qualified industrial concerns and research organizations. Quantitative assessment of the first 10 years of NASA's advanced research and technology program is impossible. We have no tally of flight projects, unless we

*Wallops Station (renamed Wallops Flight Center in 1974) wasestablished as a Langley subsidiary in 1945. Used primarily as a launching center by NASA, Wallops was also responsible for some advanced aeronautical research projects. tThe Flight Research Center was renamed the Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center in 1976. **Budget reductions forced NASA to close the Electronics Research Center in 1969. t For example, NASA was a nonvoting member of the Interservice Group for Flight Vehicle Power. * ** For example, in 1967 PSAC recommended that NASA's advanced research and technology program be maintained at a higher level. t t t In 1968, Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, former director of OART, was named to chair a new Research and Technology Advisory Council. Work of the group was divided among seven committees, which functioned much as the research advisory committees had.

406

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

counted some proved the under flight lems. way

every from

airplane, an OART and Mars. flight This

helicopter, research couches chapter and

launch project-and to new will indicate or how

vehicle, the

and

spacecraft would

that

benefited from landing that

in imon were new prob-

benefits

range for

ailerons of

rocket the this

motors major research

to concepts research was

surface way

discuss how

projects used

during

1958-1968 or hardware

to develop of flight

subsystems

it contributed

to the

solution

Three Technology

Phases

Table 4-1. of Advanced

Research

and

Management,

NASA

Headquarters

Oct. Administrator/Deputy Administrator/Associate

Phase I 1958-Oct.

1961

Administrator W. Crowley; Mechanics Ira H. Abbott, July 1959); office reH. Kurzweg,

Director, Aeronautical and Space Research (John named Advanced Research Programs in 1959 Assistant Director, Aerodynamics Power Plants Structures and Flight (Emerson

(Milton

B. Ames: Herman

Sept. 1960) Assistant Director, Assistant Director,

W. Conlon) and Aircraft office Operating Problems (Richard V. Rhode) in

and Materials

Chief, University Research (Lloyd A. Wood); mid-1959 and dropped in 1961

renamed

Research

Grants

and Contracts

Phase II Nov. Administrator/Deputy Associate Director, Director Director. Director. Director Director Director Director Director Manager, Adminstrator 1961-Oct. 1963

Administrator Advanced Research and Technology (Harold (Abbott; Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, Aug. 1962)

Nuclear Systems Aeronautical Propulsion Program

B. Finger) P. Stack; Charles H. Zimmerman, June 1962)

Research

(John

and Power Generation Review and Resources

(William Management

H. Woodward;

John L. Sloop, Feb. 1962)

(Boyd Myers II)

Space Vehicles (Ames) Electronics and Control (Albert J. Kelley) (E. B. Konecci); office added in July 1962"

Biotechnology Research

and Human

Research

(Kurzweg) Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (Finger)

AEC-NASA

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND Table -1. 4 Three hasesAdvanced P of Research and
Technology Management, NASA Phase III Nov. Administrator/Deputy Associate Associate Administrator 1963-Dec. 1968 Headquarters (Continued)

407

Administrator Administrator, Advanced Research and Technology (Bisplinghoff; Mac C. Adams, Oct.

1965; James Deputy Deputy

M. Beggs, June 1968) Administrator Administrator (Operations) (Aeronautics) (Myers) (Charles W. Harper); office added in May Oct. 1967 1964;

Associate Associate

Division Director, Aeronautical Evans, May 1967) Division Director, 1964) Division Director, Division Director, Biotechnology Chemical Electronics

Research

(Albert

J. Evans, acting; Harper, Walton

and Human

Research (Konecci; Tischler);

L. Jones, Oct. in Jan. 1964

Propulsion

(Adelbert

office added

and Control

(Kelley; Francis J. Sullivan,

May 1965) April 1967);

Division Director, Nuclear Systems and Space Power (Finger; Woodward, office renamed Space Power and Electric Propulsion in April 1967

Division Director, Programming and Resources Management (Powell M. Lovell; Merrill H. Mead, 1964; Walter C. Scott, 1965; William E. Hanna, Jr., 1967; Paul E. Cotton, 1968) Division Director, Division Director, Division Director, Manager, 1967) Division renamed Research (Kurzweg) and Technology (Ames) in 1967"*

Space Vehicle Research Mission Analysis

(Leonard

Roberts); office added Office (Finger; office

AEC-NASA

Space Nuclear

Propulsion

Milton Klein, March added in 1967 and in

Director, Space Flight Programs Special Programs in 1968 Support

(R. D. Ginter); (Clarence

Director, Research and Technology 1967 and dropped in 1968

R. Morrison);

office added

*Prior to July 1962, Alfred M. Mayo was serving as a special assistant to the director of OART to activate an Office of Bioresearch. **As of February 1965, many advanced planning and mission analysis tasks were assigned to the Mission Analysis Division at Ames Research Center. This group identified options for future planning and estimated the time in which a certain technology would be needed.

408

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA
BUDGET

For chapter, consult ing ect

general consult the NASA

information chapter annual 1. For

on budget making

the

NASA detailed

budget Review about

and the the

the bottom totals

budget notes for any

charts project of the specific

in

this

a more

breakdown

of flight

budgets, followproj-

estimates. conclusions

charts carefully before or area of research. Advanced research basic and

technology space research hypersonic individual vehicle

funds

were

divided and

among

broad The for

disciplines; budget was fluid budget

for

example, broken lifting

research, by and

systems, or

aeronautics. project;

further physics, chart represent bined 4-3).

down bodies, along

field

research For

example, a total

aircraft. project

each

discipline, The

is provided, the with

with organization

charts. For instance, budget

following space estimate power

categories was comtable

changing

of OART. as of the FY

nuclear-electric

systems

1966

(consult

As explained research propriate Satellite and

above,

projects funds.

in other For these table technology

directorates figures, 3-46 and

also see the

were

awarded charts

supporting under the ap-

technology for

budget

discipline; supporting

example, and

deals

with advanced

Applications studies.

Technology

research

Table Advanced

4-2. History

Research and Technology Funding (in thousands of dollars) Request --...... 61 345 a 107 070 d 106 672 e 331 200 320 277 278 345 300 700 300 500 Authorization --61 345 a 107 070 d 106 672 e 317 200 316 297 286 342 900 400 300 465 f

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 2528 a 36 650 b 64 983 ¢ 91 592 271 560 317 201 331 288 268 315 328 596 150 022

a Total for aeronautical and space research (support of NASA plant and research grants and contracts); see also table 1-31 for research related to launch vehicles. bTotal for aeronautical and space research (support of NASA plant and research grants and contracts) plus spacecraft technology; see also table 1-31 for research related to launch vehicles. CTotal for spacecraft technology related to launch vehicles. and aircraft and missile technology; see also table 1-31 for research

dTotal for support of NASA plant, research grants and contracts, and spacecraft technology. eTotal for spacecraft technology and aircraft and missile technology. fThe appropriations conference committee reduced the final total to $301 500 000 on October 1967.

25,

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND
Table Programmed
Project Support NASA Basic of Plant 2271 27 762 ___a .................. 1959

409

4-3. Project
1966 1967 1968

Costs
1960

by Advanced Research and Technology (in thousands of dollars)
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Research grants and 257 ............ ............ ............ 4869 ........................ 6716 3160 7080 7887 3986 9582 7803 4039 8034 7538 4726 8438 4875 7290 7811 4957 7245 7819

Research contracts Fluid

physics

Electrophysics Materials Applied mathematics Space SRT Scout reentry Vehicle Systems

............

740

1198

1355

1298

1425

1444

---

4019 b

25 376 h

12 620

20 226

24 951

25 707

26 450

26 777

34

lO0

heating FIRE Scout-launched meteoroid experiments Pegasus Small flight

...... .........

500

3000 c 3969 e

1383 13 912 f

305 7037

400 1811

3000 .........

1800

___d

--......

878 g

3940 3940

362 9900

175 13 690

......... 70 ...... h

experiments Lifting Electronic SRT RAM Scanner SOCS Gemini optical ............... body tests Systems

750 .........

295

1724

1959 1200

1010 1400

3000 1000

4262 1000

--___i

--______j ---J ......

4933 ___k ---

15

535 1305 110 121

26

380 450 1800 ...............

23

222 900 1500

29

848 1300 1152

32

302 1000 295

37

557 500 ---

communications Human Systems Small flight Factor SRT projects

70

............

-----

1984 420

9678 112

13 200 000

12

160 1160

13

000 1900

14

765 1500

18

228 1600

Nuclear-Electric Systems SNAP-8 MECCA Electric engine ----Power and Power --Rockets ...... ...... ...... ...... ............ Propulsion ...... flight engine solid motor project ......... ...... ............... 16 705 s 7003 14 392 330 35000 24000 t 21 970 30 24 26 24 762 30 910 800 32 950 ......... 2000 4750 ...... 2950 3500 30 688 33 537 19 1791 4669 316 1000 41 10 12 878 3856 884 847 48 21 261 1700 820 6645 750 35 20 891 ............ 370 ............ 739 2000 2332 4000 35 356 34 162 37 500 20644 16 506 12 500 1400 __r ___ SRT --2575 3570 ° 6302 ___n 3188 p 8335 ............... 3467 ---q 2300 ---q 3000 ......... --1350 SRT ----...... 8210 6103 19 463 15 994 1248 26 749 36 19 770 150 ............ 38 200 4000 34 940 5500 42 385 ___1

15 465 ___m

development SERT Space Solar

Chemical SRT Nuclear SRT Kiwi NERVA RIFT NRDS Chemical SRT Small M-l Large Aeronautics SRT X-15 Hypersonic

--_-_ ramjet ...............

30000 7000v

u

996 ___w

6580 5580

9195 9_0

8163 1425 2712

10

186 883 5000

35900 ___x ......

66

800 ___y

410

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Table Programmed
Project 1959

4-3. Project
1966 1967 1978

Costs by Advanced Research and Technology (in thousands of dollars) (Continued)
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Supersonic transport XB-70A V/STOL ...... ..................... ...... 757 __cc 925 2879 2987 100 1958 2513 8821 19 953 12 331 9896 3200 __z z ...... __dd ___ee ___aa bb

aEstimate

as per the FY 1962 budget estimate was $48 203 000; by the FY 1963 estimate this category

was dropped. b For spacecraft technology. c For launch vehicles. d$2 206 000 was programmed

for Scout-launched launch launch

reentry vehicle. vehicle.

technology

flight experiments

from

the

space vehicle aerothermodynamics budget. c Included $2 400 000 for the Atlas-Antares f Included $4 000 000 for the Atlas-Antares

glncluded $800 000 for the launch vehicle. h$1 336 000 was programmed for small flight experiments from the space vehicle aerothermodynamics budget. i$1 200 000 was programmed for lifting body tests from the space vehicle aerothermodynamics budget. )Funded as a small space vehicle flight experiment. kS1 635 000 was programmed for RAM from operation of installation funds. 187 500 000 was programmed for SNAP-8 technology in the SRT budget. mlt was estimated in the FY 1965 budget estimate that $600 000 would be programmed for small nuclear-electric propulsion and power flight projects (MECCA); this category was dropped in the FY 1966 budget. nlt was estimated in the FY 1964 budget estimate that $5 500 000 would be programmed for electric engine development projects; this category was dropped in the FY 1965 budget estimate. °Included $1 500 000 for the Scout launch vehicle. Plncluded $6 700 000 for the Scout launch vehicle. q Included with nuclear-electric systems. rlncluded with space power and electric propulsion systems. Slncluded as part of the liquid propulsion program in the FY 1963 request, as part of the OMSF launch vehicle and propulsion systems program in the FY 1964 request, and as part of the OAR'Ichemical propulsion program in the FY 1965-1968 requests. tFunded by the U.S. Air Force. UFor aircraft and missile technology. vFor X-I 5 hypersonic environmental studies. w$539 000 was programmed for X-15A research from the operation of installations budget. x$6 280 000 was programmed for hypersonic aircraft technology supporting research from the research and technology budget (formerly SRT). Y$3 448 000 was programmed for the X-15 from the hypersonic aircraft research and technology budget (formerly SRT). z$14 040 000 was programmed for supersonic aircraft technology supporting research from the aeronautics research and technology budget (formerly SRT). aa$24 050 000 was programmed for supersonic aircraft technology supporting research from the aeronautics research and technology budget (formerly SRT). bbof the $24 050 000 programmed for supersonic aircraft technology supporting research from the aeronautics research and technology budget (formerly SRT), $10 000 000 was for the XB-70A. cc$182 000 was programmed for V/STOL from the operation of installations budget. dd$4 440 000 was programmed for V/STOL from the aeronautics research and technology budget (formerly SRT). _$7 057 000 was programmed (formerly SRT). for V/STOL from aeronautics research and technology funds

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND Table -4. 4 Support NASA of Plant unding F History (inthousands ofdollars) a

411

Year Request Authorization Programmed 1959 ...... 2271 1960 ...... 27762 1961 51 345 51345 ___b 1962 89110 89110 --a Includesfollowing the categories: transportation, communications other services, contractual services, supplies materials,equipment. funds distributed allNASA and and These were among installations and used were forawideariety v ofexpenses. bEstimate the as per FY1962 was 48 000; FY1963 budget $ 203 bythe estimate category this had been dropped.

Table 4-5. Total asic esearch B R Funding History (inthousands ofdollars) Year
1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request
...... ...... 10 000 a 7600 a ___c ___c 21 000 22 000 23 000 23 500

Authorization

Programmed 257 a 4869 a ___b ___c 17 696 22 653 21 231 22 000 21 401 21 465 science,

10 000a 7600a ___c ___c 21 000 22 000 23 000 21 465d

aFor research grants and contracts in the following fields: physical science, cosmological bioscience, engineering science, socioeconomic studies, propulsion science, and miscellaneous.

bEstimate as per the FY 1962 budget estimate was $5 000 000; by the FY 1963 estimate this category had been dropped. CNo corresponding line item. d Final total was decreased to $20 000 000 by the appropriations conference committee on October 25, 1967.

Table Basic Research Supporting Research (in thousands Request ...... ...... 000 000 000 500

4-6. and Technology of dollars) Authorization Funding History

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 17 696 22 653 21 231 22 000 21 401 21 465

21 22 23 23

21 22 23 21

000 000 000 465

412

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA

Table 4-7. Basic esearch R Supporting Research andTechnology--Fluid Funding Physics History (inthousands ofdollars)
Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 a Authorization Request ...... ...... 7800 8000 8200 8615 not broken down by individual supporting Authorization Programmed 6716 7887 7803 7538 4875 4957 project.

7800 8000 8200 ___a research and technology

Table Basic Research Supporting

4-8. Funding History

Research and Technology--Electrophysics (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 4000 4100 4800 4740 Authorization

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 a Authorization not broken

Programmed 3160 3986 4039 4726 7290 7245 and technology projects.

4000 4100 4800 ___a supporting research

down by individual

Table Basic Research Supporting

4-9. Funding History

Research and Technology-Materials (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 8000 8600 8500 8655 Authorization

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 a Authorization not broken

Programmed 7080 9582 8034 8438 7811 7819 and technology projects.

8000 8600 8500 __a research

down by individual supporting

ADVANCED

RESEARCH

AND

TECHNOLOGY

413

Table Basic Research Supporting Research Funding (in thousands Year 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1958 a Authorization not broken down Request ----1200 1300 1500 1490 by individual

4--10. Mathematics

and Technology-Applied History of dollars) Authorization ----1200 1300 1500 ___a supporting research and

Programmed 740 1198 1355 1298 1425 1444 technology projects.

Table Total Space Vehicle (in thousands Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aFor bFor CFor vehicle systems technology. space systems technology. spacecraft technology. Request --5000 b 21 200 a 10 360 c 54 084 c 61 962 38 800 35 000 36 000 37 000

4-11. Systems of Funding dollars) Authorization --5000 b 21 200 a 10 360 c 54 084 c 53 462 37 000 d 35 000 36 000 36 000 e Programmed 1904 a 4019 c 27 126 c 20 762 43 990 45 714 44 193 35 000 33 909 34 100 History

aAuthorization not broken _racted. All line items are noted 25, eTotal 1967. was reduced further

down by line item to indicate to be undistributed. to $35 000

from

what projects conference

the $1 800 000 was subcommittee on October

000 by the appropriations

414

NASA HISTORICAL

DATA

BOOK

Space

Vehicle

Systems

Table 4-12. Supporting Research and Technology (in thousands of dollars) a Request ...... 5000 c 21 200 b 10 360 d 30 37 26 24 28 29 894 d 762 300 000 700 000 Authorization 5000 c 21 200 b 10 360 d 30 894 d 37 762 ___e 24 000 28 700 ___e

Funding

History

Year 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 1904 b 4019 d 25 376 d 12 620 20 24 25 26 26 34 226 951 707 450 777 100f

aSRT funds supported work in several fields: spacecraft and launch vehicle aerothermodynamics, spacecraft and launch vehicle loads and structures, space vehicle environmental factors, advanced space vehicle concepts, and space vehicle design criteria. bFor vehicle systems technology. CFor space systems technology. d For spacecraft technology advanced research. eAuthorization not broken down by line item. fAll items were described as research and technology projects (there were no flight project categories): space vehicle aerothermodynamics, $11 815 000; space vehicle structures, $9 779 000; space environmental protection and control, $10 754 000; and space vehicle design criteria, $1 752 000.

Table Space Vehicle Systems Flight (in thousands Request ...... ...... 23 190a 24 200 12 500 11 000 7300 8000 aFor spacecraft bAuthorization technology not broken flight projects. down by line item.

4-13. Projects Funding of dollars) Authorization History

Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 1750 8142 23 764 20 763 18 486 8550 7132 ___c

23 190a i 5 700 ___b 11 000 7300 ___b

CAll items in the budget were described ects (see table 4-12, note O.

as research and technology

projects

rather than flight proj-

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND
Table Space Vehicle Systems Flight Projects-Scout (in thousands 4-14. Reentry of dollars) Heating Funding History

415

Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... ...... 2500 b 1500 c 2000c 5000 4800 4500 a For launch vehicle. blncludes $2 000 000 for launch vehicle. Clncludes $1 000 000 for launch vehicle. d Authorization not broken down by line item.

Authorization

Programmed 500 3000 a 1383 305 400 3000 1800 ___e

--1500c ___d 5000 4800 ___d

e $2 206 000 was programmed for Scout-launched vehicle aerothermodynamics SRT budget.

reentry

technology flight experiments

in the space

Table Space Vehicle

4-15. Funding History

Systems Flight Projects--FIRE (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... I0 200b 12 500 d 3000 e 500

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 aIncludes

Authorization

Programmed 3969 a 13912c 7037 1811 ---

--4000 ---f 500

$2 400 000 for Atlas-Antares

launch vehicle. project, of which $4 000 000 was for an Atlas launch

bFor flight-reentry-at-hyperbolic-velocities vehicle. c Includes $4 000 000 for Atlas-Antares

launch vehicle. launch vehicle. Advanced

dFor an Advanced FIRE, of which $1 700 000 was for an Atlas-Agena FIRE was not approved by Congress. e Includes $1 110 000 for Atlas-Antares launch vehicle. fAuthorization not broken down by line item.

416

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 4-16. Space Vehicle Systems Projects-Scout-Launched Experiments Flight Meteoroid Funding History (inthousands ofdollars) a

Year 1962 1963 1964
1965 aSee also blncludes ¢Includes dlncludes

Request ...... 3500 c 950 d
...... table 3-10. These funds were for Explorer $800 000 for tile launch vehicle. $2 000 000 for launch vehicle. $500 000 for the launch vehicle.

Authorization --950
23.

Programmed 878 b 2805 362
175

Table Space Vehicle Systems

4-17. Funding History

Flight Projects-Project Pegasus (in thousands of dollars) a Request ...... 4250 2600 2500 Authorization

Year 1963 1964 1965 1966

Programmed 3940 9900 13 690 70

4250 ___b 2500 in the budget estimates.

a Also listed as "Saturn-Launched Meteoroid Experiments" bAuthorization not broken down by line item.

Table Space Vehicle Systems

4-18. Funding History

Flight Projects-Lifting Bodies (in thousands of dollars) Request 950 a 1900 1000 1000 1000 Authorization 950 a ___b 1000 1000 ___b

Year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 1200 1400 1000 1000 ___c

a For space vehicle recovery. oAuthorization not broken down by line item. ¢$1 200 000 was programmed for lifting body flight research dynamics technology research budget.

from

the space vehicle aerothermo-

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND Table 4-19. Space Vehicle Systems Projects-Other Projects Flight Small Funding History (inthousandsdollars) of

417

Year Request Authorization Programmed 1961 ...... 750 a 1962 ...... 295 b 1963 6990 c --1724 d 1964 4050 e 4050 e 1959 f 1965 3000 g ___h 1010 i 1966 2000 j 2000 j 3000 _ 1967 1500 i 1500 i 4262 i 1968 2500 i ___h ___k a Includes 000 $500 forradiottenuation a measurements, orTrailblazer project, $50 00 0 f reentry and $700 forhorizon 000 sensors. blncludes 000 $719 forexperiments with dealing behavior handling and ofcryogenic propellants, $113 forwindhear 000 s measurements, forameteorology experiment, 00 $535 000 simulation $84 fora 0 reentry detection experiment, 000 and $273 forameteoroid penetration probe. cIncludes 000 $4 000 forenvironmental experiments $2 000 foraScout (ofwhich 000 was launch vehicle), 000 $1950 forengineering experiments, 00 testlight f $140 forarecoverable 0 micrometeoroid probe, 000 $700 forhorizon sensors,$200 foraTrailblazer project. and 000 reentry d ameteoroid For penetration Inaddition, 000 as probe. $925 w provided operation from ofinstallations funds. elncludes 000 $550 forenvironmental experiments, 000 $1 650 forexperiments withthe dealing behavior ofcryogenic propellants,000 $600 forwindhear s measurements, forameteor $600 000 simulation experiment,000 $200 foraTrailblazer project, $450 forameteoroid reentry and 000 penetration probe. flncludes050 forexperiments with behavior $1 000 dealing the ofcryogenic propellants, 000 $117 forwind measurements, forameteor shear $64000 0 simulation experiment,00 $63 forreentry 0 detection, $89 forameteoroid and 000 penetration probe. g Includes 000 $640 forexperiments with behavior dealing the ofcryogenic propellants,000 $200 for windhear s measurements, forameteor $610 000 simulation experiment, 00 $150 forreentry 0 detection, and $1400 00 0 forsecondary environmental experiments. h Authorization roken byline not b down item. iFor lanetary technology shield p entry and heat materials technology. JIncludes 000 $95 forwindhear s measurements, formeteor $325 000 simulation experiment, and $1 000 580 formaterialsstructures and tests.
ks1 336 000 was programmed for parachute-decelerator aerothermodynamics technology research budget.

flight experiments

from the space vehicle

418

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 4-20. Total lectronic E Systems Funding istory H (inthousands ofdollars)

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... ...... 362 400 400 800 200

Authorization

Programmed 4933 17 071 28 700 25 622 32 300 33 597 38 057

30 28 34 36 40

30 27 34 36 39

362 000 a 400 800 200 b

aThe authorization was not broken down by line item to indicate from what projects the $1 400 000 was subtracted. bThe authorization was not broken down by line item to indicate from what projects the $1 000 000 was subtracted. The total was reduced further to $35 000 000 by the appropriations conference committee on October 25, 1967.

Table Electronic Systems

4-21. Funding History

Supporting Research and Technology (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 612 400 000 000 200 Authorization

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aAuthorization not broken

Programmed 4933 15 535 26 380 23 222 29 848 32 302 37 557

26 25 30 34 39

26 612 ___a 30 000 34 000 ___a

down by line item.

Table Electronic Systems Flight (in thousands Request ......... ......... ___a 3750 3000 4400 2800 1000 aSee table 4-19. bAuthorization not broken down by line item.

4-22. Projects Funding of dollars) Authorization History

Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed a

___ 3750 ___b 4400 2800 ___b

1536 2320 2400 2452 1295 500

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND Table 4-23. Electronic Systems Projects-Project Funding Flight RAM History (inthousands ofdollars)
Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSee also table 4-19. b$1 635 000 was programmed CAuthorization not broken Request ......... ......... ...... 2000 2000 3400 1300 400 Authorization Programmed a b ___c ___c 3400 1300 ___c 1305 450 900 1300 1000 500

419

for Project

RAM from operation

of installations

funds.

down by line item.

Table Electronic Systems Flight (in thousands Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aSee also table 4-19. b Authorization not broken down by line item. c For earth coverage horizon measurements. d No corresponding line item. Request ......... ......... __a 1750 1000 1000 1000 c 600c

4-24. SCANNER of dollars) Authorization Programmed a ___ ___b __b 1000 1000 ¢ ___b 110 1800 1500 1152 295 ___d Funding History

Projects-Project

Table Electronic Systems Flight Projects-Other (in thousands

4-25. Small Projects of dollars) Funding History

Year 1963 1964

Request ----a For spacecraft orientation control system (SOCS) project. bFor Gemini optical communications experiment.

Programmed 121a 70 b

420

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 4-26. Total uman actor H F Systems Funding History (inthousands ofdollars)

Year
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 a$917 000 was programmed research and grants budget. b$2 000 000 was requested grants and contracts budget.

Request
......... ___b ...... ...... 18 200 16 200 14 900 17 000 21 000 for biosciences, for biosciences,

Authorization

Programmed a

...... 2404 9790 13 200 13 320 14 900 16 265 19 828 factors factors research, research, in the in the

13 200 15 500 14 900 17 000 21 000 which included some human some human

which included

Table Human Factor Systems

4-27. Funding History

Supporting Research and Technology (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 18 200 13 200 13 000 15 500 19 500 Authorization

Yea r 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aAuthorization not broken

Programmed 1984 9678 13 200 12 160 13 000 14 765 18 228

13 200 ___a 13 000 15 500 19 500

down by line item.

Table Human Factor

4-28. Funding History

Systems Small Flight Projects (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... ......... 3000 1900 1500 1500 ___a 1900 1500 1500

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aAuthorization not broken

Authorization

Programmed 420 112 1160 1900 1500 1600

down by line item.

ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY AND Table 4-29. TotalSpace Power Electric and Propulsion Funding History (inthousands ofdollars)

421

Year Request Authorization Programmed 1962 ...... 20458 1963 ...... 39893 1964 68768 68 768 45963 1965 48100 47100 b 58220 1966 27000 33 000 45200 1967 42500 44 500 40 440 1968 45000 44 000 43735 aThis category called was nuclear-electric until FY1967 estimate. systems the budget As ofthe FY 1966 estimate, forspace were tothe funds power added nuclear-electric budget. systems Asofthe FY 1967 estimate, forsolar chemical weredded category.also 1-31. funds and power a tothis See table bTheuthorization ot roken byline toindicate what a was b n down item from projects$1 000 the 000 wasubtracted. s Table 4-30. Space Power Electric and Propulsion Supporting Research Technology and Funding History (inthousands ofdollars) Year 1962 1963
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 aAuthorization

Request ...... ......
20 25 24 37 34 018 000 000 000 200

Authorization
20 018 ___a 24 000 37 000 ___a

Programmed 8210 19 463
26 36 38 34 42 749 770 200 940 385

not broken down by line item.

Table Space Power and Electric Propulsion (in thousands Request ...... ...... 48 750 23 100 3000 5500 10 800

4-3 I. Flight Projects of dollars) Authorization Funding History

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 12 248 20 430 19 214 21 450 7000 5500 1350

48 750 ___a 9000 7500 ___b

aAuthorization was not broken down by line item. bThere was no line authorization for SERT; $9 700 000 was authorized

for SNAP-8.

422

NASA HISTORICAL BOOK DATA Table 4-32. Space Power andElectric Propulsion Projects--SNAP-8 Flight Funding History (inthousands ofdollars)

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Request ...... ...... 24 000 a 18 000 000 5500 9700

Authorization

Programmed 6103 15 994 15 465 19 150 4000 5500 ___c

24 000 a __b 6000 7500 9700

a$9 000 000 of the total was set aside specifically for flight evaluation, of which $500 000 was for a Thor launch vehicle. bAuthorization not broken down by line item. c$7 500 000 was programmed for SNAP-8 technology in the supporting research and technology budget.

Table Space Power and Electric Propulsion Flight (in thousands Request ...... ...... 15 35ff 5100 3000 000 1100

4-33. Projects-Project of dollars) Authorization SERT Funding History

Year 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

Programmed 357& 3188 b 3467 2300 3000 000 1350

15 350c ___d 3000 --__d

aTotal includes $1 500 000 for Scout launch vehicles. b Total includes $6 700 000 for Scout launch vehicles. CTotal includes $600 000 for Scout launch vehicles. d Authorization not broken down by line item.

Table Space Power and Electric

4-34. Small Projects Funding History

Propulsion Flight Projects-Other (in thousands of dollars) Request ...... ...... 9400 c

Year 1962 1963 1964

Authorization

Program