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