Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490 
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Oct 24, 2017 23:33:23 GMT -5
The Beginning
As Americans celebrated the election of Richard Nixon as President of the United States in 1968, the future of the American space program seemed to hang in the balance....long identified with Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, it hung in the air like a reminder of Nixon's near-decade in the political wilderness following his 1960 defeat to JFK. Yet - for some seeming reason - some part of the American body politic, the psyche of America, had made every president beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower in the mid-1950's to the present-day, seek to mold the space program in their own image, adding an element to it as the years progressed.
Nixon was no different, and following the departure of James Webb as NASA Administrator, Nixon had a chance to stamp his own element to it, either by going with Acting Administrator Thomas Paine or by selecting someone different. Nixon, as the historians noted, was not one for political convention, opting to go with Apollo Spacecraft Program Office director George M. Low as Webb's successor. It was a momentous decision for Nixon, one which - had Watergate not scotched Nixon's overall legacy a few years later - would have ramifications for American spaceflight. Low would impart his own element on the program, serving well into the single term of Jimmy Carter's presidency; indeed, the man who had helped save Apollo following the catastrophe that'd been the Apollo 1 fire and had rebuilt the program almost from scratch would leave a legacy rivaling that of the man who had preceded Low in the administrator's chair.
Once confirmed as Administrator in mid-1969 - just in time to see Neil Armstrong step onto the moon - Low quickly proved to be a perceptive and adept leader. Low realized that the techno-optimism and dashing-do of the 50's and most of the 60's was fading into the past; the coming decade would be, as California Lt. Gov. John Harmer once opined, "an era of limits". It wasn't just the war in Vietnam, nor the Great Society, that was putting pressure on NASA and the space program, it was a growing belief in some circles that technology itself was an enemy to mankind, that - to quote Sens. William Proxmire (D-WS) and Walter Mondale (D-MN) - the program was "a waste of taxpayer dollars, dollars that could be spent on Earth rather than on 'Pie in the Sky' programs of little interest to working folks."1
Seeing this, Low's immediate concern was - in the grand tradition of politically-appointed administrators - "to keep the spigots open".2 To this extent Low would have to convince the powers-that-be in Congress to (a) continue funding NASA's current programs while going into extensive detail on future NASA programs and (b) show that NASA operations had positive effects on the American people, one example of which was the partnership begun in 1970 between NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in regards to NOAA's weather satellite program.
At the same time, as the successes of the civil rights movement, the growing success of the women's movement and the nascent gay rights movement began to become more and more apparent, NASA knew it would have to diversify itself...particularly in regards to its' Astronaut Corps, which had - up to that point - been an all-male, mostly all-military and mostly-all test pilot fraternity and was increasingly being seen as out of touch with the times, a group of elitist pilots having fun at public expense.3 One of Administrator Low's first decisions was to order a top-to-bottom review of astronaut qualifications, with less of an emphasis on test-pilot flying and more of an emphasis on scientific exploration, along with a clear understanding that astronauts were representatives of America and needed to reflect America as best as possible.3
However, all this would have to be done, Administrator Low knew, on budgets that would be smaller than those his predecessors' had been given by Congress...and the first post-Apollo priority would be on the direction that NASA would take once the Apollo program was finished with the flight of Apollo 18. There were two broad directions NASA was considering: one involved the use of a reusable spacecraft that could fly multiple times rather than be tossed aside after each flight, the other involving a move to long-duration spaceflight involving a long-term-use space station, upgraded Apollo equipment and an upgraded Saturn launch vehicle. For several months Administrator Low perused both decisions with science experts, Congressional staffers and NASA officials, all of them well aware of the need to make a decision, one way or the other.
In addition, President Nixon - through the efforts of Vice President Spiro Agnew and the Space Task Group (STG) - put in efforts of his own, working with all parties involved to come to a decision which not only, the White House believed, would continue the space program's past legacies (and future ones) but would also survive Congressional scrutiny, especially the Cardinals of Congressional Appropriations (then chaired by Texas Rep. George Mahon and Georgia Sen. Richard Russell), but as the months stretched on, there grew a slow but steady moroseness across the halls of power. From Washington to Houston to the Cape, decision-makers were balancing the bean-counters' needs within the federal budget against the decision-makers' wants and desires....eventually, in a press conference held - almost appropriately enough on America's Independence Day - the decision was made: America's space program would embark on long-duration spaceflight, with an eventual goal of first, a permanent (or at the very least, a regular) presence in space, followed by a regular presence on the Moon.
The die was now cast; how they would get there, though...was a story well worth telling.
(1) - Remarks of Sens. William Proxmire and Walter Mondale at the 1968 Golden Fleece Award
(2) - The Chariot Drivers: NASA Adminstrators from Dryden to Little - written by Orlando Sentinal space reporter Lisa McDonald, 2007
(3) - Reflections on the Civil Rights Movement by Prof. Barack H. Obama, University of Chicago, 2001
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Oct 28, 2017 15:36:11 GMT -5
Decisions & Plans
The plans Administrator Low envisioned following the decisions of the Space Task Group (STG) centered around a space-station based operations system where crew and logistics/supply flights would be conducted using upgraded and updated Apollo-era equipment...in particular, the Apollo CSM and Saturn launch vehicle system. As NASA's plans prior to Kennedy's Moon Speech1 had been to build a permanent space station followed by missions to the moon, Low's plans were considered to be a return to the nominal course originally set by NASA.
As eventually approved by Congressional budgetmakers, NASA's Space Station program, to be known as Skylab, would consist of two main parts. Following the Apollo 18 mission, a "dry workshop" - essentially, the entire station built as one whole component - would be launched into low earth orbit aboard a Saturn V rocket. At the core of Skylab would be a solar telescope - the ATM, also known as the Apollo Telescope Mount - which would allow station crews to study the Sun without any of the atmospheric interference which hampered ground-based solar observatories2. In addition, the station would carry a wide array of sensing equipment, biological experiments probing the effects of long-duration spaceflight on living organisms and materials experiments designed to study the effects of micro-gravity on various materials and to determine whether new manufacturing techniques were feasible on those materials.
Once the first Skylab missions were completed, a second station - Skylab II - would be launched into orbit, also using a dedicated Saturn V rocket; once in orbit, this Skylab, though without the ATM, would be capable of broader space studies than Skylab I, would be regularly resupplied by cargo spacecraft and would house a larger crew (4-6 astronauts, including ESA, Canadian and Japanese crew) than the Skylab I was capable of housing (3 astronauts, all NASA personnel). In between Skylab I and Skylab II would be the two Apollo-Soyuz Test Project missions, agreed upon by President Nixon and Premier Brezhnev, with the possibility of Soviet crews visiting Skylab over the course of the station's lifespan. However, unlike Skylab I, its' successor would be capable of accepting modular additions to it in the form of station modules, launched from Earth and built by a consortium centered between NASA, the ESA and the British National Space Agency (BNSA).
While this plan allowed for the possibility of expanded international cooperation, there were two limiting factors: the Block II Apollo CSM and the Saturn IB rocket. Although the Block II Apollo CSM was a well-built and capable spacecraft, it was a virtual rhinoceros in regards to size; when fully fueled, pressurized and loaded with a three-person crew, it weighed over 65,000 lbs (around 30,000 kg), over 4 times that of its' Soviet counterpart, the Soyuz 7K-series spacecraft, which came in at nearly 14,500 lbs (about 6,500 kg)..a galling difference, especially when considering that, pound for pound, the Block II Apollo could only carry around 50% more cargo capacity than the Soyuz. While it was far more capable than the Soyuz, the Block II Apollo could not be launched aboard either the Saturn IB or IC rockets...thus, it was no surprise that NASA announced plans to design an upgraded Apollo spacecraft, a "Block III variant", plans of which were immediately given to Apollo builders North American Rockwell. The Block III would feature enhanced on-orbit capabilities, reduced fuel space, upgraded parachutes (along with the capacity to use airbag landing systems if need be) and upgrade building techniques which would result in a lighter, more capable spacecraft.
In addition to upgrades to the Apollo spacecraft, the need for continuous and regular resupply of the station necessitated a need for lower-cost launch vehicle systems. However, the Saturn IB, considered the gold standard for low earth orbit launch capability, did not fit the bill NASA was facing. While it cost upwards of five time more to launch a Saturn IB as opposed to a comparable Titan III, Titan IV or Atlas III launch system, it could only lift around 35% more cargo capacity than the others.....which meant something had to be done. After consultations with Chrysler, McDonnell Douglas and others, NASA decided on a new approach to Saturn - instead of building an upgraded Saturn IB, they would authorize the construction of a new Saturn launch system, the Saturn II.
The Saturn II rocket would combine the stability of the Saturn launch vehicle system with upgraded construction techniques; its' first stage would be the venerable S-IB stage, with upgraded F-1A rocket engines powering the stage, which would be stretched by three meters in height and nearly two meters in diameter to allow for greater on-board fuel and oxidizer supplies and incorporating new building techniques which, when completed, would result in a lighter, stronger rocket than before. Stacked atop an updated Saturn IU (Instrumentation Unit) would be the equally venerable Saturn S-IVB stage, the stage which had sent men to the moon during Apollo. The same building and design techniques would also be used, thus extending the Saturn II rocket by roughly eight meters heights and three meters diameter, giving it a greater throw weight in both amount and percentage above the Saturn IB and IC rockets.
Finally, there was the issue of station resupply. While it was accepted that Skylab I would likely not need resupply, Skylab II would need regular resupply; the sheer amount of equipment, supplies and film simply necessitated this and the Apollo CSM simply would not do. Therefore, NASA opted to split the spaceflights in two parts: manned spaceflights using the Apollo CSM and unmanned flights using an automated cargo spacecraft which would go into orbit, rendezvous with the station, dock, then later on undock and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a destructive re-entry platform. Over time and after discussions with NASA contractors, Administrator Low announced the awarding to LTV (Ling-Temco-Vough) Aerospace Systems the contract for the Cygnus AARDV (Autonomous Automated Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle) cargo spacecraft3 but as things would have it, astronaut crews gave it the sobriquet of "Aardvark", which it would ultimately be known as during its' time in NASA usage. Using the SM portion of the Apollo CSM spacecraft for on-orbit maneuvering and docking, its' pressurized section would be used to carry cargo to and from the Skylab II spacecraft. As work progressed, NASA officials soon realized something: since the Aardvark wouldn't need to re-enter the atmosphere safely, they could store trash onboard the pressurized section, thus allowing for greater capacity aboard the station, which NASA would take advantage of during the station's existence.
(1) - The Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort, delivered by President John F. Kennedy at Rice University in Dallas, Texas on 12 September 1962
(2) - Apollo Telescope Mount, published by the National Air & Space Museum (1999)
(3) - McDonald, 2007
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Oct 31, 2017 0:50:08 GMT -5
Planetary Exploration: Mars & The Grand Tour
While the tightening of NASA budgets in the late 1960's and early 1970's were partially mitigated as the Apollo Program wound itself down, the development of the Saturn II launch vehicle and the Block III Apollo CSM still ate up prodigious amounts of money and, like other areas of the federal budget, the monies for them had to come from somewhere....that somewhere, unfortunately, came from the planetary and solar system explorations budget. Several programs, most notably the OSO - Orbital Solar Observatory - series of solar telescopes were cancelled outright (the OSO's mission was assigned to Skylab I); however, several programs survived and would go on to become, as University of Liverpool astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Fleetwood would call them, "the Beatles of Planetary Exploration"3.
While NASA's Mars Voyager program were effectively dead for the time being, having had its' budgets axed in 1968, planetary scientists were still plenty interested in the Red Planet, especially following the flights of Mariner 6 and 7 in early 1969. Despite spotty data coverage, the information they sent back still intrigued scientists enough for them to push for a more ambitious Mars program, along the lines of an orbiter-lander program in order to directly examine the Martian surface from both the ground and from an orbital platform. Even under the tightened purse strings of NASA at the time, they were able to get two Viking spacecraft on the launch schedule, to be launched by a pair of Titan III's during the 1975 launch window period.
Vikings 1 and 2, launched in mid-1975 from Cape Canaveral atop a pair of Titan III launch vehicles, would break the Mars Curse4 and land successfully, the former landing along the eastern rim of Helles Planitia on July 4th, 1976, a landing fit for America's 200th birthday. Both landers survived for nearly a decade each and both would provide a treasure trove of scientific data and pictures, while the orbiters providers enough pictures for scientists to produce maps of the Martian surface, maps which are still being used to this very day. However, for all their accomplishments, another set of planetary spacecraft would add their own mark on the history of American spaceflight: Voyager 1 and Voyager 2.
Scientists from JPL (with assistance from the British National Space Agency5) had recognized that the 1970's would present an unprecedented opportunity to explore the outer solar system. A rare planetary alignment, dubbed "the Grand Tour", would allow modestly-powered rockets and a small number of planetary probes to explore the outer system, from Jupiter out to Pluto. Their original proposal, rejected by NASA on cost gorunds, called for four large probes on the order of the cancelled Mariner Deep Space missions, each of which would've required a Saturn IB launch vehicle for liftoff...eventually, NASA officials approved a two-part Voyager program involving two Voyager spacecraft, one which would be assigned to explore Jupiter and Saturn, the other which would be assigned the Grand Tour mission. Coupled with a broad degree of over-engineering, Voyager scientists were confident that, if the opportunity presented itself, they could pull off the Grand Tour. As fate would have it, their confidence was rewarded as NASA's budgets swelled in the 1980's and eventually both Voyager spacecraft would add their names to the pantheon of American spaceflight.
(1) - Cosmos: Voyaging the Universe by Dr. Carl Sagan, 1993
(2) - Dr. Stephen Fleetwood, interview with the Liverpool Echo's James Pearce, 2016
(3) - Fleetwood, 2016
(4) - the Mars Curse refers to the numerous mission failures involving spacecraft traveling to Mars, either from launch failure, landing failure or other reasons
(5) - Headquartered at the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool, England, the British National Space Agency is the UK's equivalent to NASA and is equal in stature to the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA)
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 2, 2017 1:40:13 GMT -5
Apollo 18 & Hyginus Crater
Over the course of 1970 and 1971, the slow winding down of Apollo Applications, coupled with NASA's increasing focus on long-duration spaceflight and the tightening of NASA budgets by a Congress increasingly critical of manned spaceflight in general conspired to take a combined toll on the Apollo moon landings. Although Apollos' 15, 16 and 17 would be budgeted, there was fractious debate both in the halls of Congress and at the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston over whether they even needed to fly additional Apollo flights after 17 - which conducted a successful mission to explore areas around the Taurus-Littrow Valley in December 1972.
Eventually, a compromise led by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Warren Magnuson (D-WA) and White House OMB Director Caspar Weinberger was agreed to: in exchange for stopping the Apollo Program following Apollo 18, NASA would be given a wide latitude in regards to the mission; in effect, Congress was saying to Administrator Low (and by extension, President Nixon) that whatever NASA wanted to do within the parameters of NASA's spaceflight rulebook, they could do and Congress would pay the full freight of the mission. Thus, NASA went full-tilt to prepare for the last Apollo mission, known as Apollo 18. Like 15-17, it would feature a Lunar Rover for use on the lunar surface and would stretch the Apollo LM to its' limits. However, fighting the desire from the scientific community to do as much exploration as possible was the belief, led by Senior Flight Director Chris Kraft, that Apollo 18 take as conservative a mission profile as possible, if not for any other reason than that, given the earlier constraints put on NASA and spaceflight in general, another Apollo 13 disaster might well imperil the program altogether.
This balancing act between the two divergent forces was perhaps best exemplified by the crew selected by Chief Astronaut Alan Shepard, a veteran of both Mercury and Apollo....the mission commander was Richard Gordon, who had two spaceflights under his belt (Gemini 11 and Apollo 12) and had already traveled to the Moon as Command Module Pilot alongside Pete Conrad on 12. Two rookie astronauts would be joining him for the final Apollo mission: Command Module Pilot Vance Brand, who had previously served as backup CMP on Apollo 15, and Lunar Module Pilot Joe Engle, who had originally been scheduled to fly on Apollo 17 but had been bumped for Scientist-Astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmidt on that mission1. Gordon had already announced his retirement from the astronaut program, so 18 would not only be Apollo's swansong but would also be his own swansong from spaceflight.
With mission goals that would balance the limits of the Apollo CSM-LM and the need to round out the program on a high note, Apollo 18 lifted off from Launch Complex 39A on July 15th, 1973. The Apollo spacecraft showed its' maturity; no issues of note were recorded on the way out to the Moon on either the Saturn V, the Apollo CSM Neptune nor the LM Polaris and over the course of the mission Apollo 18 set records for lunar exploration, surface time duration, EVA time and lunar cargo returned. In the words of U.S. Air Force Captain Stephanie Harrington, an aerospace scientist assigned to Patrick AFB who was serving as PAO for the mission, "All three astronauts performed their duties to the utmost, providing scientists with reams of information on lunar origins and helping bring Man's first steps on another orbiting body a smooth, successful closing act."2
Her words could not have rung truer: Apollo 18 completed every mission objective and the geologic results alone from the mission's study of Hyginus Crater would provide valuable clues on the Moon's origins; the crater, it was found, was formed volcanically, meaning it was among the older craters on the lunar surface. In addition, there was the possibility that Hyginus contained intact lava tubes, which someday could be used as regolith for building permanent lunar buses. It also, ironically enough, helped fuel the imaginations of science fiction writers such as Frank Robinson, whose novels of future lunar exploration would win the San Francisco native severla Hugo Awards in the 1980s and 1990's.
(1) - Years later, the controversy over Engle's bumping from Apollo 17 could still be felt when Schmidt, running for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 1982, lost in the Republican Primary to....Joe Engle, who accused Sen. Schmidt of "scientific elitism" and of currying favor with NASA officials to get onto Apollo 17; ironically, karma would strike Engle when both he and Schmidt lost in the 1988 Senate race (Engle as a Republican, Schmidt as a Libertarian) to Democrat Dennis DeConcini.
(2) - Flight of Dreams, Stephanie & Liz Harrington - University of Utah Press, 2016
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 7, 2017 0:48:13 GMT -5
The Launch Of Skylab I: Problems Abound, Solutions Found
As the Apollo LM Polaris took off from the surface of the moon to rendezvous with the CSM Neptune, all eyes throughout NASA began to turn towards the Skylab Program. Scheduled for launch in late 1973, construction of the primary and backup stations - Skylab A and Skylab B - proceeded on schedule and - surprisingly, for the Congressional bean-counters, under-budget. However, as the launch date steadily approached, tensions and pressures mounted as the launch of Skylab was seen as a potential make-or-break moment for the space program, especially with the usual Congressional suspects - Senators Proxmire and Mondale - continuing to rail against spaceflight (and by extension, space exploration in general) expenditures....the fears were summed up by one NASA executive who opined to the Orlando Sentinel's Lisa McDonald, "One failure at this junction and it could be lights out for NASA."1
Meanwhile, preparations continued for the launch of Skylab I, aboard a modified Saturn V (the Skylab replacing the Saturn IV-B third stage for this launch), scheduled for early January 1974. Finally, the launch day arrived and under clear blue Florida skies, the Saturn V took off from Launch Complex 40 into the sky....however, the concerns that program officials had would soon rear their ugly heads. At around 45 seconds, flight controllers at Johnson Spaceflight Center noticed a slight g-spike, indicating an unusual acceleration force exerted on the launch vehicle as it began to enter Max-Q, the area of maximum aerodynamic pressure on the launch vehicle. Fifteen seconds later, alarm bells rang at JSC and across contractor monitoring sites across North America as the micrometeroid shield aboard Skylab appeared to have deployed prematurely....it wasn't until 41 minutes into flight that NASA engineers and officials soon realized the full scope of problems aboard the station.
The problems were first noticed during deployment of the station's solar arrays; when the commands were given, only one solar array deployed (and at only 15% deployment at that); the second one failed to deploy as commanded (it wasn't until the first manned crew's arrival that they found that the second array had been ripped from the station during launch). In addition, with the absence of the micrometeroid shield, temperatures inside the station began climbing into critical ranges where the potential for food and experiment spoilage was a possibility.It was then, noted NASA flight director Glenn Lunney, "that something awful had happened to Skylab during launch,"2 evidence of which was later confirmed when high-speed photometric observation of the launch from both ground and air stations showed exactly what had taken place and when specifically. The consensus was clear: without quick repairs to the station, the station would be lost - and potentially, so would NASA as well.
What followed over the course of the next tend days were, in many ways, "their finest hour". While most would point out that saving the Apollo 13 crew following their mission disaster might rank higher overall, the engineering efforts to save Skylab would rank right up their with 13. The first challenge was simply ensure that the station was in condition to be repaired; high temperatures inside could cause food spoilage, release of toxic gases inside and cause sensitive equipment to fail. Normally, the easiest way to keep temperatures down would be to maneuver the station into a shaded condition, but NASA officials were concerned that there might've been damage to the station's maneuvering systems, which meant that until they could ascertain their condition, those systems were in effect dead to use. Thanks to the efforts of flight controllers, they were able to use the station's RCS thrusters to nudge the station - and in particular, the Apollo Telescope Mount - into a shaded position without wasting needed thruster fuel.
Heroic efforts on the part of the flight controllers helped give NASA engineers, led by Marshall Spaceflight Center's Jack Kinzler, the time needed to come up with a solution: a parasol. Designed to be packed aboard the first manned Skylab mission, it would be deployed one of the station's scientific airlocks, providing needed shade to the station...though not sturdy enough for permanent deployment, the parasol was light and simple enough it would serve admirably as a stopgap until NASA devised a longer-term solution.
However, all their work - the work of JSC flight controllers and MSFC engineers - would be for naught if they couldn't figure out how to get the stuck surviving solar array to deploy fully. Without it, Skylab would be no more valuable than scrap metal and everyone knew it, thus efforts were undertaken to provide a solution...and provide they did. Despite the lack of handholds on the station, NASA engineers, working with astronaut crews and flight controllers, came up with plans to conduct a "Stand Up EVA" on the first manned mission so that they could get the stuck array to fully deploy.
With all the problems fixed and solutions in play, all eyes focused on the Kennedy Space Center and Launch Complex 39B and the crew of Skylab 2: Mission Commander Pete Conrad, Command Pilot Joe Kerwin and Docking Pilot Paul Weitz. The fortunes of NASA now rode on their shoulders as launch day for them approached....
(1) McDonald, 2007
(2) McDonald, 2007
|
|
Evil Eye
Administrator
Posts: 4,376
Forum Relationship: Adores the Forum Owner
|
Post by Evil Eye on Nov 7, 2017 14:35:53 GMT -5
Just because Tanya says you're writing slowly doesn't mean you should rush. Now you've gone and misspelled NASA  |
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 7, 2017 17:01:17 GMT -5
Skylab I: The Orbital Repair Job
Ten days after the calamitous launch of Skylab I, another clear but cold day dawned on the Space Coast; a rare cold snap and overnight freeze greeted NASA officials, launch controllers at the KSC, the tens of thousands of visitors who'd gathered across the region to watch and flight controllers at the JSC in Houston. While Cape flight officials, most notably Launch Test Conductor Matt Yaeger1, were confident in the launch vehicle's abilities, flight controllers at the JSC were not so confident. Having spent a week-and-a-half working on solutions to the problems Skylab was suffering from, they knew full well the future of the Skylab Program - if not, NASA's future - rested on a successful SLM-1 mission2.
These fears weren't unfounded; anything down to the smallest launch abort, could jeopardize the station's habitability; indeed, estimates from MSFC engineers gave them at best another five to six days of non-functionality would permanently cripple the station and prevent crews from utilizing the station one single bit. In the end, NASA Deputy Administrator Joe MacMillan gave the go-ahead and SLM-1 took off from the Florida coast, experiencing as picture-perfect launch as one could expect to have.
Once SLM-1 rendezvoused with the crippled station, the first priority was simple: fix the stuck solar array. At first, it was thought that simply giving it a good, solid tug would be enough to free the array and thus, following a series of short, close maneuvers, the crew of Conrad, Kerwin and Weitz - following a short lunch break and visual examination of the solar array - proceeded to begin their efforts to fix the array. Using a shepherd's crook device, Paul Weitz stood in the side hatch of the Apollo CSM and attempted to yank the array loose, figuring that if he used enough force on it, it should budge....it didn't. Instead, it created enough reaction to shake both the station and the CSM, causing flight controllers in Houston to call off efforts to yank the array free, forcing the crew to go to the second part of the fix-it plan they'd brought with them: deployment of the parasol. While the power supply issues caused by the jammed array were serious, the extremely high interior temperatures caused by the loss of the sunshade/micrometeroid shield were far more pressing. Happily, the high temperatures had not caused toxic materials in the interior to degass, and the parasol was quickly and successfully deployed from the sun-side scientific airlock. Unfortunately, this would prevent some of the planned scientific agenda from taking place, as the airlock remained blocked for the remainder of Skylab's lifespan.
Once the parasol was deployed and conditions returned to a somewhat nominal point of view, astronauts Conrad, Weitz and Kerwin began settling in to begin working on the scientific experiments onboard the space station while engineers at both JSC and the MSFC began working on plans to free the stuck solar array via spacewalk towards the end of the SLM-2's time on-station. It was an ambitious agenda, consisting of three major areas of interest: solar physics, earth observation, and biomedical studies, with observations of Comet Kohoutek (then close to perihelion) also included when possible. Each proved highly successful, with the biomedical research providing particularly important results that validated NASA's focus on further space station development. Contrary to the fears of some before the flight, astronauts proved entirely able to function in space and space sickness turned out to be much less debilitating on long missions than had previously been suspected. Indeed, being in space appeared to provide some protection against motion sickness, at least once an initial acclimatization period was completed.
Finally, towards the end of the mission, NASA engineers had finally developed a plan to free the stuck solar array and get vital power supplies flowing into the station. Step #1 consisted of building a ladder-like walkway from the main Skylab airlock out to where the solar array was positioned; this was necessary because, in the grand tradition of NASA bureaucracy, no one had envisioned needing to perform spacewalks along the side of Skylab, so no hand/footholds were affixed to the station's exterior skin and NASA knew from their experience back during the Gemini program that without exterior grips, performing any kind of EVA activity would be next to impossible.
Once the ladder walkway was in position, the next step would be for astronaut Joe Kerwin, after maneuvering his way down to the array, to take a pair of heavy-duty cutters and, using the walkway as a lever, force the cutters' jaws shut, cutting the strap apart and freeing the array. Although this freed the solar array, it did not extend out as expected, meaning a second EVA by Kerwin and Conrad, would need to be performed in order to free the stuck array once and for all. This EVA (which, at around four hours, was, at the time, the longest-ever spacewalk performed in NASA history), unlike the previous one, worked and the solar array finally deployed, proving Skylab with the needed power to run the station at full capacity...or as Kerwin, a Buffalo Bills fans, put it, "Tell O.J. the juice is on the loose up here."3
After the drama of both the Skylab 1 and SLM-1 launches, the rest of SLM-1's mission seemed to go by as if in a dream state. A final spacewalk by Paul Weitz was performed towards the end of the mission in order to retrieve and change out film from the Apollo Telescope Mount, but as the crew prepared to return back to Earth, NASA was celebrating the success of the mission, their credibility having been boosted - no pun intended - to new heights, silencing critics who'd attacked the value of human spaceflight as antiquated and a waste of money4. It was indeed a fine hour for NASA as the country celebrating the success of a mission that had begun as a salvage and repair mission and ended as it had been originally been planned as: a mission of scientific wonder and study.
Finally, 29 days after launch, astronauts Pete Conrad, Paul Weitz and Joe Kerwin returned to Earth, their spacecraft landing in the eastern ship where they were picked up by the cruiser USS Long Beach.
(1) - As Launch Test Conductor, Yaeger, who would retire from NASA as Deputy Administrator for Launch Operations in 2002, served in the same role that Flight Directors in Houston served, commanding the launch controllers from roll-out of the launch vehicle until tower clearance
(2) - Also known as Skylab 2, SLM-1 was the mission's original designation
(3) - Although Kerwin had grown up in Illinois, he did both his medical internship and residency in the Greater Buffalo area while serving in the U.S. Navy and was (and still is) a devoted Buffalo Bills fan
(4) - In a letter which contained a phrase that would be later used in part during a 2008 presidential debate, NASA Administrator George Low wrote to NASA's biggest Congressional critic, Wisconsin Sen. William Proxmire, and said to him, "Please proceed, Bill. Signed, George."
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 16, 2017 1:24:31 GMT -5
Skylab & Apollo-Soyuz
With the success of Skylab 2 (SLM-1), NASA's fortunes never looked better. It now fell to SLM-2 and SLM-3 (popularly known as Skylab 3 and Skylab 4), launched in March and July of 1974 respectively, to complete the repairs performed by the first manned crew and continue the station's scientific explorations, studying the solar system and performing bioscience observations on the human body and other living organisms aboard the station. Both SLM-2 (Alan Bean, Owen Garriott, Jack Lousma) and SLM-3 (Gerald Carr, Edward Gibson, William Pogue) extended the records for manned-spaceflight duration, culminating in the 85-day mission of SLM-3. In addition, feedback from both SLM crews contributed to the work being performed on both the Apollo Block III CSM and the Cygnus AARDV and incorporating the info gathered into the work on Skylab II, transforming it into what would eventually be known as Spacelab.
As these plans and preparations were being carried out, the first of two Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) missions was carried out in 19751. The culmination of over three years cooperation between the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Soviet Academy of Sciences, the ASTP-1 mission would lift off and dock with the Soviet Soyuz 19 mission, exchanging gifts and carrying out the first joint mission by two space-faring nations, part of which involved maneuvering the two-vehicle stack so that the Soyuz crew could image the Sun's corona. While ASTP-4 would mark the fourth and final flight for mission commander Thomas Stafford, a veteran of Gemini and Apollo with one moon flight (Apollo 10) to his credit, it would be the first flight for scientist-astronaut Joseph Allen and the first flight for one of NASA's old astronaut gunslingers, Donald K. "Deke" Slayton. Part of the Mercury Seven group of astronauts, he had originally been scheduled to fly the second orbital Mercury flight after John Glenn but had been grounded due to a minor heart condition, returning to full flight status in 1972.
Although the mission itself was a success and helped pave the way for the second ASTP mission, problems and leakage with the Apollo CM's RCS thrusters caused all three astronauts to sicken during re-entry, an otherwise single blemish for a successful mission. The second ASTP mission, launched in late March 1976, would become the final launch of an Apollo Block II spacecraft; like ASTP-1, its mission commander, John Young, was also a veteran of Gemini and Apollo, traveling twice to the moon on Apollo 10 and 16. Alongside were astronauts Walt Cunningham and Matthew Little; Cunningham had one flight to his credit - Apollo 7 - and had worked on multiple elements of the Apollo program after returning from Apollo 7 while Little would make his first spaceflight. A member of Astronaut Group 8, announced in Jan. 1975, Little was the one who coined the group "TFNG's" or "the Forking New Guys"2 and would later on to fly both Spacelab and Constellation missions during his own career.
Meanwhile, as NASA began transitioning from Apollo/Skylab to Spacelab, NASA decided, due to delays in Spacelab construction and extra Congressional funding given as a result of their success during the first manned Skylab flight, to launch one final manned flight to Skylab I, to be known as SLM-4 (a/k/a Skylab 5). Following launch of a Cygnus AARDV "Aardvark" cargo spacecraft to the station, SLM-4 - mission commander Rusty Schweikert, command pilot Curtis Michel and docking pilot Don Lind - launched from the Cap in January 1975 for a short 20-day mission, which would be extended another 30 days following the Aardvark's arrival. Once the 50-day mission was completed, the Skylab crew would depart, leaving the Aardvark attached so that it could conduct a destructive re-entry of the Skylab station. During the mission, Schweikert - veteran of the Apollo 9 mission which had confirmed the Apollo LM's flight capabilities - Michel and Lind would concentrate on biosciences experiments, adding to the reams of information on how the human body adapts to long-duration space conditions...all in all, SLM-4 capped a successful Skylab program and they would return back to Earth in mid-December 1975, just in time for Christmas.
All that remained for NASA to do was to de-orbit the Skylab space station, ending the first manned space station in use by the United States and so, in early March 1975, the Cygnus cargo spacecraft re-activated its' propulsion system to nudge Skylab into a destructive re-entry, ending with the station's destruction over the Central Pacific so that debris would land into the middle of the ocean. Thus ended the Skylab I program, having generated information that would be vital to the success of the coming Spacelab program....
(1) Originally to be one mission, NASA, in conjunction with American NAoS and Soviet AoS officials, decided to add a second mission, jointly supported by both countries space programs
(2) When asked why he used the word "Forking" in the TFNG phrase, NASA astronaut Matthew Little was quoted as saying that he had bet Detroit News journalist Amanda Morrison that her beloved Detroit Tigers would not beat his beloved Atlanta Braves in the 1974 World Series....however, the Tigers won in a 4-0 sweep and thus Morrison's word "Forking" would be used instead of the more colorful term the taciturn North Carolinian had planned on using
|
|
Evil Eye
Administrator
Posts: 4,376
Forum Relationship: Adores the Forum Owner
|
Post by Evil Eye on Nov 16, 2017 15:00:33 GMT -5
Look Jewel you made it in!  |
|
Jewel
VIP
Goddess
Lil Miss Crazy Lady
Posts: 5,520 
Forum Relationship: Married to Ste_Macca
|
Post by Jewel on Nov 16, 2017 16:29:42 GMT -5
Look Jewel you made it in!  Guess I better hurry up my reading! lol |
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 17, 2017 12:01:54 GMT -5
Look Jewel you made it in!  Look Jewel you made it in! Guess I better hurry up my reading! lol *deadpans* ...and as a journalist, no less... |
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 21, 2017 1:57:03 GMT -5
The Beginnings Of A European Space Program
...from the book European Space by Dr. David Johnstone (University of Reading Press, 2015)
Even though the continent of Europe had been the home of many early rocket pioneers, World War II and the vast destruction it had caused resulted in Europe falling behind in the Space Race, with scientists and space officials across Western Europe watching as both the United States and the Soviet Union raced ahead of them. As the long post-war boom reached the Continent, though, it became apparent that Europe would have to get in the Great Game of Space - if not on a European-wide basis through agencies such as ESRA (European Space Research Agency - founded in 1962) and ELDA (European Launch Development Agency - founded in 1964), then through national-level agencies, led by Europe's resident red-headed stepchild, the United Kingdom and the BNSA (British National Space Agency).
Headquartered at the historic Royal Liver Building in the northwest English city of Liverpool, the BNSA would lead Europe's efforts in space exploration, starting with the development of a launch vehicle capable of matching that of the United States' Saturn launch rocket system. BNSA, after consultation with their European counterparts, decided on a launch vehicle known as Europa, based on the British Blue Streak ballistic missile. Under BNSA's guidance, Europa would eventually become a three-stage rocket capable of lifting payloads into orbits ranging from low earth to geostationary. Britain would provide the first stage, France & Germany would provide the second stage and the Benelux (Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg) countries would provide the third stage. Italy would provide payload support capabilities while Norway and Sweden would provide telemetry and guidance support. Providing the launch facilities would be the Commonwealth country of Australia with its' Woomera Launch Station.
The test program would consist of three parts...the first would begin in 1964 and consist of three launches from Woomera to flight-prove the British-built first stage. These tests were successful and BNSA moved to phase two testing involving the entire launch stack (Europa S-I, S-II and S-III stages) into sub-orbital flights, the second and third stages inactive for these tests. As test requirements were met, the second and third stages would be activated and full-out orbital testing would commence, ending with a series of four orbital launches in 1970.
While even the best-laid plans can sometimes go awry, Europa's problems during testing were pretty spectacular in the annals of spaceflight. While the program's early failures are sometimes forgotten by the public, by 1967 Europa was on the verge of collapse due to three consecutive failures involving the Franco-German and Benelux stages of Europa. After a long pause in operations to work out all the problems affecting Europa, the seventh launch, the second involving a two-stage Europa, was launched on December 7, 1967 and met all the requirements of the test program for that launch. Following another 11 months worth of work on ironing out additional minor concerns, a successful first test of the full-out three-stage Europa rocket was conducted on November 27th, 1968 and while the first launch of a European-built payload would have to wait until the tenth-launch of Europa, Europe had finally arrived to the Space Race.
With the successes, however, came changes to the Europa program, most notably a change in the launch site from Woomera in South Australia to the Kourou launch site in French Guiana, which ended Australia's involvement in the program but gave France - in exchange for not creating its' own national-level space agency - a larger piece of the European-wide space program. In addition, a four-stage Europa 2 rocket was launched, the fourth stage (Europa S-IV) providing additional launch capability, plus with the coming entrance of the United Kingdom into the then-EEC (European Economic Community), the British government re-organized the BNSA, keeping it headquartered in Liverpool but changing it into the British Space Agency.
At the same time, European leaders across the Continent were divided on what they wanted to do, now that they had proven their capacity to launch payloads into space. There were calls for ESRA to examine its goals in light of Europa's successes, for the creation of a native-European tele-communications system, for improved launch vehicles and eventually a manned European space program. However, for any of this to happen, cooperation between ESRA and ELDA would have to be ironed out, especially between the respective nations' (Britain excepted due to having their own space agency) engineering and science personnel. Thus, in 1972, the agencies decided to merge into what became the European Space Agency (ESA), combining the plans and operations of both predecessor agencies, while exploring the potential for a manned spaceflight program in cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom...
|
|
Webster
Member
Forum Curmudgeon & Political Raconteur
Posts: 490
Forum Relationship: Protector, Friend & Confidant to the Tanya
|
Post by Webster on Nov 21, 2017 14:32:21 GMT -5
*looks over at Tanya* Tell Macca to tell Daibo he got a shoutout up above... Oh... Ste_Macca.... ^^^ |
|
Evil Eye
Administrator
Posts: 4,376
Forum Relationship: Adores the Forum Owner
|
Post by Evil Eye on Nov 21, 2017 14:48:26 GMT -5
Providing the launch facilities would be the Commonwealth country of Australia It's Eurovision all over again. *looks over at Tanya* Tell Macca to tell Daibo he got a shoutout up above...  That's not convoluted at all. |
|
Ste_Macca
Member
Go Robbie Go Robbie Go
Patrik Berger
Posts: 1,328
Forum Relationship: Jewel Forever
|
Post by Ste_Macca on Nov 24, 2017 8:43:28 GMT -5
*looks over at Tanya* Tell Macca to tell Daibo he got a shoutout up above... Oh... Ste_Macca .... ^^^ Understood  |
|
