DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing the Space Station Program, 1982-1986

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing the Space Station Program, 1982-1986 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19900015684 2020-03-19T22:00:14+00:00Z NASA Contractor Report 4272 Keeping the Dream Alive: Managing the Space Station Program, 1982-1986 Thomas J. Lewin University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas V. K. Narayanan Rutgers Univer,_ity New Brunswick,, New Jersey Prepared for NASA History Office under Contract NASW-4248 National Aeronautics and Space Administratior Office of Management Scientific and Technica, Information Division The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. PREFACE This monograph describes and analyzes the management of the formative years of the space station program (1982-1986) in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The time period covered begins with the :iuccessful initiative for program approval launched by Administrator James Beggs, through the initial program structure with the lead center at Houston, Texas, and culminates in the decision to bring program management to Reston, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. By the term "management history" we mean a chronicle of the challenges faced by NASA managers and the processes used to meet those challenges. Since companion works dealing with the history of constituency building (authored by Howard McCurdy) and international participation (by John Logsdon) in the space station program are under way, we have placed greater emphasis on internal management issues related to the implementation of the various phases of the program from 1982 to 1986. Although we have tried to minimize overlap, some discussion of key external factors is necessary in order to place NASA's management chzllenges in their proper context. We have invoked the: metaphor of "an experiment," as provided by John Hodge, director of the Space Station Task Force, during our interviews with him, to describe NASA's efforts to arrive at a viable management struc! ure for the space station program. We believe this term accurately captures the thinking of the key decision makers. The main players understood that the major program management decisions made in 1984 would be evaluated at the end of the detailed definition period in light of their experiences during that time. Only after such evaluation would the program move to the design and development phase. We structure our narrative around four interrelated themes: the problem of bringing programmatic and institutional interests together and focusing them to forward the program; centralized versus decen- tralized control of the program, and how each option was affected by the requirements of technology and the program, the environment within NASA, and the budgetary constraints under which NASA was operating at the time; how the history of NASA and the individual centers affected the decisions that were made; and the pressure from those outside NASA (the external constituencies). The monograph is divided into four section s that are chronologically overlapping in some aspects: 1) the decision to build the space station, 2) the design of the management experiment, 3) the experiment comes to life, and 4) the decision reversal. Part I presents the process by which NASA gained Presidential approval for the program. In chapter 1 a new Administrator (James Beggs) viewed the space station initiative as a means to revitalize NASA's technical and scientific competence. Only after revamping the reporting relationships between the field centers and headquarters 3id he openly work on the space station initiative. He wanted the space station to be an agency-wide program, have more than one prime contractor (unlike the shuttle where only one had been used), and be I:uilt "by the yard" (starting with an initial capability and adding onto that as funds became available). And during this early period he identified the key individuals who would spearhead the space station initiative. In chapter 2 we cover the four major organizational entities that were involved in this phase.• of the program: the Space Station Task Force, the Space Station Technology Steering Committee, the l_etcher Committee, and the Office of Space Science and Applications. Over time the task force becaJne the focal point for delineating the details of the program. The unique iii managementofthetaskforce,anditslocationatheadquarters, promoted program integrity and mini- mized decentralizing forces within NASA. Frequent interaction among those in key leadership positions at all levels allowed the integration of both programmatic and institutional perspectives into the management and technological guidelines of the program. (Proponents of the institutional perspective focused on NASA as an ongoing organization, whereas program proponents viewed the organization as an instrument to accomplish major projects.) From a management perspective, the leadership style of Beggs and the management of the task force enabled NASA to win Presidential approval of the program. Part II deals with how NASA arrived at the original program structure. The initial decisions and consideration took place at headquarters and within the Program Planning Working Group of the Space Station Task Force. As the prospects for approval improved, NASA included institutional elements at the field centers through meetings at Wallops and Langley, which are covered in chapter 4. These two meetings endorsed the lead center form of organization for managing Phase B of the program. Based on NASA's recent experience in the shuttle project, the lead center approach was the first attempt to find a balance between centralization and decentralization for the space station. In chapter 5 we begin the discussion of division of responsibilities among the centers, in the form of work packages. This process took much longer than had ever been anticipated. The ever-present need for sustained con- gressional support and institutional considerations made this decision quite difficult and the decision was finally made at headquarters. In Part III we analyze the management of the program at headquarters and at the program management level. Included in this section is a discussion of the skunk works (chapter 7), formation of the headquarters program office (chapter 8), the formation of Level B (chapter 9), and the Phase B studies (chapter 10). During this period the resource and time requirements of the complex management structure became more apparent. Part IV considers the evaluation of the lead center organization structure and the associated work package decisions. Chapter 11 deals with the turbulence caused by the departure of key space station program officers (including Administrator James Beggs, Deputy Administrator Hans Mark, Program Manager Neil Hutchinson, and the lead field center director Gerald Griffin) and the effect the Challenger accident had upon NASA as a whole and the space station in particular. Chapter 12 considers then Acting Administrator James Fletcher's decision in May 1986 to bring management of the space station program to headquarters, abandoning "the experiment" for a more traditional NASA form of management. This narrative addresses an audience far broader than management professionals. We have made every effort to simplify our treatment of complex management issues so that the immense management challenges NASA faced can be appreciated by a greater number of people. We have analyzed documents from NASA's archives, although we have given great importance to oral sources of information. We have benefitted from many hours of interviews with NASA personnel, both at headquarters and at the field centers, in our reconstruction of the management story. The story is multifaceted. We have striven to represent the differing, sometimes divergent, perspectives. We have also tried to elucidate the perceptions of the players in the decision process. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those iv NASA personnel who h_lve given freely of their time; we hope we have represented their accounts accurately. Those who generously shared their insights and opinions are listed in appendix A. We would especially like to acknowledge the following people for their contribution to the completion of this project. We thank Philip Culbertson, John Hodge, Robert Dotts, and Sylvia Fries for their comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We also appreciate the continuous encouragement given by James Begs, Robert Freitag, Lee Tilton, Neil Hutchinson, Jerry Craig, William Raney, Terence Finn, Jo_m Aaron, and Aaron Cohen. We are indebted to the archival support from Manfred _Dutch" von E_renfried, Lee Saegesser, Adam Gruen, and the NASA History Office in Washington, DC; Mike Wright at Marshall Space Flight Center; Donald Hess, Joey Pellarin, and Janet Kovacevich of the Histoq, Office at Johnson Space center; and Lee Tilton for his copious personal fdes on the space station prob,'am. Administrative suppc.rt for the contract was provided by the Institute for Public Policy and Business Research at the Universily of Kansas. Anthony Redwood and his capable staff at the Institute were an important factor in completion of this project. We particularly acknowledge Mary Brohammer for her dedication, patience, and ingenuity in bringing this monograph to publication. KEEPING THE DREAM ALIVE: MANAGING THE SPACE STATION PROGRAM, 1982,-1986 °°° Preface .................................................... m PART I: THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP 1. Keeping the Dream ?dive ...................................... 3 2. Managing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Screenplay by Josh Singer Based on the Book by James R. Hansen
    Screenplay By Josh Singer Based on the Book By James R. Hansen © 2018 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS and STORYTELLER DISTRIBUTION CO., LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OVER BLACK: We hear a LOW RUMBLE. It gets louder as we hear... a SCREAMING ENGINE... HOWLING WIND... BURSTS of STATIC... and FAINT COMMS. It SURROUNDS us, filling us with dread, POUNDING US INTO -- 1 INT. X-15 COCKPIT, HIGH RANGE, ABOVE EDWARDS AFB - DAY 1 A pair of BLUE EYES. TICKING back and forth. Rapidly. Ignoring the FRIGHTENING WALL OF SOUND all around us. JOE (COMMS) Data check? NEIL (O.C.) 2 APU on. Cabin pressure is good, 3500 on #1, 3355 on #2. Platform internal power. PULL BACK TO NEIL ARMSTRONG, 31, in a silver pressure suit. Neil is INTENSELY FOCUSED, impressive in the SEVERE TURBULENCE. JOE (COMMS) What’s your mixing chambers? NEIL (INTO COMMS) -44 and -45. BUTCH (COMMS) Two minute point. NEIL (INTO COMMS) MH circuit breakers on, opening nitrogren valve. Neil opens the nitrogen valve on the low tech console. As the nitrogen creates a THIN WHITE FOG in the cabin, Neil looks out the window. The plane looks like a ROCKET... because it is. This is the X-15... the FASTEST FUCKING AIRCRAFT EVER MADE. Hence the nitrogen. Neil shivers a bit. NEIL JOE WALKER (COMMS) Chilly. Won’t be for long. We note the X-15 isn’t flying exactly, it’s under the wing of a B-52, an EIGHT ENGINE BEHEMOTH shaking more than the X-15. TERRIFYING, but Neil’s calm as he’s KNOCKED about the cockpit.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program
    Apollo program 1 Apollo program The Apollo program was the third human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States' civilian space agency. First conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a three-man spacecraft to follow the one-man Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961 address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo was in 1968 and it succeeded in landing the first humans on Earth's Moon from 1969 through 1972. Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Lunar Module (LM) on the Moon on July 20, 1969 and walked on its surface while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command spacecraft, and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, and was supported by the two-man Gemini program which ran concurrently with it from 1962 to 1966. Gemini missions developed some of the space travel techniques that were necessary for the success of the Apollo missions.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 9: the Flight of Apollo
    CHAPTER 9: The Flight of Apollo The design and engineering of machines capable of taking humans into space evolved over time, and so too did the philosophy and procedures for operating those machines in a space environment. MSC personnel not only managed the design and construction of space- craft, but the operation of those craft as well. Through the Mission Control Center, a mission control team with electronic tentacles linked the Apollo spacecraft and its three astronauts with components throughout the MSC, NASA, and the world. Through the flights of Apollo, MSC became a much more visible component of the NASA organization, and oper- ations seemingly became a dominant focus of its energies. Successful flight operations required having instant access to all of the engineering expertise that went into the design and fabrication of the spacecraft and the ability to draw upon a host of supporting groups and activities. N. Wayne Hale, Jr., who became a flight director for the later Space Transportation System (STS), or Space Shuttle, missions, compared the flights of Apollo and the Shuttle as equivalent to operating a very large and very complex battleship. Apollo had a flight crew of only three while the Shuttle had seven. Instead of the thousands on board being physically involved in operating the battleship, the thousands who helped the astronauts fly Apollo were on the ground and tied to the command and lunar modules by the very sophisticated and advanced electronic and computer apparatus housed in Mission Control.1 The flights of Apollo for the first time in history brought humans from Earth to walk upon another celes- tial body.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanomalehtikeskustelu Liittyen Nasan Edistymiseen Apollo-Avaruusohjelmassa Vuosina 1967–1969
    ”Our program is moving with rapid momentum” Sanomalehtikeskustelu liittyen NASAn edistymiseen Apollo-avaruusohjelmassa vuosina 1967–1969 Jere Kesti-Helia Pro gradu -tutkielma Turun yliopisto Historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Kulttuurituotannon ja maisemantutkimuksen koulutusohjelma Digitaalinen kulttuuri Marraskuu 2019 Turun yliopiston laatujärjestelmän mukaisesti tämän julkaisun alkuperäisyys on tarkastettu Turnitin OriginalityCheck -järjestelmällä. TURUN YLIOPISTO Historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos/ Humanistinen tiedekunta KESTI-HELIA, JERE: ”Our program is moving with rapid momentum” – Sanomalehtikeskustelu liittyen NASAn edistymiseen Apollo-avaruusohjelmassa vuosina 1967–1969 Pro gradu -tutkielma, 96 s. Digitaalinen kulttuuri Marraskuu 2019 ________________________________________________________________________________ Tutkielman tarkoitus on selvittää NASAn Apollo-avaruusohjelman edistymiseen liittyviä näkemyksiä sanomalehdissä vuosina 1967–1969. Apollo-ohjelman tavoite oli lähettää ihminen kuuhun ja takaisin maahan ennen 1970-lukua, kuten presidentti John F. Kennedy oli vuonna 1961 ilmoittanut. Apollo-avaruusohjelma kuului osaksi supervaltojen välistä kylmän sodan aikaista avaruuskisaa. Aiheen aikarajaus käsittää Apollo-ohjelman viimeiset vuodet ensimmäiseen kuuhunlaskeutumiseen asti. Aineistona käytetään kahden vaikutusvaltaisen sanomalehden, The New York Timesin ja The Washington Postin sanomalehtiartikkeleita. Tutkimus noudattaa laadullisen tutkimuksen periaatteita. Varsinaisena metodina
    [Show full text]
  • Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars*
    Chapter 23 Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars* Roger D. Launius† Introduction This paper reviews the history of space stations in American culture, from an 1869 work of fiction in the Atlantic Monthly to the present realization of the International Space Station (ISS). It also discusses the history of space stations “real and imagined” as cultural icons. From winged rocket ships, to the giant ro- tating wheels of Wernher von Braun and 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the epic, controversy-wracked saga of the ISS, the paper also discusses Mir, Skylab, and the Salyuts. It will close with a projection into the future as ISS is realized—or perhaps deferred—and perhaps future generations begin work on space stations elsewhere in the Solar System. The Attraction of a Space Station From virtually the beginning of the 20th century, those interested in the human exploration of space have viewed as central to that endeavor the building of a massive Earth-orbital space station that would serve as the jumping-off point to the Moon and the planets. Always, space exploration enthusiasts believed, a * Presented at the Thirty-Eighth History Symposium of the International Academy of As- tronautics, 4–8 October 2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Paper IAC-04-IAA.6.15.4.01. † Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 421 permanently occupied space station was a necessary outpost in the new frontier of space. The more technically minded recognized that once humans had achieved Earth orbit about 200 miles up, the presumed location of any space sta- tion, the vast majority of the atmosphere and the gravity well had been conquered and that people were now about halfway to anywhere they might want to go.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo 204 Accident.:1
    / CONGRESS} REPORT !Zd Session SENATE { No. 956 c APOLLO 204 ACCIDENT.:1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES UNITED STATES SENATE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS JANUARY 30, 1968.-0rdered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1968 L- R Cf 0 2.. ,5AS 5 CY~d t,- COM~IITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES CLINTON P . ANDERSON, New Mexico, Chairman RIClL\.RD B. RUSSELL, Georgia MARGARET CHASE SMITH," Maine WARREN G. MAGNUS0::-1, Washington BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER,Jrowa STUART SYMINGTON, .Missouri CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho STEPHEN M.. YOUNG, Ohio EDWARD W. BROOKE, ~iassacbuselts THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut CHARLES H. PERCY, Dllnois HOWARD W. CAN::-! ON, Nevada SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota J.uu:s J. GEIDUG, S/.aff Director EVERARD H. SM:!TH, Jr., Profeuional Staff Member Dr. GLEN P. WILSON, Profu&ional Staff Mr:mb<r CR.UG VOORHEES, Pro[mional Staff Member WILLLUI P Al\KER, Pro[e&rional Staff Member SoU! BOUCHARD, A&&i&tant Chief Clerk DONALD H. BREJ\'NAN, Re&earch A&&i&tant (II) PREFACE It is the committee's view that, when an event such as the tragic Apollo 204 accident occurs, it is necessary for the appropriate con­ gressional committees to review the event thoroughly. The Congress has a duty to be fully informed and to provide an information flow to the people. Fmther, the committee has a responsibility to satisfy itself thu.t a strong K ASA management is exercising vigilance over the safety of the people working on the space progFams.
    [Show full text]
  • Astronaut Candidacy and Selection
    5/2/2019 Show Apache Solr Results in Table Published on dms_public.local.dev (https://historydms.hq.nasa.gov) Show Apache Solr Results in Table Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 Highlight On Summary View Show All Sort Result Set Record Number 30030 Series: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS Document Type: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS Publish_status: Public Approval Status: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC Subject: YOUNG, JOHN W. Location: ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT Folder Title: YOUNG, JOHN W. ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW Period Covered: 1974-06-28: JUNE 28, 1974 Description: Oral history interview with John W. Young conducted by Robert Sherrod for unpublished book on the Apollo program re current astronaut assignments, Young's education, Young's selection as part of second class of astronauts, Gus Grissom, training for Gemini 3 flight, Gemini 3 flight, Gemini 10 flight, how Young became command module (CM) pilot on Apollo 10 flight, Young's involvement with Apollo 13 flight, steering an Apollo CM through reentry, difference between space photography and the human eye, Apollo 16 astronaut training, Apollo 16 flight, what Young did in space between Apollo 1 (AS-204) fire and Apollo 7 flight, and when NASA would select Space Shuttle astronauts. Name(s) YOUNG, JOHN W. SHERROD, ROBERT GRISSOM, VIRGIL I. (&quot;GUS&quot;) Topics: APOLLO PROGRAM, ASTRONAUT OFFICE, ASTRONAUT SELECTION, ASTRONAUT TRAINING, GEMINI 3 FLIGHT, GEMINI 10 FLIGHT, APOLLO 10 FLIGHT, APOLLO 13 FLIGHT, APOLLO 16 FLIGHT Access Type: GUEST Updated By: esuckow Last Update: 2019-04-03T17:39:00Z Record Number 31128 Series: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS Document Type: ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS, TRANSCRIPTS Publish_status: Public Approval Status: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC Subject: DONLAN, CHARLES J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Days of Simulation and Operations
    The Early Days of Simulation and Operations The following is an attempt to capture some of my memories of my work at NASA starting July 7, 1959 until I left in August 1970. It is not meant to be a definitive history of what went on in those early days. Harold G. Miller June 30, 2013 Great Falls, Virginia 1 The Early Days of Simulation and Operations In September 1959 a group was formed under Jack Cohen to develop a program for training the personnel who would support Project Mercury. These personnel to be trained were to be located at the Mercury Control Center (MCC) at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and around the world at the Mercury remote sites. This training group was called the Simulation Task Group. Assigned to the group was Arthur (Art) Hand, Glynn Lunney and myself, Harold G. Miller. Richard (Dick) Hoover and Stanley Faber would join the group soon. Richard (Dick) Koos would join the group Sept. 19, 1960. William (Bill) Sullivan transferred into the group from NASA’s Langley Research Center (LaRC). The initial team was located in a small room just off John P. Mayer’s branch on the U.S. Air Force (USAF) side of the NASA Langley Research Center (also Air Force Base), Hampton, Virginia. About a year after the group was formed we were moved to another building and had our offices over a wind tunnel. Jack Cohen left the Simulation Task Group after about a year. Shortly after the group was formed Art Hand transferred to the Cape Canaveral Mercury Control Center.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA) FOIA Case Logs, 2012-2015
    Description of document: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) FOIA Case Logs, 2012-2015 Requested date: 19-February-2016 Released date: 24-February-2016 Posted date: 29-August-2016 Source of document: FOIA Request NASA Headquarters 300 E Street, SW Room 5Q16 Washington, DC 20546 Fax: (202) 358-4332 Email: [email protected] Online FOIA Form The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters Washington, DC 20546-0001 February 24, 2016 Reply to Attn of: Office of Communication FOIA: 16-HQ-F-00317 Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated and received February 19, 2016, at the NASA Headquarters FOIA Office.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 5: Gemini: on Managing Spaceflight
    CHAPTER 5: Gemini: On Managing Spaceflight “The first phase of the Nation’s second manned space program began like a story- book success” on Saturday, April 8, 1964, when an unmanned, partly instrumented Gemini capsule entered orbit from its launch site at Cape Canaveral. 1 The 12 Gemini flights complet- ed by mid-1966 brought America from the edge of space to outer space, from the pioneering days of Mercury to the lunar landings of Apollo, and into new management techniques including processes like systems and subsystems management, configuration control, and incentive contracting. A major building block in the operations components of spaceflight, Gemini provided an invaluable learning experience in flight control, rendezvous, docking, endurance, extravehicular activity, controlled reentry, and worldwide communications. But the acceleration of Gemini and Apollo programs strained the human resources of the Houston center and created stress and management crises. Although critical in the manned space effort, Gemini was much more and much less than a “storybook” success. The April 1964 launch of the first unmanned Gemini spacecraft on the shoulders of an Air Force Titan II rocket was followed in May with the launch of the first Apollo vehicle aboard a Saturn I. Both coincided nicely with the final relocation of Manned Spacecraft Center personnel to their new permanent site at Clear Lake. Director Bob Gilruth declared an “open house” for the weekend of June 6 and 7, and took great “personal and professional satisfaction” in welcoming the public to the NASA MSC. 2 It was an open house that has been extended throughout the days of the Johnson Space Center, helping establish the important precedent that the center and NASA flight missions are for participation in and viewing and use by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Program 1 Apollo Program
    Apollo program 1 Apollo program The Apollo program, also known as Project Apollo, was the third human spaceflight program carried out by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the United States' civilian space agency, and the program was responsible for the landing of the first humans on Earth's Moon in 1969. First conceived during the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower as a three-man spacecraft to follow the one-man Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961, address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo Apollo program insignia was in 1968. Kennedy's goal was accomplished on the Apollo 11 mission when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed their Lunar Module (LM) on the Moon on July 20, 1969, and walked on its surface while Michael Collins remained in lunar orbit in the command spacecraft, and all three landed safely on Earth on July 24. Five subsequent Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last in December 1972. In these six spaceflights, 12 men walked on the Moon. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972, and was supported by the two-man Gemini program which ran concurrently with it from 1962 to 1966. Gemini missions developed some of the space travel techniques that were necessary for the success of the Apollo missions.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Space Program Oral History Collection [Kapp]
    United States Space Program Oral History Collection [Kapp] Melissa Carson (2001); Amanda Buel (2019) 2001 National Air and Space Museum Archives 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway Chantilly, VA 20151 [email protected] https://airandspace.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 2 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 2 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 2 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 4 Series 1: Audio, 1939-1977 and undated................................................................ 4 Series 2: Transcripts, 1966-1969 and undated...................................................... 83 United States Space Program Oral History Collection [Kapp] NASM.XXXX.0138 Collection Overview Repository: National Air and Space Museum Archives Title: United States Space Program Oral History
    [Show full text]