DOCSLIB.ORG

From the Earth to the Moon! Robert Stengel *65, *68! Princeton University" February 22, 2014" What Do These People Have in Common?! 1865!

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From the Earth to the Moon! Robert Stengel *65, *68! Princeton University From the Earth to the Moon! Robert Stengel *65, *68! Princeton University" February 22, 2014" What Do These People Have in Common?! 1865! Jules Verne (1828-1905)! Ancient Notions of the Night Sky" •! Constellations represent animals and gods" •! Babylonian and Chinese astronomers (21st c. BCE) " –! “Fixed stars” and “moving stars” " –! Moving stars were the abodes of gods" –! They believed the Earth was Flat but surrounded by a celestial sphere" –! Precise charts of the moving stars" –! Calendar (Zodiac) of 12 lunar months" Early Greek Astronomy " •! Pythagoras (570-495 BCE)! –! Earth is a sphere" •! Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) " –! Earth’s circumference estimated within 2%" Retrograde Motion of Mars Against Background of Fixed Stars" Claudius Ptolemy (90-168)" •! Proposed epicyclic motion of planets" •! Earth at the center of the world" The Astronomical Revolution" •! Galileo Gallilei (1564-1642)" •! Nikolas Copernicus –! Concurred that solar system was (1473-1543)" heliocentric" –! Sun at the center –! Invented telescope, 3x to 30x of solar system (1609)" (1543)" –! Planets move in circles" •! Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)" –! Planets move in •! Isaac Newton ellipses" (1642-1727)" –! Laws of –! Formalized the planetary motion science, with (1609, 1619)" Laws of motion and gravitation (1687)" Sketch by Thomas Harriot, 1610! Orbits 101! Satellites! Escape and Capture (Comets, Meteorites)! Orbits 102! (2-Body Problem) ! •! Circular orbit: altitude and velocity are constant! •! Low Earth orbit: 17,000 mph! –! Super-circular velocities! –! Earth to Moon: 24,550 mph! –! Escape: 25,000 mph! How Was The Moon Formed?" (4.1 billion years ago)! Accretion! Collision! Spawning! Earth-Moon Orbit! Orbital Period: 27-1/2 days! One side of Moon always faces Earth! Rockets! Rockets 101! •!Initial mass:! –!Payload! –!Structure, Systems! –!Rocket motors! –!Propellant! •! Konstantin Tsiolkovsky! Final mass:! (1857-1955)! –!Initial mass less propellant! •!Final velocity depends on ratio of initial to final mass! Rockets 102! Final mass can be reduced by getting rid of structure when no longer needed! Robert Goddards Rockets, 1926-1941! Robert Goddard! (1882-1945)! Pre-World War II Rocket Societies! Wernher Von Braun (1912-1977)! •! V-2 (A-4) Rocket! –! Gyro Control! –! Thrust and aero steering! –! 6,084 built during WWII! –! 1000+ test flights! –! 3,225 launched in combat! Post-World War II US Rocketry! •! 1945: ! –! Von Braun team to US Army! –! Navy: satellite studies! •! 1948: ! –! Air Force: will study satellites “at the proper time”! Project! –! Army: begins satellite studies! Paperclip! •! 1949: ! –! 1st flight to space (Project Bumper, 244 miles)! •! 1950: ! –! Army: Redstone ballistic missile; launched in 1953! –! NACA: Becomes interested in rockets! •! 1954: ! –! Navy: Viking sub-orbital rocket! –! Army: plans for Project Orbiter based on Redstone! –! US science community proposes to orbit satellite for International Geophysical Year (1957-58)! •! 1955: ! –! Eisenhower: 1st US satellite should not be launched by a military rocket! –! Army: Project Orbiter cancelled! –! Navy: Project Vanguard begins, with Viking as 1st stage! Post-World War II Ballistic Missiles! USA! Redstone! Thor! Atlas! Titan! USSR! Derived from V-2! Post-World War II Science Fact and Fiction! !atalyzed human imagina"o#n Chesley Bonestell (1888-1986)! Willy Ley! (1906-1969)! Wernher von Braun! (1912-1977)! Sputnik 1 and the R-7 (October 4, 1957)! R-7 (Semyorka) launch vehicle (ICBM)! Sergei Korolev! (1907-1966)! Sputnik !1 The Space Race had begun" Project Vanguard (1957-1959)! !! Vanguard TV3 failure, December 7, 1957! !! Vanguard 1 launched March 17, 1958 ! Juno 1 Launched Explorer 1 to Orbit " (January 31, 1958)! •! Resurrection of Project Orbiter! •! Juno 1 derived from! –! Redstone missile / V-2 missile! 1958: NACA Becomes NASA! National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics" National Aeronautics and Space Administration" Robotic Lunar Spacecraft! 1959 ! 1964! 1966! 1966! ! April 12, 1961! Yuri Gagarin! (1934-1968)! February 20, 1962! John Glenn! (1921 - )! John F. Kennedy’s Challenge to Congress" May 25, 1961! Project Apollo! John Houbolt (1919 - )" William Michael, ‘48, *67 (1926 - )" First Apollo Program Contract " MIT Instrumentation Laboratory " August 9, 1961! Charles Stark Draper! (1901-1987)! BUT … Lunar landing technique was not decided until July, 1962! Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) vs. iPhone 5S! ! !! 16-bit Processor! ! 64-bit Processor! ! !! Storage: 36,864 words (fixed)! ! Storage: 16-64 Gbytes! ! !! 2,048 words (variable)! ! 1 Gbyte RAM! ! !! Clock speed: 1 million “ticks” per sec! ! Clock speed: 1,300 million “ticks” per sec! !! Weight: 70 lb! !! Weight: 1/4 lb! !! 1st operational solid-state computer! !! !! Plus accelerometers Separate Inertial Measurement Unit! angular rate gyros, ….! “We Choose to Go to the Moon …” " Rice University, Texas, September 12, 1962! Saturn Launch Vehicles! Saturn IB! Saturn V! Saturn V in Princeton Stadium! Apollo Command and Service Modules (CSM)! •!3-person crew! •!Autonomous guidance and control capability! •!Apollo 7 (Oct 1968): 1st crewed flight, Saturn IB! Apollo 8, December 21-27, 1968! •! Originally planned to be an Earth-orbit mission! •! Repurposed to be the 1st manned flight to the moon, without LM! •! 6-day mission duration! •! Free-return trajectory possible with no further propulsion after Trans-Lunar Injection! Coast! Reentry! Trans-Lunar Injection! M o o n’s ! Coast! “Sphere of Influence”! Apollo 8 Entered Lunar Orbit! •! BUT a more ambitious mission was pursued! •! Service Propulsion System was fired on far side for Lunar-Orbit Insertion; no free return! •! SPS had to fire again on far side to return to Earth! Apollo Command Modules Return to Earth! Velocity = 25,000 mph! Command Module Reentry! Command Module Splashdown! Service Lunar Command Module! Module! Module! Apollo " Lunar Module (LM)! Apollo 9! Apollo 10! March 1969! May 1969 ! Earth-orbit test of Lunar Module, 2nd manned flight to the Moon! rendezvous, and docking! No landing intended! Apollo 11 ! July 16, 1969! July 20, 1969! Landing on the Moon! July 20, 1969! “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”! Apollo 12! Apollo 13! Apollo 14! November 1969! April 1970! January 1971! Pete Conrad, ’53! with Surveyor 3! Apollo 15! Apollo 16! July 1971! April 1972! Apollo 17, December 1972! Apollo 18-20: Cancelled! Why Was the Apollo 8 Mission Changed on Such Short Notice?! CIA KH-8 GAMBIT Reconnaissance Satellite, August 1968! Soviet Manned Lunar Flight Program" (1961-1972)! •! N-1 Rocket, initially designed by Sergei Korolev! –! 4 launches (unmanned), none successful! –! 2nd attempt produced largest non-nuclear explosion in history! Soyuz 7K-LOK, N-1! 2-man CSM! LK, 1-man Lunar Lander! What Were the Russians Doing During the Apollo 11 Mission?! Russian Proton-K Rocket Launches on July 13, 1969! Luna 15! July 21, 1969! Russia Perseveres with Robotic Spacecraft! Lunakhod 1, 2! Luna 16, 17, 20, 24! (1970-73)! (1970-76)! What Did Jules Verne Get Right?! Similarities Between Verne’s Columbiad and Apollo! •! Launch from Florida at Cape Canaveral’s latitude! •! Size of capsule! •! Number of astronauts! •! Required launch velocity! •! Time of flight! •! Weightlessness! •! Capsule recovery at sea! What Did the Moon Rocks Tell Us about the Creation of the Moon?! •! Apollo 15 “Genesis Rock” (1971)! –! 4 billion years old! –! Anorthite, found in Earth’s Crust! •! Oxygen isotopes in Earth and Moon rocks virtually identical! •! Consistent with the Giant Impact Model! BUT, current computer simulations suggest otherwise … Stay tuned! Where Were the Landing Sites?! How Many Robotic Lunar Missions Have There Been Since 1972?! 21, all successful! Orbits 103! (3-Body Problem) •! Earth and ! Moon and Spacecraft! Joseph –Louis Lagrange! (1736-1813)! Earth! Moon! “Gravity Wells” of the Earth-Moon System! Unmanned Lunar Flight Revisited! “Weak Stability” Regions! Earth! Moon! !! Space probe orbits affected by subtle gravitational effects! !! Propellant savings (Belbruno et al, 1990)! !! Missions salvaged or re-purposed (Hiten, HGS-1, ARTEMIS)! !! Long-duration maneuvers! Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE), Sept 7, 2013! !! 30-day transit! !! Launched from NASA Wallops Flight Facility! !! Minotaur V (from Peacekeeper ICBM)! What About the Future?! Chinese, Japanese, and Indian Lunar Exploration Programs! Chang’e-3 Lander (2013)! Jade Rabbit “Yutu” (2013)! SELENE-2 (2017)! Chandrayaan-2 (2017)! NASA Proposal to Return Humans to the Moon! !! Constellation Program, 2004! !! Underbudgeted, as noted by Augustine (‘59,*61) Commission! !! Cancelled by Congress in 2011! The New Space Race! US and Foreign Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicles! NASA" Ariane! Delta! Atlas! Falcon! Angara-5! Jan. 28, 2014: Russian Space Agency Plans World’s Biggest Rocket! US and Foreign Manned Spacecraft! Blue Origin! NASA Orion! SpaceX Dragon! Boeing ! CST-100! Indian! Concept! Russian Soyuz! Chinese Shenzhou! Commercial Enterprise May Hold the Key! BUT … Is NASA spreading itself too thin by supporting commercial enterprise AND developing the ORION- SLS vehicles?! !! $20M prize for first craft to! !! Land on the Moon, move 500 m, and send video back to Earth by End of 2015! !! 18 contenders! !! “Milestone” prizes ($6M total) for achieving intermediate objectives by Sept 2014! !! US (2), Indian, German, and Japanese finalists! !! Actual mission cost estimates: $10-100M! Returning to 1962 …! •! That was 52 years ago!! •! Who will continue the journey in 2014?! •! Will they compete or cooperate?! •! Manned, unmanned, both, or neither?! Sources and Acknowledgement! •! Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon and Around the Moon! •! Walter MacDougall, … The Heavens and the Earth! •! James Harford, Korolev! •! Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon! •! Roger Launius, Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis! •! Eldon Hall, Journey to the Moon! •! David Mindell, Digital Apollo! •! Howard McCurdy, Space and the American Imagination! •! Willy Ley, Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space! •! Colleagues at! –! MIT Instrumentation Laboratory (Charles Stark Draper Laboratory)! –! NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA! •! James Michener, Space! •! Edward Belbruno, Fly Me to the Moon! •! NASA, various graphics!.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [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]
  • Exploration of the Moon
    Exploration of the Moon The physical exploration of the Moon began when Luna 2, a space probe launched by the Soviet Union, made an impact on the surface of the Moon on September 14, 1959. Prior to that the only available means of exploration had been observation from Earth. The invention of the optical telescope brought about the first leap in the quality of lunar observations. Galileo Galilei is generally credited as the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes; having made his own telescope in 1609, the mountains and craters on the lunar surface were among his first observations using it. NASA's Apollo program was the first, and to date only, mission to successfully land humans on the Moon, which it did six times. The first landing took place in 1969, when astronauts placed scientific instruments and returnedlunar samples to Earth. Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid prepares to descend towards the surface of the Moon. NASA photo. Contents Early history Space race Recent exploration Plans Past and future lunar missions See also References External links Early history The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former. His non-religious view of the heavens was one cause for his imprisonment and eventual exile.[1] In his little book On the Face in the Moon's Orb, Plutarch suggested that the Moon had deep recesses in which the light of the Sun did not reach and that the spots are nothing but the shadows of rivers or deep chasms.
    [Show full text]
  • Collision Avoidance Operations in a Multi-Mission Environment
    AIAA 2014-1745 SpaceOps Conferences 5-9 May 2014, Pasadena, CA Proceedings of the 2014 SpaceOps Conference, SpaceOps 2014 Conference Pasadena, CA, USA, May 5-9, 2014, Paper DRAFT ONLY AIAA 2014-1745. Collision Avoidance Operations in a Multi-Mission Environment Manfred Bester,1 Bryce Roberts,2 Mark Lewis,3 Jeremy Thorsness,4 Gregory Picard,5 Sabine Frey,6 Daniel Cosgrove,7 Jeffrey Marchese,8 Aaron Burgart,9 and William Craig10 Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7450 With the increasing number of manmade object orbiting Earth, the probability for close encounters or on-orbit collisions is of great concern to spacecraft operators. The presence of debris clouds from various disintegration events amplifies these concerns, especially in low- Earth orbits. The University of California, Berkeley currently operates seven NASA spacecraft in various orbit regimes around the Earth and the Moon, and actively participates in collision avoidance operations. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory provide conjunction analyses. In two cases, collision avoidance operations were executed to reduce the risks of on-orbit collisions. With one of the Earth orbiting THEMIS spacecraft, a small thrust maneuver was executed to increase the miss distance for a predicted close conjunction. For the NuSTAR observatory, an attitude maneuver was executed to minimize the cross section with respect to a particular conjunction geometry. Operations for these two events are presented as case studies. A number of experiences and lessons learned are included. Nomenclature dLong = geographic longitude increment ΔV = change in velocity dZgeo = geostationary orbit crossing distance increment i = inclination Pc = probability of collision R = geostationary radius RE = Earth radius σ = standard deviation Zgeo = geostationary orbit crossing distance I.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Solar Cell Arrays
    NASA NASA SP-8074 SPACE VEHICLE DESIGN CRITERIA (GUIDANCE AND CONTROL) SPACECRAFT SOLAR CELL ARRAYS MAY 1971 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION c GUIDE TO THE USE OF THIS MONOGRAPH The purpose of this monograph is to organize and present, for effective use in design, the signifi- cant experience and knowledge accumulated in operational programs to date. It reviews and assesses current state-of-the-art design practices, and from them establishes firm guidance for achieving greater consistency in design, increased reliability in the end product, and greater efficiency in the design effort for conventional missions. The monograph is organized into three major sections that are preceded by a brief introduction and complemented by a set of references. The State of the Art, Section 2, reviews and discusses the total design problem, and identifies which1 design elements are involved in successful design. It describes succinctly the current tech- nology pertaining to these elements. When detailed information is required, the best available references are cited. This section serves as a survey of the subject that provides background material and prepares a proper technological base for the Design Criteria and Recommended Practices. The Design Criteria, shown in Section 3, state clearly and briefly what rule, guide, limitation, or standard must be considered for each essential design element to ensure successful design. The Design Criteria can serve effectively as a checklist of rules for the project manager to use in guiding a design or in assessing its adequacy. The Recommended Practices, as shown in Section 4, state how to satisfy each of the criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Lunar Sample Mass Capability for the Lunar Exploration Architecture
    “Dedicated to Maximizing Planetary Sample Science While Protecting the Integrity of NASA Collected Extraterrestrial Materials” CAPTEM ANALYSIS DOCUMENT Analysis of Lunar Sample Mass Capability for the Lunar Exploration Architecture May 7, 2007 CAPTEM Document 2007-01 This report was prepared by the CAPTEM Lunar Subcommittee Charles Shearer, University of New Mexico, Chair CAPTEM Clive Neal, Notre Dame University, Chair, CAPTEM Lunar Subcommittee Lars Borg, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Brad Jolliff, Washington University Dimitri Papanastassiou, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Allan Treiman, Lunar and Planetary Institute Christine Floss, Washington University Malcolm Rutherford, Brown University Marc Norman, Australian National University James Farquhar, University of Maryland Recommended bibliographic citation: Shearer, C., Neal, C., Borg, L., Jolliff, B., Papanastassiou, D., Treiman, A., Floss, C., Rutherford, M., Norman, M., Farquhar, J. (2007) Analysis of Lunar Sample Mass Capability for the Lunar Exploration Architecture Unpublished white paper, 14 p, posted May 2007 by the Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM) at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/captem/. Executive Summary The Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM) was requested by the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) to conduct an analysis of the mass of returned lunar samples that must be accommodated within the Lunar Exploration Architecture to fulfill lunar science goals. This analysis was conducted in three manners that evaluated sample mass with regards to previous Apollo Program surface activity, scientific productivity, present-day scientific rationale as defined by the LAT, and samples (mass, diversity) required to fulfill the scientific objectives. The findings of this study are (1) lunar exploration architecture should accommodate 150 kg of traditional geological samples for return to Earth, not including sample containers and environmentally sensitive samples.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moon After Apollo
    ICARUS 25, 495-537 (1975) The Moon after Apollo PAROUK EL-BAZ National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.G- 20560 Received September 17, 1974 The Apollo missions have gradually increased our knowledge of the Moon's chemistry, age, and mode of formation of its surface features and materials. Apollo 11 and 12 landings proved that mare materials are volcanic rocks that were derived from deep-seated basaltic melts about 3.7 and 3.2 billion years ago, respec- tively. Later missions provided additional information on lunar mare basalts as well as the older, anorthositic, highland rocks. Data on the chemical make-up of returned samples were extended to larger areas of the Moon by orbiting geo- chemical experiments. These have also mapped inhomogeneities in lunar surface chemistry, including radioactive anomalies on both the near and far sides. Lunar samples and photographs indicate that the moon is a well-preserved museum of ancient impact scars. The crust of the Moon, which was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, was subjected to intensive metamorphism by large impacts. Although bombardment continues to the present day, the rate and size of impact- ing bodies were much greater in the first 0.7 billion years of the Moon's history. The last of the large, circular, multiringed basins occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. These basins, many of which show positive gravity anomalies (mascons), were flooded by volcanic basalts during a period of at least 600 million years. In addition to filling the circular basins, more so on the near side than on the far side, the basalts also covered lowlands and circum-basin troughs.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature Redacted Signature of Author: History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology Affd Society August 19, 2014
    Project Apollo, Cold War Diplomacy and the American Framing of Global Interdependence by MASSACHUSETTS 5NS E. OF TECHNOLOGY OCT 0 6 201 Teasel Muir-Harmony LIBRARIES Bachelor of Arts St. John's College, 2004 Master of Arts University of Notre Dame, 2009 Submitted to the Program in Science, Technology, and Society In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2014 D 2014 Teasel Muir-Harmony. All Rights Reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author: History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology affd Society August 19, 2014 Certified by: Signature redacted David A. Mindell Frances and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Committee Chair redacted Certified by: Signature David Kaiser C01?shausen Professor of the History of Science Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Society Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics Committee Member Signature redacted Certified by: Rosalind Williams Bern Dibner Professor of the History of Technology Committee Member Accepted by: Signature redacted Heather Paxson William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor, Anthropology Director of Graduate Studies, History, Anthropology, and STS Signature
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Space Program
    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rae Table of Earth Satellites 1957-1986 the Rae Table Ofearth Satellites
    THE RAE TABLE OF EARTH SATELLITES 1957-1986 THE RAE TABLE OFEARTH SATELLITES 1957-1986 compiled at The Royal Aircraft Establishment, Famborough, Hants, England by D.G. King-Dele, FRS, D.M.C. Walker, PhD, J.A. Pilkington, BSc, A.N. Winterbottom, H. Hiller, BSc and G.E. Perry, MBE The Table is a chronological list of the 2869 launches of satellites and space vehicles between 1957 and the end of 1986, giving the name and international designation of each satellite and its associated rocket(s), with the date of launch, lifetime (actual or estimated), mass, shape, dimensions and at least one set of orbital parameters. Other fragments associated with a launch, and space vehicles that escape from the Earth's influence, are given without details. Including fragments, more than 17000 satellites appear in the 893 pages of the tabulation, and there is a full Index. M TOCKTON S P R E S S © Crown copyright 1981, 1983, 1987 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 3rd edition 1987 978-0-333-39275-1 Published by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. Published in the United States and Canada by STOCKTON PRESS, 1987 15 East 26th Street, New York, N.Y. 10010 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The R.A.E. table of earth satellites, 1957-1986. Rev. ed. of: The RAE table of earth satellites, 1957- 1980. 2nd ed. 1981. 1. Artificial satellites- Registers.
    [Show full text]
  • Accesso Autonomo Ai Servizi Spaziali
    Centro Militare di Studi Strategici Rapporto di Ricerca 2012 – STEPI AE-SA-02 ACCESSO AUTONOMO AI SERVIZI SPAZIALI Analisi del caso italiano a partire dall’esperienza Broglio, con i lanci dal poligono di Malindi ad arrivare al sistema VEGA. Le possibili scelte strategiche del Paese in ragione delle attuali e future esigenze nazionali e tenendo conto della realtà europea e del mercato internazionale. di T. Col. GArn (E) FUSCO Ing. Alessandro data di chiusura della ricerca: Febbraio 2012 Ai mie due figli Andrea e Francesca (che ci tiene tanto…) ed a Elisabetta per la sua pazienza, nell‟impazienza di tutti giorni space_20120723-1026.docx i Author: T. Col. GArn (E) FUSCO Ing. Alessandro Edit: T..Col. (A.M.) Monaci ing. Volfango INDICE ACCESSO AUTONOMO AI SERVIZI SPAZIALI. Analisi del caso italiano a partire dall’esperienza Broglio, con i lanci dal poligono di Malindi ad arrivare al sistema VEGA. Le possibili scelte strategiche del Paese in ragione delle attuali e future esigenze nazionali e tenendo conto della realtà europea e del mercato internazionale. SOMMARIO pag. 1 PARTE A. Sezione GENERALE / ANALITICA / PROPOSITIVA Capitolo 1 - Esperienze italiane in campo spaziale pag. 4 1.1. L'Anno Geofisico Internazionale (1957-1958): la corsa al lancio del primo satellite pag. 8 1.2. Italia e l’inizio della Cooperazione Internazionale (1959-1972) pag. 12 1.3. L’Italia e l’accesso autonomo allo spazio: Il Progetto San Marco (1962-1988) pag. 26 Capitolo 2 - Nascita di VEGA: un progetto europeo con una forte impronta italiana pag. 45 2.1. Il San Marco Scout pag.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrate Apollo
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Celebrate Apollo Exploring The Moon, Discovering Earth “…We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share. … I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single space project in this period will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish …” President John F. Kennedy May 25, 1961 Celebrate Apollo Exploring The Moon, Discovering Earth Less than five months into his new administration, on May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy, announced the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the moon before the end of the decade. Coming just three weeks after Mercury astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space, Kennedy’s bold challenge that historic spring day set the nation on a journey unparalleled in human history. Just eight years later, on July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module, taking “one small step” in the Sea of Tranquility, thus achieving “one giant leap for mankind,” and demonstrating to the world that the collective will of the nation was strong enough to overcome any obstacle. It was an achievement that would be repeated five other times between 1969 and 1972. By the time the Apollo 17 mission ended, 12 astronauts had explored the surface of the moon, and the collective contributions of hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, astronauts and employees of NASA served to inspire our nation and the world.
    [Show full text]