DOCSLIB.ORG

Lnteragency Rivalry? Roy F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lnteragency Rivalry? Roy F lnteragency RivalrY? Roy F. Houch¡n ll The Relationship of the Department oÍ Defense and NASA in Developing the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory,196I-1965. In la¡e 1961, ùe potential for t¡emen- dous interagency ¡ivalry prevailed betweeû the Ai¡ Fo¡ce, rhe Departrnenr of Defense (DoD) and NASA. Each agency speculated on how its objectives best ¡ePresented na- tional obiectives, The Ai¡ Force believed Lhe requiremenrs for several ma¡med mili- tary space progra¡¡s existed. Concúrendy, NASÀ focused on Apollo, the program des- lined to fulfill Kennedy's lunar landing corlÍritment, In n¡m, the DepartmenL of Defense wanted to suppless Ai¡ Fo¡ce ef- forts to develop a ¡ival ma¡ned sPace pro- grarn; however, it also prefened m keep the ãerospace indusny suong. While NASA's civilian space p¡og¡am offered the Depart- ment of Defense tÏe best avenue for suc- cess, it would not rneet the Ai¡ Force's ¡e- quirements. To implement is requitement for sus- tained milita¡y space operatiorN, the Ai! Force proposed Gemini B/lvla¡med O¡biting Iaborãtory (MOL), a nilitary spâce station based on a pressùrized laboratory section and a spacecraft from NASA's recendy ap- proved Proje.t Gemini (the leaming Phase ior ¡endezvous and docking maneuve¡s i¡ NASA'S hmâr landing program). While NASA Administra¡or James E. Vy'ebb sup- Dorted the Air Force's activities, he feh ob- Mock-up of the US Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory. @oeing Photo) iigared !o abide by Secrerary of Defense Robert S, McNamara's space policies Borh tion, Se¡ret¿¡y of Defense McNama¡a and Secretary of the Ai¡ Force the resPonsibility NASA a¡d the Ai¡ Force wanted space sra- DLec¡or of Defense Resea¡ch and Engi- to suppó¡L to the "extent compatible with rions; but since the Air Force lacked politi- neering (DDR&E), Dr. H¿rold Brown, did is priirary mission," specific NASA pro' cal supporr within the Depâ¡tmenr of De- nor aciept Air Force thinling. They be- iêcts and oroerams afisinc lfom tolnt fense a¡d NASA was busy with Apollo, a lieved the requirements for many milit¿ry fu¡sn¡oop âg-reements,T B-y rhe enã of cooperative venh.r¡e seemed the best solu- ooerations had not been accuratelv de- 1962, approximately fifry arrangemens and tion. l¡;ed.3 l¡d.ed, Secret¿¡y McNama¡ã be- ae¡eemènts between NASA and the DoD The Air Fo¡ce strongly questioned the lieved NASA's Apollo space program pro- eiisted while the DoD accomplished more validiry of ùe Secrerary of Defense's ma¡- vided Congress with a peaceful program ro than $550 million \À'orth of wo¡k fo¡ Searetary McNaman felt the agement system for ils ma¡ned space Pro- banle Sovièt space initiaLives and maintain NASA.8 Sdll, srams. How could a clash between institu- a s¡¡one base fo¡ the aerosDace indusky. DoD should inqease its utilization of ional titans be ave¡æd? By 1965, Secretary ln"the winter of l96l'Secretary NicNa- NASA asses. Iûdeed, if Gemini's sP¿ce- McNama¡a ¡educed the potential for intera- ma¡a, in a quest to cut spiraling Defense flight te¡hnology and polential exceeded gency riviilry by using NASA a¡d a sys- Depa¡t¡r¡enl cosls, curb Ai¡ Force research Dyna-Soar, Dyna-Soa¡ could be canceled. tems analysis approach of ma¡agemerit io a¡d developmenr programs, a¡d eliminate After hea¡ins a November 1962 NASA/ limit Air Fo¡ce ambitions to a single pro- úe possibility of duplicating NASA's Gem- DoD briefúg on the possibility of the Ai¡ gram- Gemini B/lvIOL. ini Progam, investiga¡ed altematives to fhe Force using, and funding, Gemini space' In September 1961, wiù an apprecia- Ai¡ Fo¡ce's reusable mini-space shuttle, crafL to explore military roles in space, tion of Soviet capabilitiea in space, Air Dyna-Soar (an acronym for Dynarnic Soar- McNâmãra recoÍuneÍded the DoD ¿ssume Force leaders prepared a 10-yea¡ space plan ing).4 To accomplish his goals, McNama- manapemenr of Gemini.g While NASA ad- ro furtlrcr identify the militaÍy requkements ¡a's civilia¡ expens initiared ùe Planning- minis-rator Webb favored Air Force partici- for space.l Lieutenant General James Fer- Programming-Budget Sysþm (PPBS) of Dation in Droiect Cemini, if it furthered Air l guson, Air Force Depury Chief of Staff for m¿magemen! and qeated five- year plans þo¡ce obiËcdies, he never inrended !o relin- Resea¡ch and Development, desc bed the for rese¿rch and development, weapons de- orrish ¿nï oo¡rion of the Droeram to the I September 1961 pla¡ before a Congession- veloDmenl- and cost reduction. Combined ôoD. As-ari inægral step in *rJctimu from Fo¡ce's wirh'the five-year pla.rs, he believed PPBS Proiect Mercury's firsl venh¡res into space al commiltee, outlining rhe Air l leading role in space ope¡ations. Among the would ensule. each of these factors-- to tire final landine on the moon with ho- objecrives, he emphasized the need for a including force requirements, military suat- iect Apollo, Gemini could not be delayed military space station to insure a suslained egy, 4nd foreign policy--remained in bal- by a NASA/DoD merger where NASA lost manned presence in low ea¡th orbit. From ance.5 Consequendy, in every functional cónuol of the p¡oject. Any del4y in Cemini their vantage point in space, he believed Air pyramid of t¡e DOD new layers of central- might- delay the lunar landi¡g.tu Fo¡ce asEonauts would be able to apply ized civilian bweaucracy ¡adiated ftom tle Durine 1962, Ai¡ Force Chief of Staft Lheir unique judgement to command and Ofhce of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).6 General C-u¡tis E. LeMay and other Air conEol, surveillanc^e, and ballistic missile 'Io ensure close coo¡dination of milÌ- Force plarners considered NASA's Gemi- defense oDeratioris.r tary and civilian space programs, Secretary ni, and its follow-on program Apollo, inca- Whii,e the Air Force felt c¡nfident of McNama¡a issued a policy dircctive on 24 pable of providing úè depth and b,readth of the miliEry info¡mation offered by Dyna-Soar its proposal to develop a military space sta- February 1962. This di¡ective assigned il 36 ouÊtf vcterrrc 4 Nuñbè.4 åI AI å and the military manned Ðace starion out- imentation.l4 Intuitively ¡ealizing the Vice- space..,.The problems of marned military lined in their September 1961 lO-year space P¡esident would not support funding for space flight are, and generally will continue plan. Nor would NASA programs develop both a DoD and NASA space statiorl even to be, more complex -and more difficult and úre q,pe of technical e4uipment (i,e., a rcus- if each agency painstakingly dehned separ- expensive to solve."lÚ able shuttle, electronic intelligence, signals ate requùemens for their respective space The DirecLor of Defense Resea¡ch & inrelligence, phorog¡aphic inrelligence, sar- statior¡s, Secreta¡y McNamara and Admin- Engineæring, Dr. Harold Brown, echoed ellite inspection and intercçtion) required istralor Webb met agair and agreed to in- Secreta¡y McNam¿¡a: fo¡ fuLure ma¡ned military operaLiors in corporate ûre requiremens of boLh agencies "The problems of mâTmed milhary space. In June, Ai¡ Fo¡ce leade¡s ¡ecom- inlo a single space sradon. However, each space flighs are. and gmerally will contin- mended the development of a m¿fied agency reserved ùe dght ¡o continue with ue !o be, moÊ complex afid more difhcult space station, or Military Orbital Develop- tñeir own advanced spõe station studies.l5 and expensive to solve. I want s[ongly to ment Syslem, to provide additional proof of Ironically, neither agency agreed on emphasize that as of rhis time even the re- milùary capabilities and complement Dyna- program specifics or a manage¡ for their ouirement lor manned militârv oDerations is Soar's mission. I¡ Augusr, the Ai¡ Fo¡ce coope¡âtive space station venru¡e. Subse- srill in quesrion."l9 outlined a Blue Gemini project detailing quendy, in an Ooobe¡ 1963 meeting be- If Ai¡ Fo¡ce leaders coùld sustair specific military objectives and ha¡dwa¡e tween McNa¡na¡a and Webb, McNama¡a Gemini BÂ4OL, the progIam would decide, modifications ro NASA's Gemini capsules. expanded on his July 1963 intentions. He qualiratively ãnd quarititariveþ, man's abil- These modificarions would allow a Limely would indeed eliminare Dyna-Soar arrd be- ity !o perform useful military missions in beginning to Air Force uaining in space,lì gin a follow-on to Cemini, simila¡ to the space and, by doing so, find oùt whether To fu¡rd these initiatives, they Foposed a Blue Gemini and MODS prograrns pro- fhese missions enhanced our national secur- $177 million allocation of the fìscal year posed by At Force leaders--and rejected by ity.20 lhe experiments, test ha¡dwa¡g and 1964 DoD budget for the two additional McNama¡a--ea¡lier in the year. NASA procedures programmed fo¡ Gemini B/ programs. Secretary McNama¡a conside¡ed countered by suggesting a military Gernini MOL placed primary emphasis on measù- ¡he objeclives of these new rnilitary space B/lr4OL (figure 4), similar to úe medium- ing man's value !o ùe total system, Each programs a duplìcaúon of NASA's Gemini sized MORL spacæ starion advocated þ is military mission would identif] ¿nd ana- program and excluded tlrem f¡om the de- Langley Research Cente¡. As AL Force lyze, in d-etail, functions man pa¡rmenr's Jaauary 1963 budget ¡equesfs to plarmers lauded the me¡its of using Dyna- mrght pertolm.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Into the Unknown Together the DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight
    Frontmatter 11/23/05 10:12 AM Page i Into the Unknown Together The DOD, NASA, and Early Spaceflight MARK ERICKSON Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama September 2005 Frontmatter 11/23/05 10:12 AM Page ii Air University Library Cataloging Data Erickson, Mark, 1962- Into the unknown together : the DOD, NASA and early spaceflight / Mark Erick- son. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-58566-140-6 1. Manned space flight—Government policy—United States—History. 2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration—History. 3. Astronautics, Military—Govern- ment policy—United States. 4. United States. Air Force—History. 5. United States. Dept. of Defense—History. I. Title. 629.45'009'73––dc22 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the editor and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public re- lease: distribution unlimited. Air University Press 131 West Shumacher Avenue Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6615 http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil ii Frontmatter 11/23/05 10:12 AM Page iii To Becky, Anna, and Jessica You make it all worthwhile. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Frontmatter 11/23/05 10:12 AM Page v Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii DEDICATION . iii ABOUT THE AUTHOR . ix 1 NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS . 1 Ambling toward Sputnik . 3 NASA’s Predecessor Organization and the DOD . 18 Notes . 24 2 EISENHOWER ACT I: REACTION TO SPUTNIK AND THE BIRTH OF NASA . 31 Eisenhower Attempts to Calm the Nation .
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Us Anti-Satellite Weapons '
    CASE STUDY 1 THE HISTORY OF US ANTI-SATELLITE WEAPONS ':.: THE HISTORY OF US ANTISATELLITE WEAPON SYSTEMS ---------------------------------------------- Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE HISTORY OF US AND SOVIET ASAT PROGRAMS AND OF DIPLOMATIC INTERACTIONS 4 1) The General Context, The Genesis of Ideas and the Derivation of US Programs 4 2) Orbital Nuclear Weapons, The USSR Threat, US Concept Studies and Early Negotiations (1962-1963) 9 3) US Antisatellite Programs 13 4) The USSR Antisatellite Program, 1968 to the Present 27 5) US-USSR Negotiations for ASAT Control (1977-1979) 35 III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 42 IV. REFERENCES AND NOTES 53 V• TABLES AND FIGURES 66 VI • APPENDICES 1 ) US Satellite Monitoring and Tracking Systems 81 2) The X-20, DYNA-SOAR 88 3) Other Lifting Body Reentry Vehicles 96 4) The Space Shuttle 100 5) "Space Denia1" (1958-1963) 104 - 1 - I. INTRODUCTION The military significance of antisatellite (ASAT) systems is in the importance of the capabilities that they threaten. The uses of satellites in support of military programs has burgeoned into an ever increasing number of areas. Reconnaissance satellites provide information on the location and numbers of strategic weapons, the disposition of fleets and strike forces, and the deployment of tactical forces in wartime. Communi­ cations satellites provide enormously enhanced command-and-control capa­ bilities in the disposition of one's forces. Early-warning systems alert one to the launch of the opponent's strategic missiles. Geodetic satellites provide information for the targeting of one's own weapons· and the improve­ ment of their accuracy. Weather satellites aid fleets to hide under cover and aircraft to improve their routes to targets or destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Walking the High Ground: the Manned Orbiting Laboratory And
    Walking the High Ground: The Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the Age of the Air Force Astronauts by Will Holsclaw Department of History Defense Date: April 9, 2018 Thesis Advisor: Andrew DeRoche, Department of History Thesis Committee: Matthew Gerber, Department of History Allison Anderson, Department of Aerospace Engineering 2 i Abstract This thesis is an examination of the U.S. Air Force’s cancelled – and heretofore substantially classified – Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) space program of the 1960s, situating it in the broader context of military and civilian space policy from the dawn of the Space Age in the 1950s to the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Several hundred documents related to the MOL have recently been declassified by the National Reconnaissance Office, and these permit historians a better understanding of the origins of the program and its impact. By studying this new windfall of primary source material and linking it with more familiar and visible episodes of space history, this thesis aims to reevaluate not only the MOL program itself but the dynamic relationship between America’s purportedly bifurcated civilian and military space programs. Many actors in Cold War space policy, some well-known and some less well- known, participated in the secretive program and used it as a tool for intertwining the interests of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with the Air Force and reshaping national space policy. Their actions would lead, for a time, to an unprecedented militarization of NASA by the Department of Defense which would prove to be to the benefit of neither party.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Civilian-Military Relations in Space by Dwayne A
    Chapter Two Invitation to Struggle: The History of Civilian-Military Relations in Space by Dwayne A. Day The history of American civilian and military cooperation in space is one of compet- ing interests, priorities, and justifications at the upper policy levels, combined with a remarkable degree of cooperation and coordination at virtually all operational levels. It is a history of the evolution of responsibility for space exploration. Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations gradually decided which organization should be responsible for which activities, eventually establishing these responsibilities as fact. This process did not result in a smooth transition; first the Army and then the Air Force saw its hopes for assum- ing the predominant role in space exploration subsumed to larger national priorities. It proved to be most painful for the Air Force, which had the biggest dreams €or space and saw them dashed as NASA achieved all of the glory during the Cold War space race. This history can be separated into two broad eras-cooperation prior to NASA's cre- ation and cooperation between NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), with a transition period in between. This transition is an aspect that is frequently overlooked in discussions of the subject, for civil-military cooperation in space did not begin with the establishment of NASA-it changedwith the creation of NASA, and it did so dramatically. Prior to NASA's establishment, the military had had the upper hand in.determining all space priorities, and civilian interests, when considered at all, were clearly secondary. There were also multiple military space actors-primarily the Air Force and the Army- and it was not clear which would emerge dominant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Last of NASA's Original Pilot Astronauts
    The Last of NASA’s Original Pilot Astronauts Expanding the Space Frontier in the Late Sixties David J. Shayler and Colin Burgess The Last of NASA’s Original Pilot Astronauts Expanding the Space Frontier in the Late Sixties David J. Shayler, F.B.I.S Colin Burgess Astronautical Historian Bangor Astro Info Service Ltd New South Wales Halesowen Australia West Midlands UK SPRINGER-PRAXIS BOOKS IN SPACE EXPLORATION Springer Praxis Books ISBN 978-3-319-51012-5 ISBN 978-3-319-51014-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51014-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017934482 © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Americans in Space Exhibit
    Americans in Space In the late 1950s rocket powered aircraft were poised to pierce the veil of outer space. Both the Soviet Un- ion and the United States had lofted man-made satellites into orbit for purposes ranging from scientific in- quiry and weather forecasting to communications and military reconnaissance. Russia and America also established programs for humans to ride the missiles and eventually pilot them. Postmarked on the Prime Recovery Ship (PRS) for the first American to orbit the Earth. Beginning in 1959 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted flights that put Americans into space. Project Mercury established that a pilot could orbit the Earth. Project Gemini devel- oped advanced capabilities for long duration flight, docking, and walking in space. Lastly, Project Apollo extended our reach with the exploration of the Moon. The exhibit traces our nation’s path through three periods of manned space exploration. Project Mercury (1959-1963) mixed monkeys, robots and America’s first space pilots in a Space Race with the Soviets. Pro- ject Gemini (1962-1966) saw the introduction of computers in orbit, fuel cells to generate electricity, dock- ing two spacecraft and walking in space. The exhibit concludes with the triumphant Project Apollo (1960- 1975) that fulfilled President Kennedy’s goal of “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” In keeping with the Federation Internationale de Philatelie (FIP) regulations for Astrophilately, the cancels in this exhibit conform to the principle that the story of the conquest of space is best told with envelopes postmarked on the date and closest to the entity controlling the event.
    [Show full text]
  • Corso, Philip
    In memory of Lt. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau. This great man was my superior as chief of U.S. Army Research and Development. He was a man of great courage; he put on a sergeant's helmet and fought with his men at Pork Chop Hill in Korea. He was deeply religious and went on "retreats" at Loyola. He was the most brilliant man I have ever known, who only gave me one standing order: "Watch things for me, Phil. There are things we do not understand. " His accomplishments changed the world for the better. Any success I had I attribute to him and to his leadership. Forward Senator Strom Thurmond When I was first elected to the United States Senate in 1954, the United States and democratic Western governments were locked in a bitter, and sometimes deadly, Cold War with totalitarian Communist governments that sought to expand their bankruptideology throughout the world. Though those who did not live during this era have a hard time picturing it, the 1950s and 1960s were a period in our history when there was a very real need to be concerned about a Communist, especially Soviet, threat to our security and institutions. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I took a lead role in seeking out those in our government who sought to muzzle military personnel who wanted to alert Americans to the threats we faced from our Communist enemies and to speak out against some of the plainly misguided, incorrect and, frankly, dangerous policies of the United States in dealing with the Soviets and Red Chinese.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Registry Registrar's Periodical
    Service Alberta ____________________ Corporate Registry ____________________ Registrar’s Periodical SERVICE ALBERTA Corporate Registrations, Incorporations, and Continuations (Business Corporations Act, Cemetery Companies Act, Companies Act, Cooperatives Act, Credit Union Act, Loan and Trust Corporations Act, Religious Societies’ Land Act, Rural Utilities Act, Societies Act, Partnership Act) 10012025 CANADA INC. Federal Corporation 11312626 CANADA LTD. Federal Corporation Registered 2019 APR 01 Registered Address: 1482 Registered 2019 APR 09 Registered Address: 450-1ST JEFFERYS CRESCENT NW, EDMONTON STREET SW, CALGARY ALBERTA, T2P 5H1. No: ALBERTA, T6L 6T1. No: 2121835777. 2121853994. 10108855 CANADA INCORPORATED Federal 11331655 CANADA INC. Federal Corporation Corporation Registered 2019 APR 10 Registered Registered 2019 APR 01 Registered Address: 3810 49 Address: 165 PNAMOUNT GREEN NW, CALGARY AVE, BEAUMONT ALBERTA, T4X 1Y7. No: ALBERTA, T3K 5R6. No: 2121858803. 2121834432. 101290060 SASKATCHEWAN LTD. Other 11333526 CANADA INC. Federal Corporation Prov/Territory Corps Registered 2019 APR 15 Registered 2019 APR 08 Registered Address: 8902 Registered Address: 5111 36 ST N203, LAKELAND DR, GRANDE PRAIRIE ALBERTA, LLOYDMINSTER ALBERTA, T9V 2A2. No: T8X 1V9. No: 2121849992. 2121866459. 11339664 CANADA INC. Federal Corporation 102000607 SASKATCHEWAN INC. Other Registered 2019 APR 08 Registered Address: 2-45 Prov/Territory Corps Registered 2019 APR 03 COUGAR COVE NORTH, LETHBRIDGE ALBERTA, Registered Address: 425 BLACKBURN DRIVE, T1H 5V4. No: 2121851170. EDMONTON ALBERTA, T6W 1B5. No: 2121839241. 1178252 B.C. LTD. Other Prov/Territory Corps 10440078 CANADA INC. Federal Corporation Registered 2019 APR 03 Registered Address: 1601, 333 Registered 2019 APR 02 Registered Address: 695 - 11TH AVENUE SW, CALGARY ALBERTA, FALCONRIDGE GDNS NE, CALGARY ALBERTA, T2R1L9. No: 2121842351. T3J 2B9. No: 2121839282.
    [Show full text]
  • SPACE and DEFENSE
    SPACE and DEFENSE Volume Four Number Two Summer 2010 Multilateralism in Space: Opportunities and Challenges for Achieving Space Security by Theresa Hitchens European Approaches to Space and Security: Implications for Transatlantic Cooperation by Michael Searway India in Space: Factors Shaping the Indian Trajectory by Harsh V. Pant and Ajey Lele “Astronaut Envy?” The U.S. Military’s Quest for a Human Mission in Space by Roger D. Launius EISENHOWER CENTER FOR SPACE AND DEFENSE STUDIES Space and Defense Scholarly Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editor-in-Chief Ambassador Roger Harrison, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Academic Editor Dr. Eligar Sadeh, [email protected] Principal Scientist, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Associate Academic Editors Dr. Damon Coletta U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Michael Gleason U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Peter Hays National Security Space Office, USA Major Deron Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Colonel Michael Smith U.S. Air Force, USA Reviewers Andrew Aldrin John Logsdon United Launch Alliance, USA George Washington University, USA James Armor Agnieszka Lukaszczky ATK, USA Space Generation Advisory Council, Austria William Barry Molly Macauley NASA, France Resources for the Future, USA Frans von der Dunk Scott Pace University of Nebraska, USA George Washington University, USA Paul Eckart Xavier Pasco Boeing, USA Foundation for Strategic Research, France Andrew Erickson
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Gemini 3 Sequence of Events
    Appendix 1: Gemini 3 Sequence of Events Adapted from the Gemini 3 post-flight Mission Report – MSC-G-R-65-2 dated April 1965. Times may vary slightly to those quoted in the official air-to-ground commentary due to more in-depth post-flight analysis. EST Mar Elapsed time* 23, 1965 (hrs:min) Event 04:40 Crew awoken by Slayton 05:15 Breakfast started 06:02 Crew arrive at Pad 16 for suiting up 06:45 Sensors in place on chests of astronauts Suiting completed 07:05 Leave Pad 16 for Pad 19 (400 yards) 07:09 Ascend Pad 19 elevator to level 11 07:12 Crew enter Gemini 3 07:34 Hatches closed Ascent phase 09.24 00:00 Lift-Off 00:02:33.09 BECO Stage I separation 00:05:33.75 SECO 00:05:59.02 Spacecraft separation from launch vehicle 00:06 Separation maneuver from GLV and insertion Start insertion checklist 06:11:32 Separation maneuver ended using OAMS aft-firing thrusters added 10.6 ft./sec to spacecraft velocity. Entered orbit of 87.0 nautical miles perigee, 121.0 nautical miles apogee. First orbit 00:10 Completed insertion checklist (except for main battery check) Started platform alignment (used caging technique) 00:12 Completed platform alignment 00:13 First voice report of yaw drift problem 00:15 Plot-board un-stowed Switch to UHF no. 2 © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 301 D. J. Shayler, Gemini Flies!, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68142-9 302 Appendix 1: Gemini 3 Sequence of Events EST Mar Elapsed time* 23, 1965 (hrs:min) Event 00:16 Switched the radiator to FLOW 00:18 Blood pressure
    [Show full text]
  • A Miltary Man in Space
    cV) AN COITYMMNINSAND- AIt!LS"TRY OF AIR FORCl., EFFORTIS iL" '0FIND) A MANNED SPACE MISSIOYNC1 0 798 MAJORý T[MOTIHY 1). KILLfTEB~W 8 1- 1421, "insights itflo tomocrrow" DISCLAIMER SThe views and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the author. They are not intended and should not be thought to represent official ideas, attitudes, or policies of any agency of the United States Government. The author has not had special access to official information or ideas and has employed only open--source material available to any writer on this subject. This document is the property of the United States Governmernt. It is available for distribution to the general public. A loan copy cf the document may be obtained from the Air University Interlibrary Loan Service (AUL/LDEX, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 36112) or the Defense Technical Information Center. Request must include the author's name and complete title of the study. This document may be reproduced for use in other researca reports or educacional pursuits contingent upon the following stipulations: -- Reproduction rights do not extende to any copyrighted material that may be contained in the research report. A•ll reproduced copies moust contain the following credit line- "Reprinted by permi, ssion of the Air Command and Staff College. " 41.1 reproduced copies must c, nta i the name(s) of the report's author(s). I f format. modification is necessary to better serve the user's needs, adjustments may be made to this report --this authorization does not extend to copyrighted information or material.. The following statement must accompany the modified document: "Adapt ed f romn Air Command arid oraf f Research Report Si (_ toum t:h b oe r ------ e ( it 1eI I ...
    [Show full text]
  • Forward INTRODUCTION
    The Day After Roswell Phillip Corso 1 Forward Senator Strom Thurmond When I was first elected to the United States Senate in 1954, the United States and democratic Western governments were locked in a bitter, and sometimes deadly, Cold War with totalitarian Communist governments that sought to expand their bankrupt-ideology throughout the world. Though those who did not live during this era have a hard time picturing it, the 1950s and 1960s were a period in our history when there was a very real need to be concerned about a Communist, especially Soviet, threat to our security and institutions. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I took a lead role in seeking out those in our government who sought to muzzle military personnel who wanted to alert Americans to the threats we faced from our Communist enemies and to speak out against some of the plainly misguided, incorrect and, frankly, dangerous policies of the United States in dealing with the Soviets and Red Chinese. Distinguished officers and patriotic men such as Admiral Arleigh Burke and General Arthur Trudeau were essentially censored by their own government because of the views they espoused about the state of the world and the nature of the threat before our nation. As a veteran of World War II, a commissioned officer in the United States Army Reserve, and a proponent of a strong and comprehensive military, I could not sit idly by and watch our military be undermined by people in government who were sympathetic to Communism. During this period, the Armed Services Committee held extensive hearings into this matter.
    [Show full text]