SpaceFlight A British Interplanetary Society publication

Volume 61 No.7 July 2019 £5.25 50 years ago on the Moon Behind the flight of Apollo 11

Subscriber copy

07> Engineering challenges Landing dramas 634089 The shadow of JFK 770038 9 Subscriber copy CONTENTS Features 12 Engineering the first Lunar Landing The challenges facing NASA in the week up to the first landing centred on getting to the surface. All other phases had already been rehearsed on earlier flights. 12 20 Flight of the Eagle Letter from the Editor Even as Apollo 11’s Lunar Module descended to the Moon, computer readouts and fuel quantity The 50th anniversary of the first levels revealed a vulnerability discovered only humans to land on the Moon is minutes from touchdown. being celebrated in many ways. Here at SpaceFlight we know you want inside stories, anecdotes, 24 So what went wrong? personal reflections and deeper Just how close did Armstrong and Aldrin come insights behind the scenes. In this to crashing on the Moon – not nearly as close as issue and the next we do just that. believed at the time but it was a near thing. I am particularly delighted to 20 include the outstanding 27 Unsung hero contribution of a key figure in the Space professional Fabrizio Bernardini FBIS Apollo engineering fraternity and reflects on the lasting contribution of Howard play the “what if” game regarding Tindall Jr, to the success of Apollo. President Kennedy’s flagging interest in Space. Would he have 30 What if JFK had lived? abandoned the effort if he had lived? Dwayne Day looks at President Kennedy’s record Issues over the Apollo 11 on Space and muses over the possibility that the Apollo programme may have been cancelled had EAGLE mission itself occupy fifteen pages of this magazine and provide JFK not been assassinated. insight to some of the near misses, 24 all caused by imperfect . understanding of the software and of the way the propellant gauging system was configured. Scares at the time which turned out not to Regulars be so terrifying after all. Up and down the UK there will be many events taking place to 2 Behind the news remember Apollo 11 and next Bezos’ Blue Moon – Suits you sir! month, in our second celebratory issue, we will tell you about some 4 Opinion of those as well as completing the 27 story of the flight and recalling the 6 ISS Report experiencesSubscriber of British citizens copy involved in humankind’s greatest 11 April – 8 May 2019 adventure – so far! 36 Multi-media The latest space-related books, games, videos

40 Satellite Digest 558 – April 2019 David Baker [email protected] 44 Society news / Diary 30 COVER: A COMPOSITE IMAGE CREATED BY ED HENGEVELD SHOWING BUZZ ALDRIN LEAVING ALDRIN LEAVING BUZZ ED HENGEVELD SHOWING BY CREATED IMAGE A COMPOSITE COVER: What’s happened/ What’s coming up

OUR MISSION STATEMENT Editor David Baker, PhD, BSc, FBIS, FRHS Sub Editor Ann Page Creative Consultant Andrée Wilson Design & Production MP3 Media Promotion Gillian Norman Advertising Tel: +44 (0)20 7735 3160 Email: [email protected] The British Interplanetary Society Distribution Warners Group Distribution, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincolnshire PE10 9PH, England Tel: +44 (0)1778 promotes the exploration and 391 000 Fax: +44 (0)1778 393 668 SpaceFlight, Arthur C. Clarke House, 27-29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ, use of space for the benefit England Tel: +44 (0)20 7735 3160 Email: [email protected] www.bis-space.com Published monthly by the British Interplanetary Society, SpaceFlight is a publication that promotes the mission of the British of humanity, connecting people Interplanetary Society. Opinions in signed articles are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of to create, educate and inspire, the Editor or the Council of the British Interplanetary Society. Registered Company No: 402498. Registered charity No: and advance knowledge in 250556. The British Interplanetary Society is a company limited by guarantee. Printed in England by Latimer Trend & Co. © 2019 British Interplanetary Society 2017 ISSN 0038-6340. All rights reserved. No part of this magazine may be reproduced all aspects of astronautics. or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording by any information storage or retrieval system without written permission for the Publishers. Photocopying permitted by license only.

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 1 BEHIND THE NEWS

The Blue Moon lunar lander (above). The basic layout of the spacecraft allows for 3.6 tonnes of payload in its uncrewed configuration. BEZOS’ BLUE MOON SubscriberNASA is charged with getting Americans back on thecopy lunar surface. But it BLUE ORIGIN IMAGES: may be an entrepreneur who puts them there. ELECTRIFIED BY THE INSPIRATION that drove for permanent habitation. A test for future colonies. humans to the Moon in 1969, at the 50th anniversary of that seminal event in exploration, corporate REUSABILITY AND COMMONALITY industry and commercial companies are lining up to Since the days of Apollo five decades ago, NASA has have a chunk of that business. Latest to showcase sought to develop hardware that can be used many its design for this renaissance in human space flight times over utilising a minimum set of elements, each is Jeff Bezos and his Blue Moon lander, a spacecraft capable of achieving more than one objective. capable of placing experiments, cargo or humans Supporting that goal, commercial providers are back on the lunar surface – and, he claims, by 2024!. designing equipment that can do just that and this During a choreographed presentation in was the continuing theme of Bezos’ presentation. Washington DC on 9 May, Bezos took his audience Affordable landers that can be adapted and through a debate about the future of humankind, reconfigured according to purpose. addressing environmental pressures, climate change Bezos claims Blue Moon has been evolving over and the escalating over-population of Earth. He went the last three years and signals the shift in pace that on to foretell a world where, if unchecked, there could see the first crewed flight of New Shepard could be insufficient space and resources to contain before the end of this year and New Glenn in 2021. both human expansion and economic growth. His With a desire to compete for a strong place in the solution: leave the planet and provide a habitable new architecture supporting a semi-permanent space for a trillion humans of the future across the presence on the Moon, Blue Origin is a company solar system, beginning with a return to the Moon accelerating its pace and upping its game. Some say,

2 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight BEHIND THE NEWS

potentially to outpace SpaceX and the mainstream corporate providers such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The majority view of Apollo-era astronauts is to put money on Bezos, whose measured, step-by- step approach contrasts with the media-savvy, public-relations focused approach of Elon Musk and Richard Branson. While Musk is all about style, Bezos is about substance, they say. And there is much in the record to support that. With an increasing number of failures plaguing the bid to get Americans back in space from US soil, the boast from both SpaceX and Boeing to achieve that this year may be premature. The Blue Moon lander aims to fill the requirement presented by NASA to provide a means to get a wide range of payloads on the lunar Jeff Bezos: a firm believer in substance over style. surface as fast as possible. It is the second such proposal after that from Lockheed Martin and appears to be a more flexible and sequenced version could carry a crew module with astronauts, programme. Using cryogenic liquid hydrogen/liquid satisfying NASA’s requirement. This version could oxygen propulsion it adopts high-energy also be used to transport roving vehicles, habitation propellants for an integrated system using the fuel modules or logistical supplies before or after a crew to conduct parallel functions. lands on the Moon. Significant steps have been Producing 44.48 kN of thrust and with a specific taken since Apollo. The Lunar Module used oversized impulse of 435 sec with deep-throttle capability, footpads due to uncertainties about the surface the BE-7 cryogenic descent engine will be hot-fired bearing strength. Now they can be much smaller due this summer. Liquid hydrogen boil-off would be to better information. used to maintain a chill on the liquid oxygen tank Bezos is convinced that a first landing with the and from there would be diverted for use as a initial, uncrewed spacecraft could be flown to the reactant with oxygen in fuel cells. This provides a lunar surface in 2023, with the stretch version taking full electrical production system throughout lunar astronauts down a year later. Synergistically, New day/night cycles. Large splayed landing legs permit Shepard, New Glenn and Blue Moon could work landings on surfaces of up to 15º of inclination. collectively to develop the hardware, evaluate the Terrain mapping would be made through LIDAR techniques and demonstrate a reliable system for The Blue Moon lunar lander (above). The basic layout of the spacecraft allows for 3.6 tonnes of payload in its uncrewed configuration. navigation pulses based on existing lunar mapping launching astronauts to the Moon. The only big, of selected surface features. The initial powered unanswered question, is: can he do it by 2024? SF descent burn lasts six minutes, going to a vertical descent 1 km above the surface with an accuracy BELOW at touchdown of 75 m from the designated spot. Four uncrewed The fuel cells ensure sustained high power levels rovers can be carried on the BEZOS’ BLUE MOON for continuous activity and artificial lighting top deck of Blue throughout the lunar night. Moon which could be lowered to the Subscriber copysurface by davits. PARALLEL GROWTH Blue Moon is designed to support integral and deployed science packages and as such is appropriate for pre-positioning supplies and logistical needs of the first crew – something that was sought determinedly during the early months of the Apollo programme but abandoned on cost and schedule integration. Davits at four equal intervals on the top deck would deploy four roving vehicles. Bezos already has several customers for science experiments deployed either to lunar orbit prior to descent or at the surface. A version with stretch propellant tanks would increase payload capacity for landing from 3.6 tonnes to 6.5 tonnes and this

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 3 BEHIND THE NEWS Briefing SECOND ATTEMPT Two days after the first Israeli Moon lander, Beresheet 1, crashed on the lunar surface on 11 April 2019, its successor was announced by Israel Space Industries and Space IL – the venture funded by billionaire Morris Kahn, who put up 40% of the $100 million original cost. We are told that it will take two to three years to get a second spacecraft ready to fly, incorporating changes made as a result of the loss of Beresheet 1. SPACE IL SPACE

TEAM PLAYERS US based company ILS has teamed with Russia’s Glavkosmos to expand the latter’s launcher catalogue, which now includes the Soyuz 2.1a and 2.1b, as well the Proton, copy Breeze and Angara 1.2 launch vehicles. Under the Glavkosmos umbrella, ILS will offer Proton in parallel with GK Launch Services, which itself offers the Soyuz-2. The hope is that the new setup will give Russian providers wider access to the US market, not just for launchers, but for ancillary equipment and services as well. The development of a replacement for the 36-year-old EMU is long overdue. NASA

BUILDING ARIANE Opinion Less thanSubscriber two years after the first launch orders, ArianeGroup has begun building the first 14 pre-production batch of Ariane 6. SO WAS IT WORTH IT? Arianespace is marketing the launcher on the basis of the 62 and 64 (below) variants AT A TIME WHEN WE REMEMBER the achievements of the Apollo and on the re-startable Vinci upper stage programme, and in particular the first landing on the Moon 50 years ago this July, engine. The first example is scheduled to fly it is tempting to draw comparisons with the present day. And to pose the question: in 2021, but it may have a tough fight for was the NASA leadership in 1961 correct in persuading the new incumbent at the orders, given the growing number of class White House, in office barely four months, to set aside his inherently conservative competitors. Long term, ESA is keen to stance on space and commit America to the most ambitious national endeavour develop a reusable core stage to make the since the development of the atomic bomb less than 20 years earlier? cost of launches more competitive. It is no secret that President Kennedy had little interest in space per se, other than in its political value as a symbol of technological virility to convince ESA Congress – the keepers of the federal purse and guardians of the public at large – that it could be exploited for the nation’s benefit. The argument ran that space exploration could be shaped into a confrontational challenge to the Soviet Union, fought not through war or ideological spats, but through the demonstrable power of Western democracy and the free market to lift America’s capabilities beyond those of a centrally planned economy directed by an authoritarian regime. The challenge was great and the cost was immense, but the rewards far outweighed the bills paid by American taxpayers. Apollo propelled the United States into a new age of learning, scientific inquiry and engineering excellence. It

4 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight BEHIND THE NEWS SUITS YOU SIR! Briefing NASA is racing to find a way to fulfil President Trump’s edict for getting Americans back on the Moon within five years. Despite only a minimal EXOMARS WARNING increase in the agency’s budget, there is much to be put in place before a The European Space Agency’s Director- 2024 landing can even be considered feasible. High on the agenda is General Jan Woerner has warned against what sort of space suit the 21st century Moonwalkers will wear. a postponement of the launch of the The reality is that the same space suits worn by Story Musgrave and ExoMars lander from 2020 to 2022, due to Donald Peterson during the first Shuttle EVA in 1983 are still in use aboard concerns over the results of vibration the International Space Station some 36 years later. Periodically serviced, analysis tests. Emphasising the current upgraded and augmented with new kit, the Extravehicular Mobility Units lack of “show stoppers” in the ESA (EMUs) remain essentially unchanged and are in dire need of line-up, he expressed a fear felt replacement. Although their service life is expected extend until 2028, throughout the agency that further delays they are totally inadequate for lunar exploration and missions to Mars. could lead to a loss of confidence among This is a far cry from the Mercury and Gemini days, when each member countries and jeopardise support astronaut had a bespoke suit. With the expansion of the space for further advanced planetary missions. programme, NASA opted for a different approach, in which the astronauts had to fit the suits, rather than the other way round. Originally, 18 suits ESA were commissioned for Shuttle/ISS use. Five were destroyed in the two Shuttle disasters, one was lost in a fire during testing, and one was only for qualification purposes. Eleven suits remain in use, but the problem with the “one size fits all” approach was underlined when the first all-female spacewalk had to be abandoned for want of a suit to fit diminutive astronaut Anne McClain. Cutbacks prevented NASA from procuring the optimum range of sizes envisaged when the EMU suits were designed back in the 1970s. This ExoMars structural model under test. has resulted in poor fit, restricted limb movement, and increased energy expenditure as wearers battle the suit’s inflexibility. During its 36-year service life, NASA has reported in excess of 3,400 anomalies, some of which – such as Luca Parminato’s water leak – were life-threatening. This SPANISH COMEBACK is barely acceptable for Earth-orbit spacewalks, let alone deep-space On 12 April Spain’s PLD Space, supported activity, in which the risks of radiation, micrometeoroid impacts, by ESA, demonstrated the technologies fluctuating temperature levels and fine-grained dust are appreciably copyfor a reusable first stage of their orbital higher. Prompted by the 2005 Constellation programme to put astronauts micro launcher, Miura 5 (formerly Arion 2). back on the Moon, NASA has already spent $200 million over the last 14 This aims to provide dedicated launches years researching a new generation of suits but has so far failed to come for small satellites of up to 300 kg to low up with a definitive design. Now, the agency’s SmartSuit programme has Earth orbit by 2021. Weighing 14 tonnes at turned its attention to an entirely new range of design concepts, including lift-off, Miura 5 is powered by liquid reactive fabrics and amorphous adaptation, in an effort to create a suit oxygen/kerosene engines. A Chinook that will be applicable to both lunar and Martian environments. SF CH-47 helicopter (below) lifted the 15 m long, 1.4 m diameter demonstration stage to an altitude of 5 km then dropped it over a controlled area of the Atlantic Ocean, 6 Subscriber km off the coast of Huelva in southern The challenge was great and the cost was Spain. immense but the rewards far outweighed the bills paid by American taxpayers stimulated the release of funding for education and for investment in research and development, fostering a can-do spirit among the nation as a whole. It created myriad new opportunities among the thousands of companies that were either established or expanded in support of the President’s goal. And it acted as the driver for a technological revolution, in which global satellite communications, the internet and hand-held computing have all become part of everyday life, stimulating economic growth across the planet. Now, that same free market is playing a pivotal role in a fresh challenge – to mobilise international efforts towards a converging goal of human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. This time the impetus comes not so much from the need for a single nation to demonstrate its technological virility, but from a genuine desire on the part of entrepreneurs to reach out into the void and once again attain the highest levels of human capability. Hopefully their actions will inspire new generations to innovate, and to believe in the art of the possible. That alone made the goal of landing on the Moon worthwhile 50 years ago, and it is what

underlines the importance of space exploration to this day. SF David Baker PLD SPACE

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 5 ISS REPORT ISS Report 11 April – 8 May 2019 Expedition 59 is completing its second month of operations under the command of Russian Oleg Kononenko and his crew of flight engineers, Americans Anne McClain, Nick Hague and Christina Koch, Russian Alexei Ovchinin and Canadian David Saint-Jacques. Report by George Spiteri

Dragon was grappled by Canadarm2 at 11:01 UTC on 6 May as the complex flew above the North Atlantic copy Subscriber ISS REPORT

n 11 April, Hague and McClain worked speeches and interviews with Russian media. Hague with ESA’s Airway Monitoring experiment, and Saint-Jacques also acknowledged Gagarin’s which is helping doctors understand On 12 April… achievement by tweeting congratulatory messages what exacerbates the inflammation of an on their twitter accounts. Oastronaut’s airways and how to alleviate Kononenko and this. Koch continued with JAXA’s Cerebral RRM-3 PROBLEM Autoregulation study which investigates how the Ovchinin On 8 April the Robot Refueling Mission-3 (RRM- brain regulates blood flow in microgravity and 3) aboard the ISS “started experiencing issues Saint-Jacques assisted Koch with the ISS Space celebrated the powering up its cryogenic coolers that maintain the Station Experience VR film that depicts life anniversary of Yuri temperature of liquid methane contained within the aboard the ISS to be viewed by future audiences module” and “can no longer perform a cryogenic on Earth. Kononenko and Ovchinin conducted Gagarin’s fuel transfer”, according to NASA. After several cardiovascular and other biomedical research inside troubleshooting attempts, it was determined the the Russian segment and photographed Earth’s spaceflight coolers could not be powered up and as a result landmarks to help predict man-made and natural the temperature began to rise. The liquid methane catastrophes on the planet. turned into gas and was “safely vented from the On 12 April, Cosmonautics Day, Kononenko payload” with no impact on station systems or and Ovchinin celebrated the anniversary of operations. The US space agency said that RRM-3,

ALL IMAGES: NASA ALL IMAGES: Yuri Gagarin’s spaceflight by conducting special which was launched to the ISS on December 2018

(SpaceFlightcopy Vol 61 No. 2 p 16 and SpaceFlight Vol 61 No.5 p 12) and placed outside the station on LEFT Express Logistics Carrier-1 (ELC-1) can still carry The Canadarm2 robotic out “other planned operations with servicing and arm reaches out to grapple the SpaceX Dragon cargo inspection tools”. craft at its capture point 10 13/14 April were light-duty days for the crew metres away. Nick Hague who performed their weekly housekeeping chores, backed up Saint-Jacques conducted exercises and spoke to family and and monitored systems. friends. On 15 April, McClain, Saint-Jacques and Hague BELOW reviewed procedures for the imminent arrival of From left, Anne McClain, the next Cygnus unmanned cargo craft. The crew SubscriberDavid Saint-Jacques and Christina Koch are gathered also continued three more days filming the ISS inside the US Destiny Experience and started work with the Biophysics-6 laboratory. experiment. Kononenko and Ovchinin conducted

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 7 ISS REPORT

the ongoing Russian Motocard investigation going to fly a nine month mission, as will Drew which studies the nature of locomotion Morgan who will stay aboard the ISS from July until disturbances in long-term space flights and worked “it’s great to have next March (SpaceFlight Vol 61 No.6 p 12). with the Konstanta-2 biomedical experiment. Koch collected blood samples for the German/ the SS Roger SS ROGER CHAFFEE ESA Myotones muscle atrophy experiment on Northrop Grumman launched their latest Cygnus 16 April and later partnered Hague for body Chaffee on board spacecraft from Pad OA at the Mid-Atlantic measurements and ultrasound scans to research Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops, Virginia at how microgravity impacts the biomedical …an astronaut who 20:46 UTC (16:46 local time) on 17 April atop an properties of muscles. McClain began three days made the ultimate Antares 230 rocket on the NG-11 resupply mission. setting up the habitat for the Rodent Research-12 Named in honour of astronaut Roger Chaffee, who experiment, which arrived aboard Cygnus to gain sacrifice” died in the Apollo 1 launch pad fire on 27 January insight into the immune system’s response to long- 1967, Cygnus was grappled by Canadarm2 at 09:28 duration spaceflight. She later joined Saint-Jacques UTC on 19 April as the complex flew 408.7 km to sharpen their robotics skills in preparation for above north east France. McClain at the controls of Cygnus’ arrival whilst Kononenko and Ovchinin the robotic arm, radioed “it’s great to have the SS worked with the Kontent psychophysiological Roger Chaffee on board….an astronaut who made experiment. the ultimate sacrifice”. NASA announced on 17 April that Christina BELOW Over two hours later, at 11:31 UTC Cygnus Koch will now stay aboard the ISS until next The Canadarm2 positioned was berthed at the Earth facing port of Unity. February and surpass Peggy Whitson’s duration to grapple the Cygnus cargo Cygnus delivered 3,426 kg of supplies and scientific record for a single space flight by a female astronaut. craft as it approaches experiments including two Astrobee free-flying its capture point. In the Koch told NASA TV audiences “it feels awesome” foreground is the Soyuz cube shaped robots which according to Maria G and tweeted “One month down. Ten to go”. The MS-12 crew ship docked to Bualat of NASA’s Ames Research Center “will be news came as no surprise as Koch was originally the Rassvet module. flying around the United States Orbital Segment (USOS)…helping astronauts out doing some routine chores for them” and Canada’s Bio-Analyser which NASA predicts will be “a more simple, efficient way to analyse blood, saliva and urine” aboard the ISS to accelerate science experiments. NASA also packed over 800 meals for the crew such as pork chops with gravy, smoked turkey, lemon meringue and apricotcopy cobbler. The crew opened the hatches to Cygnus at 17:08 UTC on 19 April and began moving cargo to the station, amongst the first items of which were the 40 mice who were part of the Rodent Research-12 investigation and other critical scientific experiments. Despite being light-duty days, the crew devoted 20/21 April to further cargo transfers and worked with NASA’s Repository biological experiment and the Standard Measures study which examines crew Subscriberperformance and outcomes during spaceflight. The 22 April was Earth Day and Saint-Jacques tweeted that his favourite moment of the day is when he opens the Cupola’s window shutters in the morning and “I have the first view of the planet”. The USOS crew resumed unloading items from Cygnus and used the Mass Measurement Device (MMD) inside the Life Sciences Glovebox (LSG) to study how microgravity impacts the immune system. Their Russian colleagues also continued to unload items from Progress 72, explored enzyme behaviours and studied radiation exposure. There was also a false fire alarm during a T2 COLBERT treadmill session, when the crew reported that “the belt slowed dramatically, a grinding noise was heard”, and the T2 smoke detector triggered a fire alarm, which air measurements confirmed to be false. Initially, NASA reported that T2 “had reached its end life” and was stowed the following day in the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM). However, on 24 April Koch tweeted a photograph of herself conducting repairs to the treadmill and the US Space Agency

8 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG

declared T2 “GO for use after engineers reviewed ABOVE had conducted 28 hr of transfers with approximately the Activation and Checkout (ACO) data”. The SpaceX Dragon cargo 13 hr remaining. McClain worked with an Hague began four days of work on 23 April craft is installed at the experiment which studies her perception and Harmony module’s Earth- collecting urine, blood and saliva samples for facing port. cognition and Hague researched and photographed NASA’s long running Fluid Shifts investigation. a variety of materials for their thermal protection Koch set up hardware for NASA’s Space Fibers and opticalcopy recognition properties. Kononenko study, which was delivered by Cygnus and placed and Ovchinin worked with the Profilaktika-2 inside the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) experiment, which measures the general state and to explore a blend of materials more transparent physical performance of cosmonauts and began a than silica-based glass. McClain installed the 24 hr electrocardiogram (ECG) recording as part of Materials ISS Experiment-Flight Facility (MISSE- the Cosmocard medical study. FF) gear inside Kibo’s airlock before depressurising On 25 April, McClain assisted Hague with the unit. Robotics officers later deployed the ultrasound scans of his eyes, whilst Koch set up new exposed trays outside the station, where they will botany hardware to enable the ongoing research and BELOW study how radiation, the vacuum of space and Alexey Ovchinin (right) and harvesting of lettuce and mizuna under the Veggie micrometeoroids affect a variety of materials. Oleg Kononenko train for Passive Orbital Nutrient Delivery System (PONDS) Kononenko assisted Ovchinin with a cardiovascular the arrival of the Russian experiment and Saint-Jacques resumed further SubscriberProgress 72 (72P) resupply experiment and Saint-Jacques conducted robotics onboard robotics practice for Dragon’s arrival. The training in preparation for the arrival of the next ship. The cosmonauts inside crew activated for 24 hr the Astrobee robots and the Zvezda service module unmanned SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft. practiced using the TORU, the Thermal Amine Scrubber (TAS) was installed, Koch and Saint-Jacques performed further a backup manual docking an upgraded version of the Amine Swingbed which Cygnus cargo operations and by 24 April the crew system. was delivered by Cygnus and will be used as a long term CO2 scrubber. On 2 May, the TAS experienced a temporary shutdown due to high pressure in one of the beds and ground controllers commanded the hardware into safe mode and reactivated TAS on 6 May. The crew also received a special call from Houston when Peanuts’ famous beagle “Snoopy” visited mission control in commemoration of the upcoming 50th anniversary of Apollo 10. The Lunar Module was named after the comic strip character for the final mission before the lunar landing. McClain and Hague conducted more ultrasound scans the following day, whilst Kononenko and Ovchinin performed maintenance to the life support systems inside the Russian segment and studied ways to maximise the effectiveness of exercise in weightlessness. Koch devoted her

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 9 SATELLITES

attention to the Rodent Research-12 facility and Saint-Jacques answered questions from students in Prince Edward Island, Canada. During the crew’s light-duty weekend 27/28 April, they monitored the Veggie PONDS facility and Saint-Jacques tweeted spectacular photos of Vancouver’s snow-capped mountains and giant glaciers on the mountains of southern Chile.

POWER PROBLEM On 29 April, NASA reported that teams had identified an issue with the electrical power system and were “working to identify the root cause and restore full power to the system”. A NASA blog said there was “an issue” with one of the four Main Bus Switching Units (MBSU 3), which distributes electrical power to two of the eight power channels on the ISS. Flight controllers in mission control, Houston were “working to route power through the remaining six power channels” and added there were “no immediate concerns for the crew or the station”. The station had 25% of its power reduced and ABOVE stage of the Falcon 9 rocket made a successful the supply failure temporarily affected Canadarm2’s The six spacecraft docked landing on the drone ship, marking SpaceX’s 39th redundancy, KU-band communication, the Alpha at the ISS as of 8 May 2019. booster landing. Magnetic Spectrometer-02 (AMS-02) and caused Dragon was grappled by Canadarm2 at 11:01 a two day delay to the launch of Dragon, which UTC on 6 May as the complex flew above the needed a fully functioning Canadarm2 for its North Atlantic. NASA reported that Saint-Jacques, grapple. On 1/2 May, ground controllers used who was at the controls of Canadarm2 inside Canadarm2 and the Special Purpose Dexterous the Cupola, was the first Canadian to capture a Manipulator (SPDM) or Dextre, to replace and The USOS crew spacecraft using the robotic arm. He radioed that swap the faulty MBSU and following checks as a Canadian he was “proud every time we use returned the ISS to a full power capacity. ISS devoted most of 7 Canadarm2”. Justcopy before Dragon’s capture Hague Mission Operations Integration Manager Kenny told Houston he could see “a cable six feet to ten Todd confirmed this during Dragon’s pre-launch May to unloading feet (1.82 to 3.04 metres) in length running down briefing when he said “I got the thumbs up”. This from maybe the bottom of the capsule down was the second successful replacement and swap cargo from Dragon into the service module”. Engineers believed the out of an MBSU by other means other than an EVA. with Koch mystery line was probably a connector from the The crew meanwhile continued with their Transporter Erector which incorrectly separated scientific research and performed routine enthusiastically from Dragon during launch. maintenance between 30 April and 5 May with At 13:32 UTC Dragon was berthed by robotic Saint-Jacques jotting down his impressions of life in tweeting; “Let the officers in Houston onto the Earth facing port of space in a private journal for the Behavioural Core cargo ops begin!” Harmony. Dragon delivered about 2,500 kg of MeasuresSubscriber study. McClain re-activated the Astrobee supplies and experiments including the Orbiting robots inside Kibo for another test run, Koch Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) payload housed again worked with fibre samples in the MSG and in Dragon’s unpressurised trunk, which according continued to work for several days with the Rodent to Project Scientist Dr. Annemarie Eldering will be Research-12 hardware. Kenny Todd reiterated the “trying to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide” importance of the Rodent Research-12 experiment, from space; the Hermes investigation whose describing it as “right now one of our biggest creator Dr. Kristen John said, aims “to study the emphasis” aboard the ISS. surface materials of asteroids” and the Tissue Chips experiment to better understand diseases. The DRAGON FLIGHT hatches to Dragon were opened later the same day Following a further one day delay due to an with Koch tweeting that the crew had begun to electrical issue with the thrusters that stabilise “unpack all of the awesome science, hardware and SpaceX’s drone ship “Of Course I Still Love You” supplies onboard!” approximately 20 km off the Florida coast and also The USOS crew devoted most of 7 May what SpaceX described as a “ground side helium to unloading cargo from Dragon with Koch leak”, SpaceX launched its Dragon spacecraft atop enthusiastically tweeting; “Let the cargo ops a Falcon 9 rocket at 06:48 UTC (02:48 local time) begin!” McClain continued work with the Rodent on 4 May from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Research-12 experiment and joined Kononenko Canaveral on the Commercial Resupply Services-17 and Hague for the Fluid Shifts investigation. (CRS-17) mission. This was the second flight for ABOVE On 8 May, the crew performed the ActiWatch Alexey Ovchinin of this Dragon, it having previously flown to the ISS Roscosmos and NASA’s experiment, which measures an astronaut’s sleep on the CRS-12 mission (SpaceFlight Vol 59 No.11 Nick Hague and Christina cycle and spent a second day working with the new pp 408-409). At 8 min 30 sec after launch, the first Koch in the Rassvet module. Micro-14 pathogen study. SF

10 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight copy Subscriber SPACE HISTORY

Engineering the first lunar LANDINGcopy To flush out any anomalies, the May 1969 flight of Apollo 10 had followed a similar timeline to the one planned for the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission. But now it was time to deliver the hard bit. by David Baker

ll essential elements of Apollo 10 (SpaceFlight Vol 61 No 5, p 22) were Subscriberaligned with the flight plan for Apollo 11 and nothing was shown by that mission that would compromise the essential A NASA ALL IMAGES: timeline for the first landing attempt. However, for very obvious reasons, while the general impression has always been that the pinnacle of the Apollo programme was achieved with the first successful landing, in reality it was a political, media and public relations milestone – albeit a very big one! The perception that it was the end of the race was only true in the sense that it achieved Kennedy’s original goal – of landing an astronaut on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. That mindset was not shared by those who saw the initial landing as the culmination of a lengthy series ABOVE beginning with Mission A, a test of the Apollo heat of engineering development flights that had been Post-Apollo 10 shield (fulfilled by Apollo 4 in November 1967 and briefing, clockwise mapped out before crewed operations even started. from bottom left: Apollo 6 in April 1968). Mission B preceded the second It had been NASA’s Owen Maynard who had set Michael Collins, “A” flight to test the unmanned Lunar Module (Apollo down a series of increasingly more complex flights Buzz Aldrin, Gene 5 in January 1968) and was followed by Mission C, leading to the full expansion of Apollo’s hardware Cernan, Tom the first crewed Apollo flight (Apollo 7 in October capabilities. And in that sense, Apollo 11 would be Stafford, Neil 1968). Mission D was to have been a combined flight Armstrong and the end of a phase, not the programme. John Young. of Apollo and the Lunar Module but when the LM was In 1967 Maynard devised a stepladder approach delayed it was preceded by Mission C-prime (Apollo

12 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG Of marginal value, it was a complex project that cost nearly $2 million

copy

8 in lunar orbit during December 1968) and the ABOVE km across the lunar surface before they touched down. original objective was met in March 1969 (Apollo Artists used It was this phase that worried engineers and mission Subscriberpaintbrushes and 9). Mission E, supposedly a repeat of “B” but in high airbrushes to planners the most – which is why the first landing orbit, was dispensed with, and superseded by Mission recreate the lunar flight was significantly less ambitious than the one F of Apollo 10 fame. surface on each originally planned to eliminate any extraneous activity The G mission in Owen Maynard’s sequence of of four models that might tie up the crew, the hardware or the software alphabet-steps was the one that would finally qualify comprising the and impede a safe landing. Lunar Orbit and the Apollo hardware for the several H-series lunar Landing Approach exploration flights to come. While it is technically (LOLA) simulator at ENGINEERS V. SCIENTISTS more appropriate to place the first manned landing Langley Research The decision to downsize the Apollo 11 mission and on the Moon as a precursor to the full potential of Center. A scanning place it firmly with the preceding series of engineering TV camera would the programme itself, the popular perception of it give a rendition of qualification and demonstration missions was made is hard to shift. Downgrading Apollo 11 to one of what it was like to during late 1968, when it was realised that the two the development flights runs counter to the received fly over the Moon. biggest challenges – reaching the surface and getting wisdom that a survivable lunar landing represented Of marginal value, back up to dock with the orbiting mothership – were the pinnacle achievement. It did not. It was about it was a complex big enough in themselves. No longer could Apollo project that cost fulfilling the potential of the hardware, realised nearly $2 million. 11 be considered the first in a series of operational first with the H-series and then with the expanded flights along the lines of Maynard’s H and J steps. By potential of the J-series upgrades. cutting back on surface tasks and limiting the mission Apollo programme engineers considered Apollo objectives primarily to an engineering verification 11 to be a high-risk venture. The final descent to the of landing and lift-off procedures, the programme surface would take a mere twelve minutes or so to promised a smoother transition to the full operational cover the last 15,000 m of the journey. It would follow phase commencing with Apollo 12. a sloping trajectory that would carry the crew 480 This satisfied the demands of the engineers and

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 13 SPACE HISTORY

Michael Collins (Gemini X); and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin (Gemini XII). Initially defined as Command Pilot, Senior Pilot and Pilot, reflecting the crew’s functional responsibilities aboard the CSM, these roles took on a much more concrete identity when seen in the context of a lunar landing. In command of the overall mission, Armstrong was also the man who would “fly” the LM down to the surface. Aldrin’s role was essentially that of systems engineer – not in control of the CSM or the LM at any point, but tasked with monitoring the hardware and computer displays, and with feeding his LM pilot a constant stream of readouts while Armstrong’s attention was focused largely on the sights beyond his cabin window. Collins, meanwhile, had responsibility for the CSM, for controlling the spacecraft during its various manoeuvres, and for guidance and navigation on both the outbound and inbound legs of the journey. This set the pattern for every Apollo lunar flight: the CM pilot would handle the CSM with inputs from the LMP, and would hence graduate to Commander on any subsquent mission. The crew for Apollo 11 had also changed since it was first announced on 20 November 1967. At that time, Jim Lovell was in line for CMP slot until he technicians tasked with readying the hardware ABOVE was replaced by Collins. Lovell himself had replaced and honing the final mission plans. They certainly Following Collins on Apollo 8 after the latter underwent surgery clearance for didn’t want science getting in the way of what in their Apollo 11’s landing to remove a bone spur and was then recycled back eyes was a purely engineering-orientated exercise. attempt, the into the roster. Despite having flown so recently, Henceforth, there would be a minimal amount of mission plaque is Lovell was offered to Armstrong as replacement for scientific activity conducted on the surface, but cast for placement Aldrin, who was in line for the LMP slot but who nothing that might compromise the mission’s primary on the forward many perceived to be difficult to work with – not ideal landing leg of the objectives. The number of EVAs, originally set at two, Lunar Module. on such a momentouscopy flight. Armstrong, however, was reduced to one, and work on the surface was declined, pointing out that he had never experienced limited to tasks that would enhance the operational any personal issues with Aldrin. The back-up crew thus capabilities of subsequent flights. consisted of Lovell, Anders and Haise, with a support Instead of staying on the surface for over 30 hours, crew comprising Mattingly, Evans and Pogue. the astronauts would remain there for less than 22 hours. Similarly, instead of transporting and deploying “To hell with FROM ANALOGUE TO DIGITAL the first ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments The precision with which the flight plan and the Package) of science experiments, the first Moonwalkers the scientific numerous operations books were prepared for each would deploy a downsized version, the EASEP (Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package), incorporating community” two experiments:Subscriber a seismometer and a laser ranging retroreflector LR³. The crew’s traverses were to be kept Frank Borman to within a short range of the LM and the formalities – which, on this first landing, were unavoidable – would be limited to raising the Stars and Stripes and receiving a brief telephone call from the President. None of the astronauts, either, liked the idea of science compromising the solid engineering focus of these early flights. In reality it was hard enough convincing some of them of the need to shape their flights around expeditionary, rather than qualification, objectives. It had been the same with the Gemini RIGHT programme. When attending a meeting with NASA The Apollo 11 boss Jim Webb over what science was to be conducted Command and on later Apollo flights, Frank Borman exploded with Service Module (CSM-107) in the words: “To hell with the scientific community”. KSC’s Manned Most of the astronauts felt the same. Spacecraft Post-flight analysis of the Apollo 10 mission Operations quickly dismissed any reasons for not progressing Building being to the G-mission and the first landing attempt. By moved from work station 134 for circumstance, rather than design, Apollo 11 had mating to the an all-veteran crew consisting of Commander Neil Spacecraft Lunar Armstrong (Gemini VIII); Command Module Pilot Module Adapter.

14 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY flight was essential for successful integration attempting to gain lunar orbit. Others envisaged using between the ground and the spacecraft in flight. the LM’s DPS engine to prevent the assembly impacting They matured through numerous simulations and Each mission the surface. Even combinations of main propulsion rehearsals that engaged flight controllers in a wide systems and RCS thrusters were explored to get the range of possible contingency plans as well as the had a range crew safely out of a problem and back to Earth. primary mission objectives. Projected by the Office of Public Affairs, there was a Each mission had a range of optional measures of optional degree of reluctance to talk about possible contingency to be taken should a major system fail. For measures to plans on the basis that it might clutter the news media example, if the S-IVB failed to ignite a second time with unnecessary information at a time when NASA to propel the stack out of Earth orbit, a contingency be taken wanted to focus on the mission’s success. For the mission based on remaining in Earth orbit was record, the press materials did outline the basics of the available, and had been pre-planned and simulated. should a contingency options. But for the flight documentation, For Apollo 11 there were six alternative missions there was much to learn and rehearse in the simulators, that flight controllers could immediately switch major system mostly related to critical emergencies. Alternative to, of which Option 3 had four sub-options – nine mission profiles would follow an ordered sequence of in all. Some contingency plans accommodated fail carefully studied procedures, each stitched together an Earth-orbit mission similar to that of Apollo from separate sets of well-understood principles. 9, including extraction of the LM. Others Key to the mission planning was the hybrid use accommodated high-apogee flights, the parameters of computers, part digital and part analogue, linked for which were contingent on precisely when the together to operate as a single unit. This computing S-IVB failed. There was even a contingency for power was harnessed for everything from abort flying a lone circumlunar mission if the LM failed analysis and dispersion measurements to designing the to separate after TLI, in which the CSM pressed on BELOW displays for flight controllers. Mission design usually Thomas Paine regardless, repeating the flight of Apollo 8. (right), NASA started around a year before the planned launch, Contingency aborts, too, were studied in great Administrator, with changes factored in as requirements evolved or detail. While most readers are familiar with aborts discusses hardware changes impacted the overall plan. Karl Huss, during the launch phase, deep-space aborts on the the Apollo 11 chief of the Flight Analysis Branch, was responsible for way to the Moon, in lunar orbit, or on the return mission with Vice the specific trajectory design for particular missions. President Spiro home are more of an unknown quantity. Three Agnew at the He was a stickler for procedure, and the bane of many abort modes were planned and simulated in the Launch Control astronauts’ lives! Some 90% of the analyses covered event that the SPS engine shut down early while Center, KSC. abort and contingencycopy procedures, and only around Subscriber

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 15 SPACE HISTORY

10% on the actual mission itself, permitting the BELOW scenario had been tried out in Earth orbit during sharing of information between flights or where there Development Apollo 9 and again on Apollo 10, this time in lunar of the Mission were areas of common concern. Control concept, orbit. It was for this reason that the Apollo 10 rehearsal Jumping ahead in the story, all of this came together along with its was so key to closing the loops on the final mission remarkably well when separate procedural protocols associated design for Apollo 11, when the actual landing attempt were laced together to bring Apollo 13 home in April computer software just might need the know-how gained from a tested 1970 after the original flight plan had to be torn up and hardware procedure to save the lives of the crew. configurations, and re-written. It was only because all the individual evolved at NASA’s procedures had been worked out beforehand that Langley Research FLIGHT PLANNING attention could be focused on finding creative ways Center in Virginia, The Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) was to keep the stricken spacecraft supplied with water, pictured below. It located on the first floor of the Mission Control Center, was out of here oxygen and electrical power. that the Manned where 200 programmers had once worked for 18 In fact, many of the emergency procedures had Spacecraft Center months on a single Gemini rendezvous mission. The already been tested and simulated on preceding flights. (renamed Johnson RTCC was supplemented by an Auxiliary Computer One example was the expanded propellant tankage Space Center) in Room in which high-speed computers handled on the Lunar Module made available when Grumman Houston emerged. computations for unexpected problems that none accommodated a requirement for the LM’s Descent of the conventional flight planning had anticipated. Propulsion System to fire for an extended period Both facilities grew hand in hand with the demands of should the Apollo Service Propulsion System became the Apollo programme, with precedence given to the inoperative after placing the docked vehicles in lunar development flights. orbit. That very nearly happened on Apollo 16, when it Apollo 11 was the third flight to the Moon. Like looked as if the landing would have to be aborted and Apollos 8 and 10 before it, the mission would proceed the DPS used to get the spacecraft out of lunar orbit on the basis of a series of go/no-go decision gates, and back to Earth. each built on the learning of previous flights. The Another possible contingency was the requirement first gate would occur at 10min elapsed time into the to abort the landing, then use the LM’s Ascent Stage to flight, when Mission Control would provide a ‘go’ for free the crew from the failing Descent Stage and return orbit insertion having verified that all the S-IVB and them to the CSM in lunar orbit. That “fire-in-the-hole” spacecraft systems copylooked good. The second gate came Subscriber

16 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY for Trans-Lunar Injection, and for separating from the back the number of instrumentation points from 2,342 upper stage, re-docking and extracting the LM. There on AS-505 (Apollo 10) to 1,348 on AS-506 (Apollo 11). were then separate go/no-gos for each of the several If the CSM Early shutdown of the centre engine on both first and planned Mid-Course Correction (MCC) manoeuvres. second stages was retained for Apollo 11 to ease the Separate decision gates followed for each of the two experienced a vertical oscillations and to limit acceleration; baseline Lunar Orbit Insertion burns (LOI), for undocking thrust for the S-IC stage at lift-off was now 33,805 kN, of the CSM and the LM, for Descent Orbit Insertion major system increasing to 40,425 kN at centre-engine cut-off. (DOI) and for Powered Descent Initiation (PDI). failure, the The launch window for Apollo 11 ran for 4 hr 22 During the powered descent phase, Mission Control min from 09:32:00 am local time on 16 July, providing would issue another decision gate for landing – again LM would a Sun elevation angle at landing of 9.9-12.6º and an dependent on what the various systems were telling SPS propellant reserve of 518 m/sec targeting Landing ground staff about the state of the spacecraft. This abort the Site-2. Additional launch windows were available two applied not just to the LM, but to the CSM in orbit; if and five days later, but nobody wanted to go on 21 the CSM experienced a major systems failure, the LM landing and July because the targeted site would have migrated would abort the landing and return immediately to the west to LS-5, for which location a 6.3-9º Sun angle ailing mothership. return was presented depending on the time in the window, Assuming all went well, several go/no-go gates immediately accessible only by a hybrid trajectory. After that, the would accompany each lunar orbit of the CSM, the opportunity shifted to 14 August – the first of three idea being to give the LM an opportunity to leave the to the ailing windows that month. surface when its mothership reached a favourable Assuming that the launch took place some time in position for rendezvous. These were known as ‘T-stays’, mothership July but that a landing was not achieved by Apollo 11, the first occurring minutes after the lunar landing. the next opportunity for a Saturn V/Apollo launch Further decision gates accompanied the EVA, ascent was in mid-September. However, if Apollo 11 was and rendezvous, Trans-Earth Injections and Earth- successful in putting astronauts on the lunar surface, bound MCCs. NASA management had already decided to skip There were other refinements, too, based on the the September launch window and fly Apollo 12 in experience of the four preceding manned Apollo November. flights. On the Saturn V launch vehicle, NASA stripped The flight copyplan assumed a period of 21 hr 27 min Subscriber

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 17 SPACE HISTORY

on the lunar surface. This included an initial eat and OPPOSITE for collecting small rocks. A gnomon was to be set rest period followed by an EVA starting approximately Astronauts down on the surface to establish the local gravitational rehearse escape 9 hr 39 min after landing and lasting around 2 hr 40 from a Command vertical and the astronauts would carry two Sample min. A further eat and sleep period would follow prior Module in post- Return Containers (SRCs) for sealing up to 59 kg of to preparation for lift-off. Rendezvous procedures splashdown Stable surface material in sample bags along with the tools. would largely follow those rehearsed by Apollo 10. II (upturned) In the event that it proved impossible to remain A considerable amount has been written about position with outside the LM, a contingency sample bag was available scuba-divers the discussion regarding which crewmember should on hand – one for Armstrong to take with him to the surface so that step out on to the lunar surface first – a decision with of many routine he would at least have a “handful” of lunar material far-reaching implications, since it would go down in training sessions to bring back. In the event of a satisfactory EVA, a so- history as the most outstanding achievement of the underpinning a called Lunar Equipment Conveyor (LEC) – essentially successful flight. century, and the name of the first astronaut to set foot a clothes line looped through a pulley on the top of on another world would be remembered by humans for the LM’s Descent Stage – allowed one crewmember millennia. The initial decision followed the convention standing on the surface to haul the SRCs up to a second of the Gemini programme (and Apollo 9) whereby on the porch. This was the method used on all Apollo the first (or only) person out was the pilot, leaving the flights to carry objects back up to the LM. Commander inside. This had been the way it had been A contingency when Ed White became the first American to conduct EYEBALL TO EYEBALL an EVA in June 1965, and everyone assumed that the sample bag The flight of Apollo 11 was conducted under the same would apply to the Apollo Moonwalks – although most intense scrutiny – from the media and the this time the stakes were much higher. was available public alike – of any space flight before or since. The The best technical advice was that Armstrong for Armstrong success of NASA’s publicity machine was a triumphant should be first out because of his relative position vindication of the policy of openness and visibility that inside the LM, which meant that the way the hatch …so he would had been adopted by the agency since its inception and opened favoured the left side of the Ascent Stage. It has become the hallmark of its activities ever since. was also pointed out that Aldrin was a serving military at least have Mike Collins was responsible for the design of officer while Armstrong was a civilian and therefore the emblem, which incorporated a suitably patriotic better equipped to deliver NASA’s essentially peaceful a “handful” American Bald Eagle (suggested by Jim Lovell), message of human scientific endeavour. carrying an olive branch in its talons (proposed by Some writers have alluded to the issue of the of lunar senior simulator supervisor Tom Wilson). The imagery astronauts’ personalities and characters, Aldrin being material to supported the crew’s specific intention, which was to considered somewhat feisty and unmanageable, while underline the non-military nature of the mission and Armstrong was typically quiet and unassuming. bring back the humanistic goalscopy of the Apollo programme. The True to form, Aldrin was furious when he heard that same applied to the message inscribed on the plaque Armstrong would be first out and tried to get other that was riveted to the forward landing leg of the LM Lunar Module Pilots already assigned to later missions and to the call-signs chosen for the spacecraft. Lunar to engage with an “appeal”, inferring that they, too, Module LM-5, was christened Eagle, while Apollo would have to take “second best” if a precedent was set. CSM-107 received the name Columbia – the former to But the others refused and the matter rested. resonate with the national goal set by the United States, BELOW Surface activity was to consist of deploying the Essential for the latter to acknowledge the vision of French writer EASAP equipment and conducting a documented analysing flight Jules Verne, who had predicted a flight to the Moon sample collection, with most of the photography operations – the made from Florida in a spaceship named Columbiad. conducted by Armstrong. The only tools available for much-expanded Unsurprisingly, various myths have also entered the what was considered to be merely a precursor for the Real Time annals of Apollo history, one of which surrounds the SubscriberComputer Complex serious geological work planned for later missions were on the ground floor contents of Armstrong’s Personal Preference Kit (PPK) a large scoop for obtaining loose surface material, an of the Mission – a ditty bag in which each crewmember could carry a extension handle, a core tube, and hammer and tongs Control Center. selection of personal items and mementoes once they had been cleared for flight. In actual fact Armstrong took with him a splinter of wood from the propeller of the Wright Flyer – the first heavier-than-air flying machine to demonstrate sustained flight under power – along with a piece of fabric from the aircraft’s wing. On behalf of the widows of the astronauts killed in the Apollo I fire, Armstrong also carried a small pin that had been given to Deke Slayton to pass on to the first crew to reach the lunar surface; it had originally been intended to commemorate the flight on Apollo 1. Another myth concerns a memento that was supposedly carried to the Moon and left on the surface by Armstrong in memory of his daughter Karen Anne, who died of a brain tumour in 1962 at less than two years of age. This featured in the film First Man but has no basis in fact. The same goes for other supposed facts about Armstrong’s life that were planted in the film for “dramatic effect” – as if the story of Apollo 11’s flight to the Moon wasn’t dramatic enough. SF

18 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG

copy Subscriber

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 19 SPACE HISTORY

Flight of the EAGLE Everything about Apollo 11’s outbound journey had been rigorously rehearsed beforehand, except for the one remaining and critical piece in the puzzle – the actual descent to the lunar surface. copy by David Baker

here were no significant departures from the BELOW been calculated on the basis of maximum safety and Apollo 10 flight plan and Apollo 11’s TLI The upside-down minimal propellant use. Selection of the 15,240 m burn was performed so that the docked Eagle pictured by perilune for Descent Orbit Insertion (DOI) prior Michael Collins vehicles would pass the Moon at an altitude shortly after the to Powered Descent Initiation (PDI) was in a sense T of 1,300km. An evasive burn to avoid the Lunar Module’s arbitrary, since there was very little impact on trajectory of the spent S-IVB was conducted at 4 hr separation from propellant consumption compared to lower or higher 40 min 01 sec – a 3.4 sec SPS burn to move perilune the Apllo 11 CSM altitudes. It all came down to choosing a safe height for to 333km. Only one of the four MCC manoeuvres Columbia. rescue by the CSM, should the LM become partially or was conducted,Subscriber performed with the SPS engine on completely disabled. Columbia, for a 6.43 m/sec velocity change at 26 hr 44 With the LM’s descent engine delivering an initial min 58 sec. This shifted perilune still further in at T/W (thrust/mass) ratio of 0.3:1, the optimum 116km. trajectory showed a profile in which propellant The pre-planned sequence of events consumption at DOI was slightly reduced, for the two Lunar Orbit Insertion burns due to the selected perilune being not were followed shortly thereafter by quite so low as was theoretically an inspection of the LM systems by possible – the counter-intuitive effect Armstrong and Aldrin (they had of using less propellant at DOI for made a brief evaluation on the way minimal impact on PDI (which to the Moon). Following a rest required a ΔV of 1,806 m/sec). period, the crew donned their suits Calculations showed that PDI and sealed themselves in the Lunar should commence approximately Module from about 95 hr 20 min. In 407 km uprange of the landing Columbia, Collins prepared for two site, following a flat descent path days alone and the two spacecraft that terminated in a 9º flight path separated at 100 hr 12 min. angle at its terminal phase, with The final hardware qualification vertical descent from 30 m. and operating procedures for Apollo Shaping the latter portions of had always been intended to cover all the flight path so that the crew could future landings, and ground rules were actually see the landing site as they laid to ensure flexibility for the following approached was a key aspect of the trajectory flights. The basic parameters for descent had design. Until that point, the astronauts were

20 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG

copy Subscriber

either facing up at the sky or down at the surface, but ABOVE to the landing phase. This was projected to last around not where they were going. Modifying the trajectory Superimposed on 1 min 30 sec before giving way to a manual takeover for a view through accordingly carried a propellant penalty, resulting one of Eagle’s the final vertical descent phase from a height of around in a challenging trade-off. The profiling strategy was cabin windows, 20 m – a powered descent nominally lasting a total of based on the requirement for a c.e.p. (circular error the guidance- 11 min 36 sec. ALL IMAGES: NASA ALL IMAGES: probability, in which 50% of landing attempts would be commanded The ΔV requirement for the various sections of the successful within a given radius) of 1,000 m. throttle settings descent had 79.6% of the 2,004 m/sec attributed to the during descent The four parts of the powered descent to the surface began with a braking phase, consuming 84.97% of the LM’s 7,294 began with the braking phase, providing deceleration low-thrust level to kg of propellant. This left the balance to be divided at an efficient rate for reducing orbital velocity and settle the thrust between the approach phase (13.1% ΔV / 9.67% bringing the perilune down to a subsurface point, vector through propellant), the landing phase (5.88% / 4.37%), and the the spacecraft’s lasting 8 min 26 sec. Then came the final approach centre of mass. vertical descent phase (1.34% / 0.96%). phase, lasting 1 min 40 sec and starting at 2,286 m – a position known as “High Gate” that gave the pilot REAL TIME visibility of the landing area. The approach terminated The procedures pioneered by Apollo 10 framed the at Low Gate, at an altitude of around 152 m, giving way timeline on this final engineering qualification

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 21 SPACE HISTORY

flight, with DOI performed on the far side of the Moon at 101 hr 36 min 14 sec, – a 28 sec firing of the Descent Stage engine placing the LM in an orbit of 105.9 km by 15.7 km. This was a critical manoeuvre. Had it lasted a mere four seconds longer, imposing an overburn of just 3.65 m/sec (13km/hr), it would have resulted in the perilune being lower than the surface. If uncorrected, that would have sent the LM crashing into the Moon before it reached the lowest point on the new elliptical orbit. Tracking and position data was crucial to obtain the correct parameters for the burn, which is why it was monitored by the AGS and by range-rate measurements with the CSM. The Powered Descent Initiation phase commenced at 102 hr 33 min 05 sec – a mere 17 minutes after coming into view of Earth tracking stations – with the engine throttled at 10% (imperceptible to the crew either in terms of sound or deceleration). This was to allow the attitude of the LM to settle down so that ABOVE on either of the three LM qualification flights. The the thrust vector could be aligned by the computer Crucial to visually navigation officer, Steve Bales, was similarly perplexed aligning with through the centre of mass. Only then, 26 seconds the projected until computer specialists in the back room shouted to later, did the engine go to full throttle. On-board landing spot on keep going, at which point Bales instructed Capcom predictions indicated that the engine should begin to the surface was Charlie Duke to inform the crew “We’re go on that throttle down, balancing the decreasing mass of the the Landing Point a l a r m”. spacecraft with the optimised deceleration/propellant Designator, a Armstrong always expressed a quiet determination series of marks on consumption ratio. the window cued that if he started in on the landing run, he was going Since ignition, the crew had been face-down with from the computer. to set Eagle down come what may – and he lived up respect to the lunar surface, taking crater sightings for to that promise, pressing on for a full 30 seconds a rough verification of their position. At 3 min 52 sec, before the all-clear on the alarm was received. Then, at an altitude of 13,990 m above the surface, the LM 40 seconds after the first warning, the alarm flashed began to roll heads-up (in effect, a yaw manoeuvre) so up again, by which time the LM was approaching that the crew could start making star sightings and later High Gate – the end of the braking phase and the – when it began to pitch forward, closer to the surface commencement of copya gradual throttle-down and pitch- – watch the lunar horizon creep up from the bottom of over signifying the transition from horizontal flight to their windows. vertical descent. Rotating the LM through 180º to a heads-up BELOW High Gate was reached at 8 min 28 sec into the burn orientation also enabled the landing radar on the rear Anxious moments when the engine was throttled back and Programme underside of the Descent Stage to gain lock on the for Capcom 64 (P64) was entered into the computer. The LM was surface at a height of 11,280 m. In fact there was an Charlie Duke (left) now at an altitude of 2,173 m. Just five seconds later, and behind Duke Δh (difference in height) of 670 m from the predicted Jim Lovell back at the landing radar was switched to its second movable value, which was not readily attributable to variations Mission Control in position so that it could obtain readings from the in terrain. But this did not fall outside red lines, so the Houston. surface as Eagle gradually pitched forward. Auto data was incorporated into the AGC at an altitude of 9,632 mSubscriber and converged to an error of 30 m within 30 seconds. Landing radar velocity updates began to flow in at a height of 8,840 m. On board the LM, the crew roles were clear: Armstrong flew the machine while Aldrin served as flight engineer, reading out displays and providing information so that his Commander could receive computer updates on their position. The Landing Point Designator (LPD), which consisted of a series of marks and numbers on the forward facing windows, was critical in helping Aldrin cross-check what the computer was telling him with what he actually saw. From these readings, along with Doppler signals from the ground and landing radar updates, it appeared that the descent path was high by 853 m, which in turn meant that the landing spot would be further downrange from the designated landing ellipse. The first radar altitude readings came in at 5 min 40 sec. However, prior to that, at 5 min 17 sec, the master alarm sounded and a computer 1202 alarm lit up. At that point, nobody knew what was happening. The 1202 alarm code was one of several. It had not been seen in training simulations on Earth, nor

22 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY

Due to a combination of navigational and procedural errors, the LM landed 5.55 km “long” in what turned out to be very nearly in unacceptable terrain close to the depression known as West Crater. Manual override allowed Armstrong to move the landing 335 m downrange and 122 m south-west of where the guidance system under P-64/P-65 computer control was taking them. Had the auto- guidance been allowed to proceed to the location the computer believed was correct, the LM would have been destroyed or a last-second abort would have been required to save the crew. Only through the piloting skill of Neil Armstrong was this first lunar landing attempt a success. This is all the more admirable given that Armstrong’s attention was drawn from scanning the surface by the persistent alarms during the approach phase. He was only able to begin focused manual touchdown point selection close to Low Gate, steering 400 m away from the depression in the surface that could have ended the mission there and then. The Apollo 11 Mission Report was succinct in its findings, pinpointing five separate issues, all of which were solvable. “The onboard state-vector errors at Powered Descent Initiation resulted from a combination of the following: a) uncoupled guidance came in at 8 min 58 sec. Fourteen seconds ABOVE thruster firings during the docked landmark tracking after that, another alarm – this time a 1201 – sounded. West Crater which exercise; b) unaccounted-for velocity accrued during Armstrong took This signified the same type of executive overload as time to avoid undocking and subsequent inspection and station- 1202 and again Mission Control gave a “go” to continue. during the final keeping activity; c) descent orbit insertion residual; There were two more 1202 alarms before Eagle was phase of the d) propagated errors in the lunar potential function; placed in attitude-hold and P66 went in, at 10 min 17 descent. e) Lunar Module venting.” But there was also concern sec, enabling Armstrong to take manual control and re- about the amountcopy of propellant left when Armstrong designate the touchdown site away from a boulder field. took longer than expected to set the LM down on the lunar surface – a critical factor in the more precisely BOUNDLESS BOULDERS targeted H and J series missions to come. As Capcom Apollo 11 was descending into an area outside the Charlie Duke’s anxious voice read out the remaining projected landing ellipse, which necessitated an seconds of propellant available (actually the countdown extended period of translation to a safe touchdown site to a mandatory abort), the general belief during the based purely on visual searching. At an altitude of 35 landing was that Eagle was running out of time. BELOW m, Armstrong first noted dust fanning out across the The Apollo 11 When the first call came up of “60 seconds”, Eagle surface under the blast of the descent engine, and this descent trajectory was still more than 9 m above the surface. When the became more apparent the lower he went. Touchdown with angles of “30 seconds” call was made, Armstrong was carefully occurred at 12 min 35 sec – a mission elapsed time of approach together manoeuvring the LM for touchdown. The propellant Subscriberwith the altitude 102 hr 45 min 40 sec. Although the descent had been warning light came on at 11 min 23 sec – some 1 min and range-to-go safe and controlled, the fact that it was so seriously off- between High 56 sec prior to the calculated propellant depletion target raised serious concerns about the more precisely Gate and Low time, with 20 seconds allowed between the abort targeted landings planned for later flights. Gate. decision and total depletion. This was based on the reaction time of the crew, the AGS, and the mechanical sequencing of the LM’s staging, as well as on the time taken for Ascent Stage engine ignition. Post-fight analysis showed that the landing took 52-62 seconds longer than expected, about 40-50 seconds before propellant depletion and 20-30 seconds before the abort decision point. Erroneous readings caused by sloshing in the tanks and the physical location of the quality sensors resulted in what proved to be unnecessary concern in Mission Control – as well as a mistaken belief among other observers around the world that Eagle had come perilously close to crashing! In fact, at cut-off there was 349 kg of propellant remaining versus the 442 kg predicted before the flight. Eagle had come nowhere near to running out of gas, and subsequent modifications were made to the gauging systems to ensure that propellant quantities could be recorded more accurately. SF

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 23 SPACE HISTORY

So what went wrong? They may not have run out of gas, but Armstrong and Aldrin were faced with multiple alarm codes during the latter stages of their descent to the surface. Were these critical –and could they have resulted in an abort? by David Baker copy he two alarms during Apollo 11’s descent MIT’s Instrumentation Laboratory the engineers to the Moon were induced by what discovered that there was a grounding problem in NASA describes as “executive overloads” the rendezvous radar. Because the rendezvous radar caused by a compression of the duty had been left on, a perfectly acceptable situation cycle in the processor. Normally, the according to the known consequences at the time, T NASA ALL IMAGES: Primary Guidance Navigation and Control System the interaction between the analogue and the (PGNCS) would cycle once every two seconds digital data kept switching back and forth taking when it processed incoming data. But when the up around 15% of the vacant capacity, reaching descent phase reached a critical point, it would shift ABOVE / BELOW the limit and turning on the alarms. The unusual up a notchSubscriber to a duty cycle of once every second, The LM’s rendezvous radar load placed on the Lunar Guidance Computer shifting that cycle to an 85% load, at which point (pictured here on Apollo 17) (LGC) by going from a two-second to a one-second the first alarm sounded because the refresh rate was tracked the CSM throughout recycle rate induced an unexpected burden on the causing a bow-wave to build up. This closed down the landing phase to provide computer, causing it to run out of time, which, with specific data on the relative the operation and recycled back to the last position. positions between the two the added work carried it to more than 100% of Nobody had simulated what would happen in spacecraft in the event that capacity and into an overload condition. such an occurrence and the precise reason was not an abort was required. The design of the software system had opted for uncovered until several days later. At the time, with the precise cause undetermined, flight controller Steve Bales got word from John Garman from MIT that so long as it didn’t happen again it should be fine and that it was just recycling, flushing out the system and restarting itself to the last point. However, the self-correcting process was cutting back the reprocessing to once every 1.5 seconds but that appeared fine too and so the descent continued, on a hunch rather than any available evidence! But solving this problem lasted days; the search for other “gremlins” which might cause other alarms lasted as long as Apollo flights were operated and would sometimes last several weeks. Specific to the Apollo 11 descent anomaly, at

24 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY

a priority-driven executive so that any overload ABOVE would providecopy immediate paths to remedial action would eject lower priority items in favour of what The Display and Keyboard and, even if the vehicle was lost – especially if it Assembly (DSKY) in the was referred to as a “table division executive flow”. Lunar Module provided was lost – a full load of information to analyse This would have caused task overlap driving the information relative to and correct a malfunction. But the real imperative operations out of synchronisation with the data the alarms triggered by was that the Abort Guidance System (AGS) and flow. The result would have been total PGNCS executive overflow in the the PGNCS had to operate in concert. And the shutdown and an abort with AGS control of staging Apollo Guidance Computer. configuration had to be such that during critical and a return to the Command and Service Module events the rendezvous capability had to be in in orbit. operation throughout the descent. In fact, while initial conclusions were that the overload alarms had been triggered by the FLAWED LOGIC rendezvousSubscriber radar switch being mistakenly placed in From the pilot’s NASA’s initial concern took root within a minute the AUTO position by the crew this was not correct of safely landing on the Moon, when MIT began and has led to mistaken interpretation repeatedly perspective it was receiving calls to resolve the problem before lift-off. ever since. In fact it was supposed to be in AUTO That urgency was driven by the possibility of an all along and the crew had been correct in placing better to have emergency departure due to some other technical the switch in that position. every system off to issue and Mission Control was not going to do that with alarms going off. As the Apollo CSM BALANCING PREFERENCES conserve power, continued its orbit, the initial clearance to remain The descent protocols and the rationales for (T-1) was critically assessed within seconds of what systems were on and which were off was a simplify the landing. And at T+ nine minutes, the second lift-off balanced judgement-call in the months leading option (T-2) was earlier than originally planned up to software design. From the pilot’s perspective descent… and let because the Apollo spacecraft was further along it was better to have every system off to conserve its flight path due to the extended duration of the power, simplify the descent and landing routines them focus on terminal landing phase. and let them focus on getting the LM down on There was nothing to immediately indicate the surface – the more equipment powered up the getting the LM a propagating fault in the logic train or the more that could go wrong, fouling the transition to down on the software but the call to “stay” was more by gut the surface. than judgement. The fact that overload had never From a systems engineering point of view, surface been seen before in the simulators was because the supported by the flight controllers in the Mission AUTO switch in training sessions had been placed Operations Control Room, the more information on the displays for procedures only and had never available the better. A wide spectrum of data sets been connected to an electrical circuit. And it had covering every aspect of the LM’s performance not been activated on Apollo 9 or 10 because this

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 25 SATELLITES

copy

descent programme had never been used; this was what Apollo 11 was for, an engineering mission designed to expose hidden vulnerabilities. It did take some time for MIT to check through the telemetry, find the reason and discover that the written procedures should never have allowed that switch to have been placed in that position: the landingSubscriber radar would be looking for the CSM during descent when it should have been doing that on ascent. Nevertheless, the last voice-up to the crew before lift-off was to have the switch in MANUAL, thus preventing further alarms through executive overload.

PURE GOLD This test had been one of the last for the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC), essentially the same hardware for both the CSM and the LM. Installed within a volume of about 0.028 m³, with a 16-bit RAM including one sign bit and one parity bit, a cycle time of 11.7 micro-sec, it had the ADD TOP response which was advisory and not mandatory. assembly language which took 23.4 micro-sec. The Safely there – just. The first Some Commanders may have elected to abort AGC had a RAM of 2,048 words with a ROM of photo taken on the Moon. based on the uncertainties but with a “stick-and- 36,864 words written in rope core memory. With a ABOVE rudder” pilot at the controls that was never going weight of only 31.7 kg it had a MTBF (meant time Integral to the descent, the to be the case with Neil Armstrong. And to be fair between failure) of 50,000 hours and never once landing radar was operated to the rest, it is difficult to find one who might failed on any Apollo mission. It was pure gold. at one of two positions, have reacted that way. But occurring when it did, adjusting the footprint angle To answer the question, these alarms responded with respect to the surface high above the lunar surface, the computer was to an occurrence within the AGC but the fact that according to the pitch angle essential for processing functions and input from they happened at all revealed a non-critical of the Lunar Module. the radar. SF

26 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY

Unsung hero

copy Subscriber ALL IMAGES: NASA ALL IMAGES:

Among the many individuals involved in the Moon landing, Howard “Bill” Tindall Jr. stands out as one whose work helped shape the success of Apollo. by Fabrizio Bernardini FBIS

n the middle of Apollo’s development, chaos was ABOVE NASA and industry engineers versus MIT’s academic born about coordinating all the aspects related Sitting between style. Requirements kept increasing and unforeseen JSC Director to flying a mission, managing spacecraft systems, Christopher Kraft problems cropped up everywhere. shaping trajectories and manoeuvres, and keeping (smoking cigar) On 3 August 1967, George Low appointed all of that controlled from the ground. Throughout, and Flight Director Howard “Bill” Tindall Jr. as Chief of Apollo Data I M.P. Frank, Bill computer software (for both the LM and the CSM) Priority Coordination, a multidisciplinary position was a key player. Coordination with the Massachusetts Tindall shares a established within MPAD (Mission Planning and joke. Institute of Technology (MIT) and other suppliers was Analysis Division) that cut across all aspects of mission becoming a nightmare, with culture clashes among planning. Bill Tindall was going to have the great

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 27 copy

picture of all things before him and had to make ABOVE thousand-ring circus going all the time.” [1] everything and everyone work in terms of software, A typical The outcome of this gruelling effort by Tindall Tindallgram, laced procedures and constraints. with cynicism and and his team was a series of books called Apollo Coming from the Mercury and Gemini a smattering of Mission Techniques, issued for every particular programmes, Tindall was instrumental in devising flattery, typical phase of a flight and updated before most missions. the practical ways to do orbital rendezvous (in itself of Bill Tindall’s These books developed over a few years and, after a Subscriberunpredictable a major accomplishment of those years and a key close examination of their content, it is considered personality. milestone toward Apollo’s success), an activity then something of a miracle that in less than two years only mathematically proven but never integrated into everything was in place for Apollo 11. From crew a mission plan. Before his new assignment, Tindall checklists, to consumables management, from nominal was responsible for planning all ten manned Gemini procedures to abort plans, from launch windows to missions. He had already been working on Apollo splash-down locations, everything was accounted for software since 1966, finding and solving critical with inputs for the crew, the mission controllers, the issues in the development effort that were becoming “The guy was tracking network and, of course, for and from the show stoppers for the entire programme. He brought computer software. rationalisation, organisation and software development incredible. techniques in a period of history when all this was PEER REVIEW uncharted territory and after major struggles with Had a Tindall quickly became highly respected by astronauts, MIT’s Instrumentation Laboratory academic culture mission controllers, fellow engineers and contractors. ill-suited to the pressure of Apollo deadlines. thousand-ring So esteemed in fact, that just before Apollo 11’s With his new appointment, Tindall and his team had powered descent to the lunar surface, Flight Director to sort out how to fly each of the different phases into circus going Gene Kranz invited him to sit close to him, at his which an Apollo lunar mission was divided, including console, during the whole historical event, undoubtedly all the possible contingencies. To do that he managed all the time.” the highest honour one could think of at that time. meetings with hundreds of engineers and other Tindall’s success came not only for his technical interested parties with the aim of defining, or resolving, skills but also for his unique management approach. all the open issues which had to be closed before the Basically, he was always providing ways for all execution of each phase. “The guy was incredible. Had a interested parties to express their ideas and fight with

28 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY them until a commonly agreed resolution could be TEXT REFERENCES obtained, although not without very long meetings [1] Steve Bales (A11 Guido), in COLLEAGUES ON TINDALL or temperamental behaviour. People knew that every Murray and Cox, meeting held was the place where final decisions were “The best coordinator of diverse technical opinions Apollo. I have ever met, Tindall must be listened to; he taken, so everyone who had an interest in a topic was [2] Compton, knows what he is talking about, and we must do present and ready. Where No Man something about his criticism.” In addition, Tindall was also known for his often Has Gone Before – Michael Collins in Carrying the Fire (NASA SP-4214) very long memos, written in an easy to read, casual, [3] Gene Kranz in style not without caustic remarks and fun expressions. “Tindall’s genius was his ability to focus on issues Failure is Not an and coax diverse people to work together. He “He had the gift, rare among engineers and still rarer Option combined the friendliness of a puppy with a comic among managers, of compacting large amounts of wit. His operational intelligence was brilliant. We The author warmly formed a particular strong bond, and our families information into a few clear and understandable acknowledges paragraphs, leavened with considerable humour.” spent a lot of time together at his beach house. the help of Mrs. Although our technical backgrounds were very [2] He really wrote them as he was used to thinking Marilyn Chang different, we were both emotional about our and speaking and the effect on people was to take his of the Research work, perpetually optimistic, and gave our people memos in very high regard, so high they were even Library of Wings unconditional support.” over the Rockies – Gene Kranz in Failure is not an Option given a name of their own, “Tindallgrams”, and after the Air and Space programme they were collected together and treasured. Museum. “My rendezvous expert was Bill Tindall…His After becoming head of MPAD (soon after Apollo ‘Tindallgrams’ became the founding papers of 12), Tindall kept working on Apollo, then on Skylab space rendezvous and were required reading for and then the Space Shuttle programme. He has been contractors and NASA people alike who were considered one of the handful of people directly involved in Gemini and Apollo mission plans.” Chris Kraft in Flight responsible for the success of Apollo. His contribution was so greatly respected, that “after Apollo 11, at a “Tindall was pretty much the architect of all the post-mission beer party, Flight Control made Tindall techniques that we used to go down to the surface of the Moon…Tindall was the guy who put all the an honorary Flight Director, with the team colour Grey. BELOW pieces together, and all we did is execute them.” His colour is retired, like that of many Flight Directors, Bill Tindall (back – Gene Kranz, in Before This Decade is Out, ed. Glen row in shirt and now hangs in the third floor of the Mission Swanson Control Center” [3]. This was, of course a very rare sleeves) among the nucleus of “Tindall would control debates in terms of giving appointment. the 1960 Flight people the opportunity to talk, and then mix and It is the opinion of this author that Tindall was one Operations match to make the trades…There were good Division taken of the giant figures in system engineering driven by debates, and anybody could stand up and debate at the Houston passion, knowledge and appreciation of the complexity the issue…Hecopy didn’t get bogged down because Petroleum Center he himself was a brilliant engineer. I think Tindall of others’ work. He helped shape the execution of (HPC), prior to was a real key to the success of Apollo because Apollo missions, charting a map that simplified the their move to of how he brought people together and had them overall complexity of the endeavour. His work is a the Manned communicate on very complex issues. He was very Spacecraft Center. lesson in focusing on objectives, on facts and hard data, good at it. He’d have them explain it, and in front Future Apollo until solutions are found, with no suspect stone left of all their peers.” Flight Director – David Scott in How Apollo Flew to the Moon by W. David unturned. Because of that, Apollo Mission Techniques Glynn Lunney is Woods books should be required reading for any person the seventh man seriouslySubscriber interested in technology. SF from the right.

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 29 SLUG What if JFK had lived? Would he have cancelled the Apollo programme, or at least slowed it down? That is a powerful question, and one for which we will never have an answer. But the permutations and possibilities quickly become dizzying. by Dwayne A. Day copy Subscriber

n the study of history, the what-if question is ABOVE or ideological agenda, sometimes conservative and known as a counterfactual. For a long time Kennedy tours sometimes liberal. Cape Canaveral counterfactuals had a bad reputation among where he is taken There are certainly dozens of potential historians: they were described as an “idle parlour to see the fifth counterfactual questions that one could ask about game” or worse. Their reputation was not enhanced Saturn I (SA-5), the space age. What if Sputnik had failed and the I the first of its class by the scores of fictional what-if novels that have United States had launched a satellite into orbit appeared over the decades, many of which are little destined to launch first? Would the American space programme (not to an orbital payload. more than literary daydreaming. Novels that posit He was visibly mention American technology and civilian education what-if scenarios about the Nazis winning World War impressed. programmes) have received the sudden infusion of 2 or the Confederacy winning the American Civil funding it did after the Sputnik shock? War may not necessarily represent wish fulfillment What if, in September 1969, Richard Nixon’s by their authors, but they have often served a political Space Task Group had returned a more sober

30 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY What if JFK had lived?

If Kennedy had lived, what would have happened to Apollo? Novelist Stephen Baxter even speculated on this possibility in his 1996 alternative history novel, Voyage. But from a historical perspective, we have only limited data with which to evaluate this question, and in the months before Kennedy’s death, the historical data starts to fluctuate. There is no straight line, no easy answer. Kennedy decided to pursue a lunar goal in the spring of 1961 after the Soviet Union orbited Yuri Gagarin. One unknowncopy question for historians is how much Kennedy’s decision was influenced by the near simultaneous failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The two events happened very close together and created the perception that the United States was in technological and political crisis, if not decline. Kennedy may have been similarly concerned about his presidency. The lunar goal, delivered in a speech before a joint session of Congress in May 1961, solved Kennedy’s immediate public relations problem. However, the Apollo programme was expensive, Subscribereventually rising to nearly 4.5% of the American federal budget. This high cost attracted attention. By early 1963 there was increasing domestic criticism of the cost of the civil space programme in general and Apollo in particular. In January, Kennedy submitted his FY1964 NASA budget, which immediately drew criticism for its size. In April, Kennedy asked Vice President Lyndon Johnson, in his role as head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, to review the programme. By asking Johnson to conduct the review, Kennedy was virtually assured recommendation on the future of human space flight ABOVE RIGHT of a positive reply. Johnson, after all, had proven more than it did? Would the United States still have ended up The President enthusiastic about space than Kennedy. Furthermore, meets Soviet with a Space Shuttle, or might the country have instead leader Nikita Kennedy’s request in effect ruled out cutting Apollo chosen to continue Apollo at a lower level of funding, Khrushchev in so as not to “compromise the timetable for the first perhaps choosing to fly Apollos 18–20? John Logsdon, Vienna, June 1961. manned lunar landing”. in After Apollo?, suggests that the only alternatives to Kennedy proposed Johnson’s reply was, unsurprisingly, affirmative, Shuttle that were seriously considered during the Nixon cooperation in and Johnson even proposed that if cuts were made, space, Khruschev administration involved even lower levels of funding, declined. But they should be diverted to the Apollo programme. not greater ambitions; simply put, we were lucky we would that have But Johnson noted that the fiscal 1964 budget was even got the space shuttle. been the end of it? divided between $4.4 billion for the manned lunar But the Kennedy assassination is undoubtedly the landing programme and $1.3 billion, or only 23%, for

NASA (ABOVE) / US DEPT. OF STATE (ABOVE RIGHT) RIGHT) (ABOVE OF STATE / US DEPT. (ABOVE) NASA most powerful of these questions for space historians. everything else, so there was not much that could be

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 31 SPACE HISTORY

cut and diverted to Apollo. By the summer of 1963 the programme was being criticized by Republicans as serving no useful national security purpose, and former President Dwight D. Eisenhower called it “nuts”.

SEMINAL WORDS Perhaps the strongest indication that Kennedy was having doubts about Apollo, though, came during a 20 September 1963 address before the 18th General Assembly of the United Nations, when Kennedy made a startling proposal: “Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity – in the field of space – there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the Moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and ABOVE Washington worked. However, as Sorensen explained, expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the Three days after Kennedy preferred advisors who were succinct and got becoming the scientists and astronauts of our two countries – indeed first American to to the point, whereas Webb had a tendency to talk and of all the world – cannot work together in the conquest orbit the Earth, was not often direct.

of space, sending someday in this decade to the Moon astronaut John In 2011, the John F. Kennedy Library released a NASA ALL IMAGES: not the representatives of a single nation, but the Glenn gives a 46-minute tape recording of the meeting between the representatives of all of our countries.” “thumbs-up” two men, and that discussion was summarized in a during a tour of Considering that the two nations had been to the Cape Canaveral May 2011 article bycopy John Logsdon. Webb dominated brink of nuclear war only a year earlier during the by President John the meeting, talking almost excessively. What the Cuban Missile Crisis, this appeared to be a major F. Kennedy on 23 recording indicates is that Kennedy had concerns attempt at rapprochement. It followed a similar February 1962. about waning domestic support for Apollo, prompted proposal that Kennedy had made a month before to in part because of its cost. “I don’t think the space Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. programme has much political positives”, Kennedy During a March 1964 interview, Kennedy advisor admitted, adding that “right now space has lost a lot of Theodore Sorensen was asked about what motivated its glamour”. He conceded that “this looks like a hell of Kennedy’s offer to the Soviet Union. Sorensen replied a lot of dough to go to the Moon…putting a man on that the high costs of Apollo may have been a factor: the Moon really is a stunt and it isn’t worth that many “I think he was understandably reluctant to continue billions. Therefore, the heat is going to go on unless we that rateSubscriber of increase. He wished to find ways to spend “I don’t think say that this has some military justification and not just less money on the programme and to cut out the fat prestige”. which he was convinced was in the budget. How much the space Kennedy, however, was not looking to abandon that motivated his offer to the Russians, though, I don’t Apollo, but to save it. “I think this can be an asset, this know.” But Sorensen admitted that he was not very programme programme”, Kennedy told Webb. “I think in time – it’s familiar with the issue. has much like a lot of things, this is mid-journey and therefore The day after Kennedy’s speech to the United everybody says ‘what the hell are we making this trip Nations, the powerful chairman of the House political for?’ – but at the end of the thing they may be glad we Appropriations Subcommittee on Independent Offices, made it”. Congressman Albert Thomas, wrote to Kennedy asking positives… In his 18 September discussion with Webb, Kennedy if he had changed his position on the need for a strong suggested a couple of approaches to preserving Apollo. United States space programme. Kennedy replied in right now One was to work harder to link it to national security, a letter that the United States could only cooperate in emphasizing its role in national defence. Webb space from a position of strength. But Kennedy’s letter space has lost believed this was possible, although he noted that to Thomas notwithstanding, what led to Kennedy’s a lot of its the Department of Defense had not been supportive decision to make this proposal in the United Nations at of NASA before, and he suggested this was because that time? Was Kennedy looking to back out of Apollo? glamour” military leaders wanted to take back the space Just two days before Kennedy’s speech at the United programme that was given to NASA in 1958. Webb Nations he met with NASA Administrator James John F. Kennedy even offered to step down as head of NASA so that Webb. Kennedy and Webb were not personal friends, Kennedy could put a military person in charge, but but they respected each other. Webb was a long-time Kennedy demurred. government official who had excellent ties within the The other approach that Kennedy considered was Democratic Party and experience in the ways that one that he had broached in his Inaugural Address:

32 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG cooperating with the Soviet Union. He told Webb that he was considering including this in his UN speech in a couple of days. “I think that’s good; I think that’s good”, Webb said. Kennedy asked again, “That’s all right?” Webb said, “Yes sir”. Starting in spring 1963, American reconnaissance satellites flying over the sprawling Soviet launch facility known as Baikonur in Kazakhstan (and then referred to as “Tyura-Tam” by the CIA) spotted the start of a massive new construction project. It began with the building of barracks for construction troops, followed by roads and concrete production factories. But as the satellites returned more pictures, intelligence analysts started to grow puzzled: this was a big construction project, but it was not clearly a crash project. The analysts were conservative, unwilling to state for many months what was being built there. It could be the site of a new launch complex for a large rocket, and of course that could be signs of a Soviet lunar programme, but the signs were ambiguous for the rest of 1963. “It would be a hell of a lot better if we knew what the hell they were doing”, Kennedy said in his September meeting with Webb, reflecting the murky intelligence, “if we knew whether they were going to the Moon and when”. ABOVE A COOPERATIVE TRACK Kennedy’s United Nation’s speech a couple of days An address to staff By that time there was already underway a joint review at the Manned later was somewhat startling with its proposal for a Spacecraft Center, by NASA and the Department of Defense of the overall cooperative Moon programme. It may have harkened 12 September, national space effort. The review was intended to back to his Inauguration Address proposal, but it still 1962. Behind is an increase the national security justification for Apollo as seemed a lot more serious than that early lofty and early mockup of Kennedy wanted. It concluded on 30 November, after non-specific rhetoric. On November 1, Soviet Premier the Lunar Module. Kennedy’s death, with a determination that Apollo Nikita Khrushchev gave a positive, but ambiguous, BELOW should continue on its present course and that it was JFK greets James response to Kennedy’s proposal. Eleven days later McDonnell, CEO of not necessary tocopy restate Apollo’s objectives. Although Kennedy ordered Webb to prepare specific proposals NASA’s Mercury Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara would not for a joint lunar mission. contractor. declare that Apollo had direct military applications, Subscriber

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 33 SPACE HISTORY

assumption that Kennedy was slowly backing away from the decision he had made in 1961, and some of them are hard to believe, but may nevertheless be true. In 1999, NASA historian Stephen Garber published an article outlining four different theoretical models explaining Kennedy’s thinking regarding his decision to pursue Apollo (“Multiple Means to an End: A Reexamination of President Kennedy’s Decision to Go to the Moon,” Quest, Volume 7, No. 2, Summer 1999). These included the long-standing rational choice model (i.e. Kennedy made a careful decision after weighing various options), and the visionary model (i.e. Kennedy was a space buff). Garber noted that in recent years two new models had been advanced. One was personality- based, and attempted to explain Kennedy’s behaviour in terms of his emotions, his inherent competitiveness, and even his prescription drug use. Another was what Garber labelled the cooperative track model. Of these four models, the visionary explanation and the personality model are extremely weak. The visionary model in particular took a beating in 2001 with the release of an audio tape of a November 1962 meeting between Kennedy and top space officials where Kennedy made it clear that he did not care that much about space, but was focused upon competition with the Soviet Union. The personality model is a little too trite: if Kennedy’s decisions could simply be explained by his psychology, why was there so much the participants agreed that Apollo did have broad ABOVE evidence of him consulting advisors and evaluating national security benefits. Fascinated by the alternatives? exploits of the Shortly before his death, Kennedy asked his Bureau Mercury pilots, The cooperative track model, however, raises of the Budget to prepare a report on the NASA budget JFK and Jaqueline some intriguing ideas. Garber noted that there are for him. That report was never completed in final form, Kennedy play host numerous examplescopy of Kennedy proposing space and only a draft produced after Kennedy’s assassination to the astronauts cooperation with the Soviet Union both before and exists. However, that draft evaluated the question of in the Yellow after his decision to pursue the lunar goal. For instance, Oval Room at the “backing off from the manned lunar landing goal” – White House on 10 soon after John Glenn’s successful orbit of the Earth, presumably this was what Kennedy had asked them October 1963. Kennedy replied to a letter from the Soviet premier to consider. The report’s conclusion was that “in the proposing cooperation in space by saying that he absence of clear changes in the present technical or welcomed “your statement that our countries should international situations, the only basis for backing off cooperate in the exploration of space”. He added that he from the Manned Lunar Landing objective at this time had “long held this same belief”. would be an overriding fiscal decision”. By spring 1963 the United States had signed an But something else had occurred after Kennedy’s agreement with the Soviet Union concerning limited United NationsSubscriber speech and before his death that was space cooperation. The September 1963 proposal at important. On 16 November, Kennedy visited Cape the United Nations was the boldest and most blatant Canaveral for a series of briefings and walk-arounds example of Kennedy raising the possibility of lunar at the space facility. There he saw a Saturn I rocket cooperation, but it did not necessarily reflect a change on its launch pad and was informed that it would of mind, but rather a continuation of a theme. At the lift more payload into space than any Soviet rocket very least, the directionality of Kennedy’s thinking could carry. Whereas previously Kennedy’s primary about the lunar goal – in other words, moving from exposure to Apollo had been budget numbers and competition to cooperation, and possibly having strategy meetings, now he was seeing the actual …now he was second thoughts about Apollo – becomes much harder construction and the hardware and he was impressed to prove. Kennedy offered to cooperate at the same time and enthusiastic. If Kennedy had harboured real doubts seeing the that he was seeking to compete, not after. about Apollo in September 1963, they were apparently largely assuaged by mid-November once he saw actual ULTIMATUMS? physical signs of progress. Less than a week later the What would Kennedy have done if he had lived? Would President was dead. hardware and he have revisited his Apollo decision, possibly backing Could Kennedy have been considering changing away from the ambitious timeline? Would he have the lunar landing goal, or perhaps cancelling Apollo he was continued to propose cooperation? Would he have entirely? The latter possibility was even mentioned in cancelled the Moon landing altogether? The difficulty Oliver Stone’s 1993 paranoid conspiracy thriller JFK; a impressed in answering these questions stems in part because mysterious informant explained that Kennedy’s plan to Kennedy was not the only figure making decisions. If cancel Apollo was one of the reasons why the military Kennedy had lived, his actions would have been based industrial complex had him assassinated. It turns out, upon the actions of others, and their actions in turn though, that there are other possibilities besides the would have been based upon Kennedy’s actions. Had

34 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SPACE HISTORY

he lived and run for reelection, it is entirely possible take the American Apollo programme seriously. that the Republicans would have used the cost of They thought that the Americans were not going to Apollo to attack him, action causing reaction that could If Kennedy follow through. It was not until summer 1964 that have led to a different reaction by Kennedy. Maybe the Soviets determined that the Americans were he would have decided to continue with Apollo, but had lived… serious about going to the Moon, when they formally altered the deadline or the pacing. approved their own lunar landing goal. By then they might were substantially behind. Even after this decision A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION Khrushchev they failed to allocate the necessary resources, Several historians have speculated that Kennedy squabbled over control of the programme and deluded wanted an Apollo landing to occur during a possible have themselves that their initiative was on track long after second term, and it is clear that NASA’s original goal it had slipped its schedule. was a Moon landing by 1967, most likely based upon eventually But why did the Soviets not think that the the assumption that the Soviets would also try to Americans were serious? Was it a result of achieve a space spectacular by the 50th anniversary of taken him up underestimating Kennedy, something that various the Bolshevik revolution. But in 1963 Kennedy already scholars claim was one of the causes of the Cuban knew that Apollo would become incredibly expensive on his offer? Missile Crisis? If so, is it possible that if Kennedy by any potential second term. It is possible that if had survived, Khrushchev might have continued to he lived and headed into an election year, Kennedy underestimate Kennedy and not approved the Soviet might have sought to delay the schedule so that the lunar programme in August 1964? Might Khrushchev peak budget years occurred later, or were spread out. have cancelled the nascent Soviet lunar programme, Kennedy’s thinking might also have been influenced therefore giving Kennedy no reason to continue Apollo by CIA intelligence data that in 1964 indicated that the BELOW at its present rate? We do not know. Soviets were not undertaking a crash effort to race the On 16 November In fact, one intriguing question is whether or not Americans to the Moon. 1963, JFK (far Kennedy’s UN speech may have actually led the Soviets This also raises a related question: What would right) visits LC-37 to not take Apollo seriously. Perhaps someday a scholar for a briefing Nikita Khrushchev have done had Kennedy lived? on the Saturn digging through Soviet-era archives will locate a KGB Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s UN proposal programme by or Politburo analysis of Kennedy’s United Nations by mostly ignoring it, and two months later Kennedy newly appointed speech. We know that Kennedy’s death turned the was dead. If Kennedy had lived, however, might Associate Apollo programme into a monument to his presidency Khrushchev have eventually taken him up on his offer? Administrator for and his memory that no American politician seriously Manned Space Or would he have taken some other action? Flight George opposed. But perhaps Kennedy had inadvertently lulled The Soviets did not have a vibrant lunar landing Mueller and senior the Soviet leadership into complacency about the race SF NASA (BELOW) / THE WHITE HOUSE (OPPOSITE) HOUSE WHITE THE / (BELOW) NASA programme in the fall of 1963 because they did not NASA personnel. to the Moon. copy Subscriber

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 35 REVIEWS MULTI-MEDIA

The latest books, films, TV, models and games for space enthusiasts of all ages

SPACE MODELS RIGHT Built up model of the Monogram Apollo CSM. The CM is actually chrome, although lighting angles show Moon-bound mothership it as gold coloured. ompared to the Lunar Module, the Command and Service Module (CSM) has invariably played second fiddle. This particularly applies to the Service Module, C having no crew access, though of course without it and its life-support systems, power generation and main rocket motor, the Apollo missions could not have taken place. The largest is the Monogram kit at 1:32 scale that featured two clear panels, one to show off the Command Module interior layout, and the other to display a large section of the Service Module. As with many of the Apollo kits, they are based on early designs. You don’t get the details or equipment that was fitted to the later J missions (Apollo 15, 16 and 17). So the SM here does not feature the SIM bay which contained copy those instruments. Instead, purely the fuel cells, oxygen THE IMAGES: AUTHOR and hydrogen tanks and a main propulsion fuel tank. However at the time, and for a good few years, it was ABOVE it had returned to Earth, bobbing about in the ocean. the only correct Block 2 configuration for the manned Monogram issued its CSM kit in 1984. This was in the For the latter the CM appeared gold, though this was missions, whereas until very recently, everything has Heritage Edition series and actually due to the immense heating it had endured been Block 1, or even earlier. coincided with the 15th from its trip back through the atmosphere. However The early kits also had the Command Module anniversary of Apollo 11. this got translated to “gold” in the kit, and was incorrectly “gold plated”. This has to have come about produced by spraying gold lacquer onto parts that had as photos that showed the correct finish of the CM BELOW been vacuum-plated, (ie chromed). “as flown”, were few and far between. They tended Most recent issue of the Ironically, all Monogram actually needed to do Revell kit, now under its own either toSubscriber show the protective blue covering that was name for the 50th Apollo was just not to spray on the gold, the chrome finish is prominent in white-room images, or as the CM after anniversary. actually correct as the CM was covered with strips of chrome Mylar tape! This kit has been reissued over six times in the intervening years, both under Monogram and later, Revell, names. The most recent issue is from Revell-Germany (which now controls the whole Revell empire), under the Revell name, and celebrates the 50th Anniversary. But it is the same kit without any gold plating on the CM! The oddest thing about the Monogram kit is that the company also issued a very detailed Lunar Module kit (to be dealt with in the next issue) but to 1:48 scale, whereas the CSM is 1:32 scale. Around the same time, Revell – at that time Monogram’s rival in the US (the two companies did not become one until 1986) – issued its famous complete Apollo spacecraft in 1:48 scale. This consisted of all three modules plus the Launch Escape System and adapter. The Service Module did have some interior detail but as the kit was issued so early in the programme, many of these did not really match what was actually flown. This was the one that – as explained in previous issues – was even pre-Block I

36 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight REVIEWS

GAMER'S CORNER with Henry Philp Single Stage to Orbit in Kerbal Space Program

SSTO vehicles, like Reaction Engines’ Skylon, are the equivalent of the Holy Grail for spacecraft designers. While they enable cheap flights into space and aircraft–style turnaround times, they pose significant engineering challenges, such as withstanding hypersonic airflow. This is where Kerbal Space Program comes in. In KSP, with its smaller planets, it is much easier to create SSTOs because of the much lower delta-V requirements for reaching orbit. While the game comes with a SABRE-style multimode jet engine out of the box, there are many add-ons which are centred around expanding the possibilities of creating single- stage to orbit spaceplanes. While building an SSTO is stillcopy one of the most difficult challenges in the game, some expert players have succeeded in sending single-stage spacecraft to other planets, such as Duna (the analogue of Mars) and Jool (the analogue of Jupiter). While, as I have said in previous articles, many aspects of real-life space flight are abstracted away in Kerbal, intrepid KSP SSTO builders must still consider things such as frictional heating during ascent and streamlining their craft. With the game’s simplified universe, however, players Subscriberof KSP certainly have it easy compared with the engineers at companies like Reaction Engines. and needs some work even to make it a correct Block I with the LM. The same applied to AMT, which issued Service Module. its tiny 1:200 scale Apollo spacecraft that started life perched on top if its Saturn launchers. LOOKING EAST At the time of Apollo, the main French model Japan’s major model kit name, Tamiya, issued its own company, Heller, issued its own Apollo spacecraft Apollo spacecraft in 1970, and it also issued both the with all three modules, but also issued the CSM by LM and the CSM to 1:70 scale, as separate kits. The itself. These were made to Heller’s own 1:100 scale – a CSM has a semblance of an interior for both CM and metric scale for a metric country – but being so small SM, though the model’s main claim to fame was the there was little detail. Without a stand to hold it in addition of an electric motor, batteries and a clear “flying stance”, about the only thing you could do was propeller that stuck out of the SM engine bell. If fitted, to stand it up on its engine bell! The same kit was also it could be hung from the ceiling and flown in circles reissued by the Mexican model company, Lodela. around the room! Oddest however was when Revell-Germany About the same time the less-well known Japanese released the same kit in 2011 when the parent company Marui issued a kit to 1:65 scale. However, as company had its own similar-scale kit (actually 1:96), with Monogram and miss-matched scales, Marui also as part of the whole Apollo spacecraft combination made a Lunar Module, but this one to 1:45. Fellow ABOVE in 1:96. But that was never issued by itself. The Heller The Monogram Service Japanese company Aoshima also delved into Apollo, Module with the interior, fuel kit however had not changed in the intervening 40 but its 1:96 CSM was only available as a complete kit cells and and tanks. years, it is still Block 1, though the box illustration

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 37 REVIEWS

shows a Block 2. Because of this lack of a correct Block 2 CSM, the specialist company Real-Space Models in the US, masterminded by Glenn Johnson, made a correct Block 2 in 1:48 scale. But it didn’t use standard injection-moulded styrene. Instead this was made from resin castings, with photo-etched parts. It makes into an excellent model, but of course does require specialist skills to build.

ENTER THE DRAGON This was also a time when Dragon, a new name, came on the scene. Based in Hong Kong it primarily makes military aircraft, ships and AFVs. But from the 2000s onwards it journeyed into space, with brand new kits of the Apollo missions. The complete Apollo craft – CSM and LM – is made in 1:72 scale, but in 1:48 scale the two sections are available as separate kits. The CSM is intended to be that of Apollo 11 – although irritatingly, it doesn’t appear that anyone read the ABOVE AND RIGHT The 1:48 scale Dragon Apollo assembly instructions and built the kit from them! CSM (above). Tamiya’s CSM The cylindrical body for the SM is made up from six and AMT’s Apollo (right). parts, but the plans only mention four, and omit the fitting of the two D-shaped VHF antennae completely, although the parts are included. Even so, the kit does feature the correct Block 2 configuration of the SM and has a finely detailed S-Band antenna assembly, using photo-etched parts for the four dishes. BELOW AND INSET Next time we land on the Moon with Apollo 11, Left to right: Monogram’s and take a look at the model kits available of the 1:32, RealSpace’s 1:48 and Dragon’s 1:72. Inset: Revell spider-like Lunar Module. 1:48 CSM based on very early Mat Irvine FBIS boiler-plated mock-ups. copy Subscriber IMAGES: THE IMAGES: AUTHOR

38 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight REVIEWS

PRINTED BOOKS on the last three Apollo missions of the Lunar Roving Vehicles, which permitted wider-ranging EVAs. More recent commercial space ventures are considered, making the point that the “children of Tranquility Apollo” were inspired to create their own triumphs. The Epilogue points out that the most enduring legacy of Apollo was to cause us to see our own Base here… Earth as an oasis of life in the emptiness of space. The book concludes with appendices containing he commemorative edition of this volume tables of facts on acronyms, missions, crew, launch in the popular Haynes series includes vehicles and spacecraft together with a Timeline. an extra 16 pages over the first edition, NASA Mission This book maintains the high standards of the which was issued in 2009 for the 40th AS-506 Apollo 11 – Haynes manuals, and shows the efforts that had Tanniversary of that historic event, showing Owners Workshop to be made to achieve a lunar landing with 1960s how the legacy has inspired such pioneering space Manual technology. I would highly recommend it. entrepreneurs as Elon Musk of SpaceX and Jeff by Dr Christopher Riley Griffith J. Ingram Bezos of Blue Origin. and Phil Dolling Chris Riley is a writer, broadcaster and film Haynes Publishing maker. He has presented, directed, produced 9781785215926 or consulted on almost 30 films and TV One small step £22.99 documentaries about Apollo, including the multi- award-winning In the Shadow of the Moon. Phil 216 pages with over 300 nduring journeys begin with a single step black and white and Dolling is an award-winning Executive Producer. – and so it was with the Moon landing 50 colour illustrations He has worked for the BBC on many television years ago. But more than half the world’s programmes including Tomorrow’s World, Space, current population had not been born when Human Instinct, James May’s 20th Century and Ethat historic event took place. So how to Earth: The Power of the Planet. He was also in explain that event to children today? An artist and charge of the coverage of the Total Eclipse in 1999. an author have tried and succeeded. The book deals methodically with the Apollo Adrian Buckley is a renowned graphic artist, project, from its origins, to the details of the whose previous book for children, An Igloo on the hardware. The Introduction gives us the background Moon: Exploring Architecture, won wide critical to the Moon race and explains the choice of the acclaim. David Jenkins is an author who ranges Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting to across disciplines.copy This is his second book for the Moon, crediting Harry Ross of the British children. His first, An Igloo on the Moon: Exploring Interplanetary Society with promoting this concept. Architecture, won the DAM Architectural Book The astronauts of the Apollo 11 prime and back-up Award 2015. crews are introduced, as are the Flight Directors. Quite large in format, this book has endpapers Chapter 1 describes the evolution of the Saturn showing the topography of the lunar surface and rockets, from Saturn I to Saturn V. Details of the an appealing distribution of text and pictures – in hardware are given, and the controversial “all-up” fact, the text is largely comprised of explanatory testing method is explained. Chapter 2 takes us and expanded captions so as not to overload the inside the Command and Service Modules, as well as information flow. The art is a mix of redrawn the Launch Escape Tower, explaining the problems artist’s impressions from the 1960s and skilled of temperatureSubscriber regulation and atmospheric entry. interpretation through reforming those images into Chapter 3 goes into the intricacies of the aesthetic displays of separate segments of the Apollo guidance, navigation, and control system, including 11 mission. the computer, with a memory composed of copper There are a few errors in the artwork that purists wires threaded through or around magnetic cores – will readily call out – but they matter little in the which all had to be done by hand! Chapter 4 tells us general presentation. For example, the artistic about the Lunar Module and its development, and rendition of Apollo 11 and the Lunar Module the strenuous efforts that had to be made to reduce separating from the adapter shows the panels spacecraft mass to an absolute minimum– such as hinged outward when in fact they were jettisoned. the construction of the cabin wall from aluminium a Earth figures largely in most pictures of the surface, mere 0.012 inches thick! low down on the horizon instead of high in the sky Chapter 5 deals with space suits, starting with where it should be (but this is the purist in me!). the first pressure suits, through the early spacesuits Moonwalk – The And there is an issue with dates, which conform to for the Mercury and Gemini programmes, and on Story of the Apollo 11 European times, placing the Moonwalk on 21 July to the unique challenges of supplying suits that were Moon Landing when in fact it was still 20 July in the Americas. capable of being used on the surface of the Moon. by David Jenkins and But none of this really detracts from a solid Chapter 6 explains the problems of communicating Adrian Buckley attempt to convey the wonder of this endeavour with Apollo. The positions and roles of the personnel Circa Press to a young mind, in consideration of which it is in Mission Control are explained, and the vexing 9780993072178 perhaps rather surprising to see the use of Imperial question of the missing “a” in “One small step for £12.95 units for measurement, mass and distance rather (a) man…” is considered. Chapter 7 takes the story 48 pages with 20 colour than metric. Overall, worth getting for a small child beyond Apollo 11, including the near disaster and illustrations competent at reading and with a curious mind. eventual triumph of Apollo 13, and the addition David Baker

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 39 SATELLITE DIGEST Satellite Digest 558 Satellite Digest is SpaceFlight’s regular listing of world space launches using orbital data from the United States Strategic Command space-track.org website. Compiled by Geoff Richards

Spacecraft International Date Launch Launch vehicle Mass Orbital Inclin.  Period Perigee Apogee Notes designation site (kg) epoch (deg) (min) (km) (km) EMISAT 2019-018A Apr 1.16 SHAR PSLV-QL 436 Apr 1.48 98.39 99.73 736 759 [1] Flock 4a-1 2019-018B 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.63 495 511 [2] Flock 4a-2 2019-018C 5 Apr 1.43 97.47 94.63 493 511 [2] Flock 4a-3 2019-018D 5 Apr 1.95 97.47 94.63 494 510 [2] Flock 4a-4 2019-018E 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.63 494 510 [2] Astrocast 0.2 2019-018F 4 Apr 2.46 97.48 94.62 494 511 [3] Lemur 2 JohanLoren 2019-018G 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.62 494 510 [4] Lemur 2 Beaudacious 2019-018H 5 Apr 1.43 97.47 94.62 493 510 [4] Lemur 2 Eltham 2019-018J 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.61 493 510 [4] Lemur 2 Victor-Andrew 2019-018K 5 Apr 2.13 97.47 94.61 493 510 [4] Flock 4a-17 2019-018L 5 Apr 1.95 97.47 94.61 493 510 [2] Flock 4a-18 2019-018M 5 Apr 2.80 97.47 94.61 493 510 [2] Flock 4a-19 2019-018N 5 Apr 2.85 97.47 94.61 493 510 [2] Flock 4a-20 2019-018P 5 Apr 2.79 97.47 94.60 493 510 [2] Flock 4a-8 2019-018Q 5 Apr 1.43 copy97.46 94.59 494 507 [2] Flock 4a-7 2019-018R 5 Apr 2.08 97.47 94.59 494 507 [2] Flock 4a-6 2019-018S 5 Apr 2.01 97.47 94.58 494 507 [2] Flock 4a-5 2019-018T 5 Apr 2.08 97.47 94.58 493 507 [2] Flock 4a-11 2019-018U 5 Apr 1.43 97.46 94.58 493 507 [2] Flock 4a-10 2019-018V 5 Apr 1.43 97.46 94.58 493 507 [2] Flock 4a-9 2019-018W 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.58 493 507 [2] Flock 4a-16 2019-018X 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.57 493 507 [2] Flock 4a-15 2019-018Y 5 Apr 2.52 97.47 94.57 492 507 [2] Flock 4a-14Subscriber 2019-018Z 5 Apr 2.46 97.47 94.57 492 507 [2] Flock 4a-13 2019-018AA 5 Apr 2.80 97.46 94.57 492 507 [2] AISTECHSAT 3 2019-018AB 10? Apr 2.52 97.47 94.55 490 507 [5] AISAT 1 2019-018AC 1200? Apr 1.81 97.52 94.06 435 515 [6] BlueWalker 1 2019-018AD 10 Apr 2.45 97.53 94.04 434 515 [7] Flock 4a-12 2019-018AE 5 Apr 2.93 97.46 94.58 494 507 [2] M6P 2019-018AF 7 Apr 4.10 97.52 94.12 436 519 [8] Progress MS-11 2019-019A Apr 4.46 Baykonur Soyuz-2.1a 7,430 Apr 4.65 51.64 92.66 408 411 [9] O3b FM20 2019-020A Apr 4.71 CSG Soyuz-2.1b-Fregat-MT 700 Apr 4.82 0.04 280.58 7,809 7,839 [10] O3b FM19 2019-020B 700 Apr 4.89 0.04 280.76 7,820 7,839 [10] O3b FM17 2019-020C 700 Apr 4.88 0.03 280.76 7,828 7,831 [10] O3b FM18 2019-020D 700 Apr 4.88 0.04 280.96 7,832 7,841 [10] Arabsat 6A 2019-021A Apr 11.94 KSC Falcon Heavy 6,460 May 2.12 0.03 1,436.68 35,740 35,860 [11] Roger Chaffee 2019-022A Apr 17.87 Wallops Antares 230 7,300? Apr 19.51 51.64 92.65 408 410 [12] SASSI2 2019-022 4 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [13] ThinSat 1A 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1B 2019-022 1 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1C 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14]

40 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SATELLITE DIGEST

Spacecraft International Date Launch Launch vehicle Mass Orbital Inclin. Period Perigee Apogee Notes designation site (kg) epoch (deg) (min) (km) (km) ThinSat 1D 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1E 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1F 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1G 2019-022 1 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1H 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1I 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1J 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1K 2019-022 1 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] ThinSat 1L 2019-022 2 Apr 51.6 89 200 250 [14] Beidou DW44 2019-023A Apr 20.61 Xichang Chang Zheng 3B 4,600 May 1.70 54.92 1,435.61 35,710 35,746 [15] Tianhui 2-01-01 2019-024A Apr 29.95 Taiyuan Chang Zheng 4B 1,000? Apr 30.61 97.45 94.80 503 519 [16] Tianhui 2-01-02 2019-024C 1,000? Apr 30.61 97.45 94.77 501 518 [16]

NOTES

1. Electromagnetic Intelligence Satellite remote sensing satellite 9. Unmanned freighter mission to the International Space Station, built using an IMS-2 bus by ISRO for the DRDO with instruments mission ISS-72P, with 2,531 kg of cargo. Spacecraft docked at ISS/ (Kautilya) to measure the electromagnetic spectrum, apparently a Pirs port April 4.60. Signals Intelligence mission. First use of PSLV-QL with four solid 10. Four medium-orbit communications satellites built using the boosters. EliTeBus by Thales and launched for SES Networks by Arianespace, 2. Flock 4a constellation of 20 Dove 3U Cubesats built by Planet are the fifth batch of a new constellation to bring broadband Internet each carrying a visible/infra-red camera for Earth observation. connection to the “Other 3 billion” people in the developing world and the second of an uprated type. Satellites have yet to manoeuvre 3. Astrocast 0.2 communications technology 3U Cubesat built by to their operational orbits. Astrocast and Hochschule Luzern carrying an L-band transponder for M2M communications, a UHF receiver and VHF transmitter for 11. Telecommunications and direct broadcast satellite built using amateur communications, two cameras for Earth and Sun imaging an LM 2100 bus by Lockheed-Martincopy and launched by SpaceX for and a GNSS receiver for position and atmospheric occultation. Arabsat. Mass quoted above is at launch, dry mass is 3,520 kg. Manoeuvring towards geostationary orbit over Africa at 30.5°E for 4. Lemur 2 multi-mission 3U Cubesats built by Spire Global each communications and direct TV broadcast service to Europe, Africa carrying an AIS receiver (SENSE) to track shipping, an ADS-B and the Middle East. Boosters successfully landed at LZ-1 and LZ-2 receiver to track aircraft and a GPS receiver (STRATOS) for back at launch site, while first stage landed in the Atlantic Ocean on atmospheric data from occultation of GPS signals. Satellites are the Of Course I Still Love You barge 990 km downrange, but was later named after members of the Spire team. damaged when it toppled over in rough seas. 5. AISTECHSAT 3, or Danu Pathfinder 1, is a survey and tracking 12. Cygnus freighter spacecraft named in honour of the late Apollo 6U Cubesat built by Aistech carrying a thermal imager for Earth astronaut, ISS Mission NG-11, built and launched by NGIS as part survey and forest fires, a store-and-forward transponder for of NASA’s CRS programme for transport to ISS, with 3,436 kg of communications,Subscriber an AIS receiver to track shipping and an ADS-B cargo including new experiments and Cubesats: BIRDS 3, a set of receiver to track aircraft. Pathfinder for planned 102-satellite Danu three educational 1U Cubesats built by teams of students at the constellation. Kyushu Institute of Technology comprising NepaliSat 1 (BIRD-NPL) 6. PSLV fourth stage with a payload support platform carrying an AIS from NAST (Nepal Academy of Science and Technology), Raavana receiver to track shipping, an APRS transponder (AISAT 1, supplied 1 (BIRD-LKA) from ACCIMT (Arthur C. Clarke Institute for Modern by AMSAT India) for amateur communications and a retarding Technologies) and Uguisu (BIRD-JPN) from KIT, each carrying two potential analyser (ARIS, supplied by IIST) for ionospheric structure cameras for Earth pictures, a voice synthesiser and a store-and- and composition. forward transponder for amateur communications; VCC (Virginia CubeSat Constellation, NASA ELaNa 26), a set of three educational 7. BlueWalker 1 is a technology development 6U Cubesat built by and atmospheric science 1U Cubesats comprising Aeternitas built NanoAvionics using new M6P bus for Avellan Space Technology by Old Dominion University, Libertas built by University of Virginia & Science carrying new communications and other systems for and Ceres built by Virginia Tech, each carrying a an inter-satellite performance test. This satellite and M6P should have been deployed radio system and GPS receiver for determining relative and absolute in the same orbit as the other Cubesats, but deployment was delayed position and, on Aeternitas only, a drag brake to accelerate decay; until after the fourth-stage orbit-lowering manoeuvre. NSLSat 1, a geophysics science 2U Cubesat built by NSL carrying 8. Multi-purpose 6U Satellite is a technology development 6U a Langmuir probe for ionospheric electron density, detectors Cubesat built by NanoAvionics using M6P bus carrying two UHF for energetic particles and a communications system using the transponders for communications, two transponders for IoT Globalstar satellites; SpooQy (Small Photon Entangling Quantum communications, one by SpaceWorks Orbital and one by Lacuna System & Quantum Key Distribution), a technology development 3U Space using LoRaWAN protocol and a mono-propellant propulsion Cubesat built by National University of Singapore (NUS) carrying system (EPSS) using ammonium dinitramide (ADN) non-toxic equipment to demonstrate generation of polarisation-entangled propellant for performance test. photon pairs and new systems for performance test; IOD-GEMS (In-

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 41 SATELLITE DIGEST

Orbit Demonstration - Global Environmental Monitoring Satellite or 13. SASSI 2 (Student Aerothermal Spectrometer Satellite of Illinois IOD 1), a technology demonstration 3U Cubesat built by ÅAC Clyde and Indiana) is an atmospheric science 3U Cubesat built by UIUC for Satellite Applications Catapult carrying a MiniRad microwave (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) and Purdue University radiometer for atmospheric temperature, humidity and precipitation; with an ultraviolet to infra-red spectrometer to measure the satellite’s EntrySat (QB50 FR02), a technology demonstration Cubesat built aerodynamic bow shock characteristics, a Pirani gauge for static by Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace (ISAE) and and dynamic pressure, sensors for internal and external temperature ONERA carrying instruments to measure temperature, heat flux, and a communications system using the Globalstar satellites. pressure, drag force and attitude to provide data on aerodynamic Satellite was not catalogued and probably decayed late April or early forces and break-up process during atmospheric decay; KRAKSat, May. Orbit given is approximate, as Antares second stage from which an educational and technology development 1U Cubesat built using satellite deployed was not catalogued until a week after launch. a SatRevolution bus by Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicza University of 14. ThinSats are a set of sixty educational 0.1U Cubesats built by NSL Science and Technology, Krakow, carrying a ferro-fluid attitude for Virginia Space, each carrying a school-built payload and a control system for performance test and Światowid (Worldseeker, communications system using the Globalstar satellites. Satellites a 9th Century Polish monument), a technology development are connected together by ribbons in groups of three (1B, 1G, 1K), 2U Cubesat built by SatRevolution carrying a camera for Earth five including a double-width one (1A, 1E, 1I) or six (remainder) to observation. Spacecraft captured by the ISS arm April 19.39 and make twelve separate satellites. One satellite in each group carries docked at the ISS/Unity nadir port April 19.48. Three Cubesats are a GPS receiver and a camera. Satellites were not catalogued and to be deployed from NRCSD-E deployers after Cygnus departs from probably decayed about April 23. Orbits given are approximate. ISS. These are: Seeker, an inspector 3U Cubesat built by NASA Johnson carrying a camera and laser rangefinder to inspect the host 15. Beidou, or Compass 3I1, is a navigation satellite built using a CAST satellite and a nitrogen gas jet manoeuvre system and Aerocube 10, DFH-3A bus for SASTIND, first third generation type in inclined a pair of technology development 1.5U Cubesats built by Aerospace geosynchronous orbit. Mass quoted above is at launch. Orbit is Corporation for the USAF, each carrying a star tracker, a Camera360 centred over 110°E. camera to verify attitude control and, on Aerocube 10A, a dispenser 16. Pair of cartographic satellites built by CAST for State Bureau of for 29 passive 16 g atmospheric drag tracking targets and a Surveying and Mapping, each probably carrying a mapping camera laser optical beacon and, on Aerocube 10B, an electron/proton to produce stereo-topographic data and a lower resolution multi- spectrometer (μCPT), a sensor for illumination by 10A beacon and a spectral camera for land resources data. Orbital plane is about 60° steam thruster orbit control system for performance test. from those of Tianhui 1-02 and 1-03.

copy SPACEX Subscriber

A curtain of fire as 27 Merlin 1D rocket motors lift Falcon Heavy on its first commercial flight from KSC, 11 April 2019.

42 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SLUG SPACEX LOCKHEED MARTIN

Falcon Heavy carries Arabsat 6A, into orbit on 11 April NASA’s MAVEN has now completed its aerobraking manoeuvres at Mars.

ADDITIONS AND UPDATES DESIGNATION COMMENTS DESIGNATION COMMENTS 1997-082A Iridium 45 has completed manoeuvring to a disposal descended to 1.7 km April 24 to 25 to observe new orbit. Add orbit: crater. Apr 10.95 86.39° 97.01 min 465 km 769 km 2016-004A Intelsat 29e suffered a fuel leak April 7 and entered 1998-010C Iridium 54 was manoeuvred from a reserve orbit to a safe mode, followed by loss of communications, disposal orbit April 16. Add orbit: fragmentation and eastwards drift off station at 50°W. Apr 27.38 86.41° 92.94 min 164 km 677 km 2016-052A GSSAP 3 (USA 270) is now stationed at 135°W, 2000-028A Eutelsat 36A was manoeuvred off station at 70.3°E according to amateur trackers. April 7 and was relocated at 48.1°E, co-located with 2016-065A Shi Jian 17 has made small manoeuvres off station at Eutelsat 48D, April 30. 94.2°E from March 22, reaching 94.5°E by March 29 2002-011A TDRS 9 was relocated back at 62°W April 12. then reversing drift and relocating at 93.7°E April 28. 2002-062A Nimiq 2 was manoeuvred off station at 123°W April 23 2018-042A InSight made first detection of seismic activity on and is drifting to the west. Mars Aprilcopy 6. 2003-031D MOST failure due to power problem announced April 2018-079A AEHF 4 (USA 288) was declared operational April 29. 4. 2018-084H Diwata 2B has been given the Amsat name 2008-007A Kizuna (WINDS) began drifting westwards off station Philippines-Oscar 101. at 143°E mid-February and was switched off February 2018-099 ORS 1 ceased transmitting late January prior to 27. deployment of reflector. 2010-024A Beidou DW4 (G3) was manoeuvred from 80°E to 79.5°E 2018-106A CSO 1 has been detected by amateur trackers. Add April 16. orbit: 2012-025C SDS 4 was transferred from JAXA to Sky Perfect JSAT Apr 22.02 98.62° 100.89 min 800 km 805 km April 24 to test their ground stations for future LEO 2018-111A,B Kanopus-V 5 and V 6 have manoeuvred to their communications satellites. operational orbital positions, equally phased around 2013-063A MAVEN completed aerobraking April 5. Apoapsis is the orbit with Kanopus-V-IK, V 3 and V 4. Subscribernow 4,570 km and period about 220 minutes. 2019-009B Beresheet entered lunar orbit April 4.60. Initial orbit 2014-043A GSSAP 1 (USA 253) has reversed drift from eastward was near-polar from 500 to 10,400 km. Manoeuvred to westward, according to amateur trackers. several times to lower orbit to 16 to 200 km. Began 2014-076A Hayabusa 2 descended from its 20 km station to 500 descent manoeuvre April 11.80, but an inertial unit m above Ryugu April 4 to release SCI April 5.08 and failed and attempts to remedy problem instead DCAM 3 April 5.09. SCI reached a point 300 m from caused engine shut down. Probe impacted in Mare surface of Ryugu April 5.12 and fired its projectile to Serenitatis. create a new crater while DCAM 3 recorded debris 2019-017A Tianlian 2-01 is now stationed over 80°E. Add orbit: plume. Returned to 20 km station by April 20, then Apr 16.53 2.99° 1,436.01 min 35,660 km 35,914 km

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION ACTIVITY RECENTLY DETAILED ORBITAL DECAYS International Object name Decay There were no orbital manoeuvres of ISS during April. Designation End-of-April orbital data: Apr 30.79 51.64° 92.65 min 408 km 410 km 1998-019C Iridium 58 Apr 7.43 1998-021C Iridium 64 Apr 1.89 2014-076 SCI projectile Apr 5.12 (on Ryugu) 1998-067MR BeEagleSat Apr 27.1 2017-021F Su Li 1-01 Apr 11 2018-092G KickSat 2 Apr 1.2 2019-009B Beresheet Apr 11.81 (on Moon)

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 43 SOCIETY NEWS

copy

The National Space Centre, Leicester – an appropriate venue for the Society’s 74th AGM and summer get-together. THE PLACE FOR SPACE SubscriberStop press: a change of venue for the Society’s 74th AGM and Summer Get-Together. JOIN US AT THE NATIONAL SPACE CENTRE for is a charge for teas and coffees, so we ask for a the Society’s AGM, followed by an afternoon social. donation on the day. Food and drink can be Catch up with BIS friends and bring all the family for purchased at the centre’s cafe. a relaxing afternoon, then take your time looking The event is limited to 40 people, including friends around the Centre’s galleries. BIS Fellows are invited and families of Members, so places will be allocated to the AGM, which will be followed by a discussion on a strictly first come first served basis. Book your on the Society to which all Members and Fellows are place at www.bis-space.com/agm2019. welcome, so come and have your say about the BIS. Please advise us if you are a Fellow and wish to The focus of the afternoon will be the social and attend the AGM only. Directions to the site can be Members and their families will have free access to found at spacecentre.co.uk. Please note that there is the galleries.The Centre opens at 10:00 am, so an all-day parking fee of £3. We are arranging a Members and their families are welcome to come car-share scheme, so if you have any spaces available early to make it a full day’s visit. in your car, please let us know the number of seats The National Space Centre has been extremely and your route, or if you would like a lift, please kind in offering the BIS the use of its facilities and advise us of your location. We’ll do our best, but no access to its galleries at no charge, so the event is promises. Email [email protected]. SF free for Members and their families. However, there Colin Philp, BIS Vice president

44 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SOCIETY NEWS Inside NASA’S 60-year-old archives ON 24 APRIL PIERS BIZONY, Artwork for Gemini came next, author of a number of works on followed by art works by such space flight, such asHow to Build well-known space artists as Your Own Spaceship, The Making Robert McCall and Jack Coggins. of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Apollo was catered for by Odyssey, gave us an insight into dimensioned sketches of both the last 60 years of NASA and “tail-landing” and “belly-landing” showed us some of the images for variants of the Direct-Ascent which there was insufficient room concept for lunar-landing, and in his finished book. by early concepts for Lunar Orbit Renowned art book publisher Rendezvous. A wooden mock-up of Taschen wanted to produce a book the giant Saturn V rocket showed showcasing images of NASA’s its colossal size compared with history amassed at the National the cramped conditions in the Air & Space Museum, Washington, capsule above. NASA personalities DC, and the National Archives were shown, including NASA boss over the last six decades. The Jim Webb and rocket engineer initial list comprised around 3,000 Wernher von Braun. images, which were whittled Early concepts for the Space down to 1,000. The 2,000 that were Shuttle and modular Space Station not chosen, however, were very were shown, with beautiful art, interesting in their own right, and again by Robert McCall, and Piers wanted to show us some of photographs of the Shuttle Carrier them in his lecture. Aircraft and the huge “Guppy” Piers began with some rocket stage transporter. photographs of a wind tunnel Piers Bizony’s talk gave the model of the X-15 hypersonic copySociety a tantalising glimpse into rocket research aircraft and then the visual history of NASA. Who showed us some long-unseen knows what other treasures McDonnell-Douglas colour remain unseen in the archives? SF The National Space Centre, Leicester – an appropriate venue for the Society’s 74th AGM and summer get-together. artwork for the Mercury capsule. Griffith J. Ingram Subscriber

BIS Vice president Colin Philp (right) introduces a fascinating foray into the NASA archives by author Piers Bizony (left). IMAGES: NCC (ABOVE) / GEIR ENGENE (RIGHT) NCC (ABOVE) IMAGES:

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 45 SLUG

BIS takes the high road Approaching the proposed British Spaceport launch site at Unst in the Shetland Islands. Technical Project visits prospectivecopy Spaceport

IN APRIL 2019, A BIS NLV feasibility study fact- the BIS NLV study’s work, and showed that satellite finding visit took place at the proposed site of the launches from Unst would not only be feasible but latest contender for a British Spaceport. also advantageous. The talk took place in Britain’s The “Shetland Space Centre” (SSC) is based on the most northerly board room, part of the Saxa Vord island of Unst, Britain’s most northerly island, a Resort complex, which until 2006 was part of an location believed by many to be the most favourable RAF base. The complex is situated about 4 km from

in the UK for satellite launches. SSC was formed the proposed launch site, and still has many BRAND ROBIN IMAGES: Subscriberonly in 2017, so is a late contender in the Spaceport relatively modern offices and other facilities stakes but it is catching up, and its many potential (including a virtually unused all-weather sports advantages are being actively promoted. pitch!) and it is envisaged as an administrative and This visit was carried out by Robin Brand, chair of accommodation centre for SSC and its customers. the BIS Technical Committee and project leader of The presentation was well received, with plenty of one of the BIS Technical Projects. The BIS NLV questions afterwards, ranging from how long the study’s interest in Shetland as a launch site Overhead Exclusion Zone would be in force during a originated in the early days of the study, and so the launch, to what might be created in the way of jobs. members were pleased to hear of the formation of Although the SSC had presented some similar the SSC and for this visit to be made. information before, feedback was that it was good to The actual location of SSC’s proposed launch site hear an independent opinion. is Lamba Ness, a suitably remote headland on the The overall advantages of Unst as a UK satellite north eastern tip of Unst – next stop the North Pole! launch site are clear, i.e. direct (non-dogleg) ascents The site looks surprisingly like Mahia in New Zealand to polar and Sun Synchronous Orbits that avoid the where Rocket Lab have set up their Electron rocket Faroe Islands (so ensuring maximum payload mass) launch site. Robin Brand was shown around by and which similarly avoid oil rigs with their safety SSC’s programme director Scott Hammond, issues and potentially crippling third party insurance accompanied by Scott Tavish, MSP for the Shetland rates. In addition, Unst is located well away from Islands, also fellow director of SSC and owner of the most transatlantic air routes, thus substantially headland, and Yvette Hopkins of SSC. easing airspace use issues. That evening, Robin Brand gave an invited This visit revealed infrastructure aspects of a more presentation “Access to Space from Unst?” to the local nature. For instance, it confirmed that by local Unst Community Council. This was based on means of the modern vehicle ferries it is easy to

46 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight SOCIETY NEWS COUNTING DOWN TO WORLD SPACE WEEK A call to EVERYONE to join the Moon-Themed World Space Week celebrations, 4-10 October.

THIS YEAR WORLD SPACE existing lesson plans, by simply WEEK celebrates the 50th adding a Space theme to the anniversary of Project Apollo and, session: Science, astronomy, especially, the first Moon landing physics, Maths, IT, etc: as well as Scott Tavish, Robin Brand and Scott Hammond. by Apollo 11 in July, 1969 and the real-life applications and matters 2019 theme “The Moon: Gateway which affect our daily lives; to the Stars” has been set to Earth environmental sciences encourage as many Moon-themed and resources monitoring; events as possible this year. telecommunications/GPS; the World Space Week Association implications of “Space junk” also celebrates its own in Earth orbit; even Near Earth anniversary this year; it is 20 years Objects (NEOs) and asteroid impact since the United Nations General prevention. Assembly declared World Space Space art, design and Week to be celebrated annually technology: anything from doing from 4-10 October. a painting, to building spacecraft, As a special incentive for those astronauts, sculptures, etc. working in education, the WSW UK from inexpensive bits & pieces, team at The British Interplanetary to creating a Lunar or Martian Society are collating a limited landscape using reclaimed Robin Brand presents to the local Unst Community Council. number of packs of Space-related material for environmental goodies for schools, teachers, awareness. Literature and drive container lorries to Unst from the UK mainland, outreach providers or societies tocopy history – from Dan Dare and the and that the local roads are excellent to within a use as prizes for their WSW2019 early science fiction “Masters”, kilometre or so of the proposed launch site – to events. So the sooner you register astronauts’ autobiographical which a new access road is being planned. The your interest at www.bis-space. accounts of their missions to launch site headland looked most suitable, being flat com/wsw/ the more likely you are space poetry and other artistic and already with basic road access and even electric to win a WSWUK goody bag*. representations of space power. It was used as an RAF radar station during World Space Week is a golden exploration and travel. Have a WWII. Also, the local residents are mostly in favour, (annual) opportunity to celebrate fancy dress day or Space party… with none of the crofter issues that other sites such “the contributions of space science The only limitation is your as The Moine have been experiencing. Mobile phone and technology for the betterment imagination! coverage is good around Lerwick, Shetland’s main of the human condition”. It is a Email WSWUK at town,Subscriber but weak in Unst, so a new high speed data GLOBAL event in which everyone [email protected] link is being planned for the area. can participate and to which we to register your interest and At the subsequent BIS NLV Working day 14 at the can all make a contribution. WSWUK will send you a welcome BIS HQ at the end of the month, it was agreed that The Global organisation aims to email with a link to an online Unst was the study’s preferred UK launch site, and engage with as wide an audience registration form, which will ask further work would be based on that assumption. It as possible and previous events for details of your planned event. was anticipated that a joint presentation with SSC have included public talks, (Don’t worry if you have no idea yet would take place at RISpace 2019 in Belfast in exhibitions, space-themed arts – The team is on hand to help!) November. It was also agreed to change the name of events (drama, poetry evenings), Although October may seem the study from “Nanosat Launch Vehicle” to “Small science festivals, etc. Even online far away, it will be upon us in Launch Vehicle” feasibility study, to more accurately events and book launches are valid no time at all. So it is a good reflect the 100-150 kg payload envisaged, so from WSW events. And everyone, at idea to develop your ideas and now on it will be known as the BIS SLV study. whatever level and age, can make reserve dates for your activities For further details of BIS technical projects old and a difference. now. Goody bags will contain a new, visit https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/ WSW also focuses on education minimum of 10 space-related items projects, which includes a web link the to the BIS and inspiring the next and will be mostly aimed at school- NLV/SLV study page. For more on the Shetland Space generation of explorers, aged recipients in order to Centre (with some good aerial views of the proposed inventors and space encourage engagement with launch site) visit https://shetlandspacecentre.com/, scientists. WSW educational establishments and the associated Facebook page https://www. doesn’t have to be and to inspire the next facebook.com/shetlandspacecentre/ – which an extra effort for generation. Purchasable includes a report on this visit. SF teachers as it can goody bags will also be Robin Brand FBIS be incorporated into available by September.

SpaceFlight Vol 61 July 2019 47 SOCIETY NEWS

BIS LECTURES & MEETINGS MEMBERSHIP NEWS

APOLLO MISSIONS: LANDING ON THE MOON 12 June 2019, 7.00pm VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ SpaceFlight's editor looks at the systems evolved by BIS supports “Innovation NASA for calculating optimum lunar landing trajectories, and at the descent procedures needed to achieve the maximum chance of success. in Space” Festival CASSINI-HUYGENS AND THE LORD OF THE RINGS THE BRITISH INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY PARTICIPATED in the 20 June 2019, 7.00pm Manchester Students for the Exploration and Development of Space VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ (ManSEDS) Innovation in Space Festival that was held on the 27 March Dr Shelia Kanani invites you to join her in celebrating on the Manchester University campus. There were over a hundred this incredible spacecraft’s amazing mission and some students, academics and industry personnel present and this year, for of the breathtaking discoveries it made. the first time, the Festival included presentations from industry and a small exhibition. APOLLO 11– MOON LANDING ManSEDS is one of the largest SEDS Groups in the country and has 17 July 2019, 7.00pm previously won National and International competitions. The Festival was opened by the ManSEDS President, Zuzanna VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ Nagadowska. Bob Morris, Northern Space Consortium, described the Jerry Stone continues his series of ever-popular Apollo current state of the space industry with specific reference to the latest lectures with a celebration of the first lunar landing. developments in the UK and the sort of projects that the students could be working on in the future. This was followed by David Johnson 74TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING from AMSAT-UK on their work from ground stations to orbiting 27 July 2018, 1 pm satellites. Xavier Geneste from the European Space Agency talked VENUE: National Space Centre, Leicester about co-operation in Space, the day to day working of a space engineer and some of the latest technical developments. Mitch Please note the change of venue. Admission to the Hunter-Scullion talked not only about his Asteroid Mining Corporation AGM is open to Fellows only but all Members are and their plans but also about entrepreneurship. Finally our own Alistair welcome to join the discussion after the formalities Scott gave a history of the influence the Society has had and continues conclude around 1.15 pm. Please advise in advance if copy to have in the industry and the relevance and support it provides for you wish to attend (attendance to this part of the students. afternoon is free). The AGM will be followed by the BIS There followed a break for networking and to allow attendees to look Summer Get-together at the same venue; tickets are round the exhibition. The Society had a stand, manned by Alistair Scott, free but you MUST register on our website, as we are and other exhibitors included the Graphene Engineering Innovation limited for numbers. Centre, The Institute of Physics, Fossa Systems, Micross Components and the Northern Space Consortium. SPACE DAY The presentations resumed with the ManSEDS project leaders, 6 October 2019 Matthew Liu, Joshua Green, James Lockwood and Alex Shelly VENUE: The Hive, Sawmill Walk, The Butts, Worcester WR1 3PD describing the various projects that the group is working on including Call for exhibitors! Book a free stand at this popular BIS the European Rover Challenge, High Altitude Balloon, Rocketry and West Midlands event during World Space Week. Email CanSat. SubscriberFinally all the guest speakers participated in a panel session chaired [email protected]. Attendance is also free and there’s no registration. Please join us if you can. by ManSEDS member Zachary Madin. Judging by the comments and feedback on the day, this was a very successful event. SF Robert J. Morris FBIS

NEW MEMBERS A rather disappointing tally of new members in April – just 5 from the UK, and 1 each from Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Uncertainty over Brexit? Perhaps. But it’s worth remembering that the British Interplanetary Society has been in existence since 1933 – and we’re not going anywhere, anytime soon. Welcome all!

48 Vol 61 July 2019 SpaceFlight copy Subscriber copy Subscriber