Launch and Results of Pioneer

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Launch and Results of Pioneer H UMAN F LIGHT &ROBOTIC E XPLORATION “Pioneering Space” Part II By Gideon Marcus research determined that 108 had experi- days for Earth and Moon to be in similar enced the same problem. This discovery did respective positions again. The launch win- An Unnumbered Pioneer not come as a complete surprise. Dolph dows were so narrow that mission planners Just six months after Louis Dunn Thiel, propulsions expert at Space had long since decided to not provide trajec- gave the order to start production, through Technology Laboratories and Peenemünde tory compensation for launch holds. dint of hard effort and ingenuity, the first veteran, had noted early that year that Instead, each Thor was preprogrammed Thor-Able three-stage booster towered 88 Thor’s turbopump design was thoroughly with a particular roll program, which varied feet above Launch Complex 17 pad A on marginal and recommended that the prob- depending on the launch day. The Air Force Merritt Island, Florida. The serial number, lem be fixed in the next run of the Thor mis- took for granted that the rocket would be 127, was printed on the Thor IRBM first sile. The problem was that several of the ready to fire at the proper time.2 stage, and USAF was proudly emblazoned potentially faulty Thors had already been Able-1’s first countdown went by along the Vanguard second stage. Atop the built and were committed for a variety of almost without a hitch. The Thor-Able third stage rested the world’s first lunar missions: several test flights, two more booster was fully fueled by the afternoon of probe. Roy Johnson, head of ARPA, and ARTV flights—and the Able-1 lunar 16 August. Engine and electrical checks U.S. Air Force Major General Bernard probes. were begun at 1930 and completed ahead of Schriever, who directed the first U.S. ICBM Should the Thor flights continue or schedule. On launch day, at T-35 minutes, programs, were among those in attendance. be suspended? That was the critical decision interstation communications were checked. The general was apprehensive about facing General Schriever. Fourteen Thors All stations reported that they were ready this flight and with good reason. In October had been launched thus far. Two had failed for operations, though the link to Singapore 1957, Thor 108 inexplicably exploded in in flight. Statistically, each Thor had a one- was somewhat noisy. mid-flight. Six months later, the first ARTV in-seven chance of exploding. Grounding At around the same time, telemetry Thor-Able blew up 146 seconds into its the Thor would cause several months of modulation of the Able-1’s low-frequency flight. This time, the malfunction was linked delay in a number of projects. On the other transmitter mysteriously ceased, the antenna to the Thor’s turbopump gearbox. Further hand, even in the event of the loss of one or instead locking on to a local, low-level two missiles, valuable guidance data could transmission. At T-15 minutes, a short hold be gathered. The only hard decision was called to turn off local telemetry involved the three Able-1 missions. General receivers in the hopes that they were attract- Schriever decided the odds were good ing the probe’s transmitter, but the problem enough, and ordered no delays, balancing persisted. The payload’s Doppler receiver the risk of a public relations disaster against did lock just fine when the local ground the benefits of accelerated development.1 transmitter was turned on. It was ultimately Seconds ticked by as the launch time concluded that there was some low level grew ever closer. The countdown was a “T- interfering signal unrelated to the transmit- minus” system with built in holds before the ters and receivers at the blockhouse. launch time as opposed to the older variety, Mission controllers ultimately decided that which pushed the launch forward with every the problem was not a large one and that it delay. This type of countdown is common- would likely correct itself after takeoff any- place now, but at the time this was a new way. No further problems were encountered innovation developed to accommodate mis- during the countdown and Thor 127’s sions with inflexible launch windows, lunar motors ignited at 0718 on August 17, four shots being among them. Hitting the vicini- minutes behind schedule.3 ty of the Moon from the rapidly spinning As America’s first lunar mission surface of Earth is a complicated billiard began its stately ascent from Pad 17-A, the shot. The opportunity to reach lunar orbit mood became jubilant. At 73.6 seconds comes only four days out of every month, later, elation turned to horror. The main and there is only a 35-minute window on bearing on the first stage’s turbopump, driv- Carl McIlwain Image courtesy of Gideon Marcus even the best of those days. If they missed en by the intense revolutions of the pump the window, the launch crew must wait 28 shaft, walked its way out of its housing and Q U E S T 14:3 2007 18 tore Thor 127 pieces—the same disaster that restrial molecules might had befallen Thors 108 and 116. The mis- adversely affect life or pre- sion was over. General Schriever had lost life processes on the Moon his gamble. Dolph Thiel placed his head in was justification enough his hands and sobbed.4 for the precaution.7 The next flight was optimistically At the Cape, Dr. planned for mid-September. This date was George Mueller, director of pushed to mid-October, which among other the Able-1 project at STL, things gave Van Allen’s team time to com- and U.S. Air Force plete its ion counter experiment. Lieutenant Donald Latham directed launch operations, Pioneer 1 Flies their 40-person crew com- Two months after the failed flight of pleting readiness checks Able-1, Thor 130 stood ready on the pad. with all STL ground sta- Though President Dwight Eisenhower had tions the day before launch. created the National Air and Space In addition to the primary Administration on 29 July 29, and on 1 tracking stations at October 1958 the new agency officially Canaveral, Hawaii, took control of all civilian space missions, Singapore, Manchester, the Thor-Able booster still bore the letters and Millstone (NH), ten “USAF” on the second stage. Its payload, Vanguard Minitrack sta- however, did receive a new name. The tions in Peru, Antigua, Army’s series of satellites was called Chile, Ecuador, the “Explorer” and their public information Bahamas, South Africa, officer proudly proclaimed them the Texas, Havana, and “Pioneers in Space.” Stephen A. Saliga, Australia stood by to relay chief designer of Air Force exhibits at the tracking data through the Pioneer 0 launch assembly Image courtesy of Gideon Marcus Air Force Orientation Group, Wright- Cape.8 Preparations contin- Patterson AFB, suggested the Air Force ued right up to launch time. onds of fuel left in the second stage.11 At show who the real Pioneers in space were At one point, the Ramo-Wooldridge man in the time, no one knew what caused the first by naming the new lunar orbiter, charge of the Hawaii station reported that stage loft. Wind was suggested as the cul- “Pioneer.”5 His proposal was accepted, and the antenna there was frozen. Mueller prit,12 but the Air Force later concluded that under this new naming scheme, the Able-1 laconically replied that the man had 12 the problem was caused by the first-stage flying in October would be known to the hours to fix it, or they would launch any- autopilot.13 By third-stage burnout, some- world as “Pioneer 1.” In the interests of con- way. The antenna was repaired in time for thing was seriously amiss, though it took sistency, the failed August flight was desig- the launch.9 some time for the mission controllers to nated “Pioneer 0.” The countdown proceeded largely ascertain this. The velocity vector was off As with Pioneer 0, all concerned without incident. Ten seconds before dead- some 5 degrees now. Somehow the third felt great trepidation about the launch— line, there was a momentary hold: a super- stage had been cocked from center some 15 more so now that they’d already lost one of visor had not responded to one of many degrees after separation from the second their three spacecraft. Unlike the August thumbs-up signals in the blockhouse. The stage. This deviation from the planned flight mission, Pioneer 1’s flight was a matter of countdown resumed a few seconds later path presaged failure for the spacecraft’s public scrutiny. If all went well, the space- with no further problems. At 4:42 a.m. east- primary mission. craft would be the world’s eighth space mis- ern daylight time, Saturday, 11 October As of third-stage burnout, Pioneer sion, America’s fifth, and the first to 1958, NASA’s first space probe departed its was traveling at some 500 ft/sec less than approach the Moon, much less orbit it. All launch pad only 13 seconds behind sched- the desired 35,206 ft/sec, which would eyes on both sides of the Iron Curtain wait- ule.10 allow it to escape Earth’s gravity. All eight ed to see if America’s first civilian lunar Just 16 minutes later, all three stages vernier rockets, designed to keep the probe shot would be a success or not. Professor on the Thor Able had fired successfully. At on course, were fired to make up deficit.
Recommended publications
  • Mission to Jupiter
    This book attempts to convey the creativity, Project A History of the Galileo Jupiter: To Mission The Galileo mission to Jupiter explored leadership, and vision that were necessary for the an exciting new frontier, had a major impact mission’s success. It is a book about dedicated people on planetary science, and provided invaluable and their scientific and engineering achievements. lessons for the design of spacecraft. This The Galileo mission faced many significant problems. mission amassed so many scientific firsts and Some of the most brilliant accomplishments and key discoveries that it can truly be called one of “work-arounds” of the Galileo staff occurred the most impressive feats of exploration of the precisely when these challenges arose. Throughout 20th century. In the words of John Casani, the the mission, engineers and scientists found ways to original project manager of the mission, “Galileo keep the spacecraft operational from a distance of was a way of demonstrating . just what U.S. nearly half a billion miles, enabling one of the most technology was capable of doing.” An engineer impressive voyages of scientific discovery. on the Galileo team expressed more personal * * * * * sentiments when she said, “I had never been a Michael Meltzer is an environmental part of something with such great scope . To scientist who has been writing about science know that the whole world was watching and and technology for nearly 30 years. His books hoping with us that this would work. We were and articles have investigated topics that include doing something for all mankind.” designing solar houses, preventing pollution in When Galileo lifted off from Kennedy electroplating shops, catching salmon with sonar and Space Center on 18 October 1989, it began an radar, and developing a sensor for examining Space interplanetary voyage that took it to Venus, to Michael Meltzer Michael Shuttle engines.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Iowa Instruments in Space
    University of Iowa Instruments in Space A-D13-089-5 Wind Van Allen Probes Cluster Mercury Earth Venus Mars Express HaloSat MMS Geotail Mars Voyager 2 Neptune Uranus Juno Pluto Jupiter Saturn Voyager 1 Spaceflight instruments designed and built at the University of Iowa in the Department of Physics & Astronomy (1958-2019) Explorer 1 1958 Feb. 1 OGO 4 1967 July 28 Juno * 2011 Aug. 5 Launch Date Launch Date Launch Date Spacecraft Spacecraft Spacecraft Explorer 3 (U1T9)58 Mar. 26 Injun 5 1(U9T68) Aug. 8 (UT) ExpEloxrpelro r1e r 4 1915985 8F eJbu.l y1 26 OEGxOpl o4rer 41 (IMP-5) 19697 Juunlye 2 281 Juno * 2011 Aug. 5 Explorer 2 (launch failure) 1958 Mar. 5 OGO 5 1968 Mar. 4 Van Allen Probe A * 2012 Aug. 30 ExpPloiorenre 3er 1 1915985 8M Oarc. t2. 611 InEjuxnp lo5rer 45 (SSS) 197618 NAouvg.. 186 Van Allen Probe B * 2012 Aug. 30 ExpPloiorenre 4er 2 1915985 8Ju Nlyo 2v.6 8 EUxpKlo 4r e(rA 4ri1el -(4IM) P-5) 197619 DJuenc.e 1 211 Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission / 1 * 2015 Mar. 12 ExpPloiorenre 5e r 3 (launch failure) 1915985 8A uDge.c 2. 46 EPxpiolonreeerr 4130 (IMP- 6) 19721 Maarr.. 313 HMEaRgCnIe CtousbpeShaetr i(cF oMxu-1ltDis scaatelell itMe)i ssion / 2 * 2021081 J5a nM. a1r2. 12 PionPeioenr e1er 4 1915985 9O cMt.a 1r.1 3 EExpxlpolorerer r4 457 ( S(IMSSP)-7) 19721 SNeopvt.. 1263 HMaalogSnaett oCsupbhee Sriact eMlluitlet i*scale Mission / 3 * 2021081 M5a My a2r1. 12 Pioneer 2 1958 Nov. 8 UK 4 (Ariel-4) 1971 Dec. 11 Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission / 4 * 2015 Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summaries
    TIROS 8 12/21/63 Delta-22 TIROS-H (A-53) 17B S National Aeronautics and TIROS 9 1/22/65 Delta-28 TIROS-I (A-54) 17A S Space Administration TIROS Operational 2TIROS 10 7/1/65 Delta-32 OT-1 17B S John F. Kennedy Space Center 2ESSA 1 2/3/66 Delta-36 OT-3 (TOS) 17A S Information Summaries 2 2 ESSA 2 2/28/66 Delta-37 OT-2 (TOS) 17B S 2ESSA 3 10/2/66 2Delta-41 TOS-A 1SLC-2E S PMS 031 (KSC) OSO (Orbiting Solar Observatories) Lunar and Planetary 2ESSA 4 1/26/67 2Delta-45 TOS-B 1SLC-2E S June 1999 OSO 1 3/7/62 Delta-8 OSO-A (S-16) 17A S 2ESSA 5 4/20/67 2Delta-48 TOS-C 1SLC-2E S OSO 2 2/3/65 Delta-29 OSO-B2 (S-17) 17B S Mission Launch Launch Payload Launch 2ESSA 6 11/10/67 2Delta-54 TOS-D 1SLC-2E S OSO 8/25/65 Delta-33 OSO-C 17B U Name Date Vehicle Code Pad Results 2ESSA 7 8/16/68 2Delta-58 TOS-E 1SLC-2E S OSO 3 3/8/67 Delta-46 OSO-E1 17A S 2ESSA 8 12/15/68 2Delta-62 TOS-F 1SLC-2E S OSO 4 10/18/67 Delta-53 OSO-D 17B S PIONEER (Lunar) 2ESSA 9 2/26/69 2Delta-67 TOS-G 17B S OSO 5 1/22/69 Delta-64 OSO-F 17B S Pioneer 1 10/11/58 Thor-Able-1 –– 17A U Major NASA 2 1 OSO 6/PAC 8/9/69 Delta-72 OSO-G/PAC 17A S Pioneer 2 11/8/58 Thor-Able-2 –– 17A U IMPROVED TIROS OPERATIONAL 2 1 OSO 7/TETR 3 9/29/71 Delta-85 OSO-H/TETR-D 17A S Pioneer 3 12/6/58 Juno II AM-11 –– 5 U 3ITOS 1/OSCAR 5 1/23/70 2Delta-76 1TIROS-M/OSCAR 1SLC-2W S 2 OSO 8 6/21/75 Delta-112 OSO-1 17B S Pioneer 4 3/3/59 Juno II AM-14 –– 5 S 3NOAA 1 12/11/70 2Delta-81 ITOS-A 1SLC-2W S Launches Pioneer 11/26/59 Atlas-Able-1 –– 14 U 3ITOS 10/21/71 2Delta-86 ITOS-B 1SLC-2E U OGO (Orbiting Geophysical
    [Show full text]
  • Jjmonl 1603.Pmd
    alactic Observer GJohn J. McCarthy Observatory Volume 9, No. 3 March 2016 GRAIL - On the Trail of the Moon's Missing Mass GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) was a NASA scientific mission in 2011/12 to map the surface of the moon and collect data on gravitational anomalies. The image here is an artist's impres- sion of the twin satellites (Ebb and Flow) orbiting in tandem above a gravitational image of the moon. See inside, page 4 for information on gravitational anomalies (mascons) or visit http://solarsystem. nasa.gov/grail. The John J. McCarthy Observatory Galactic Observer New Milford High School Editorial Committee 388 Danbury Road Managing Editor New Milford, CT 06776 Bill Cloutier Phone/Voice: (860) 210-4117 Production & Design Phone/Fax: (860) 354-1595 www.mccarthyobservatory.org Allan Ostergren Website Development JJMO Staff Marc Polansky It is through their efforts that the McCarthy Observatory Technical Support has established itself as a significant educational and Bob Lambert recreational resource within the western Connecticut Dr. Parker Moreland community. Steve Barone Jim Johnstone Colin Campbell Carly KleinStern Dennis Cartolano Bob Lambert Mike Chiarella Roger Moore Route Jeff Chodak Parker Moreland, PhD Bill Cloutier Allan Ostergren Cecilia Dietrich Marc Polansky Dirk Feather Joe Privitera Randy Fender Monty Robson Randy Finden Don Ross John Gebauer Gene Schilling Elaine Green Katie Shusdock Tina Hartzell Paul Woodell Tom Heydenburg Amy Ziffer In This Issue "OUT THE WINDOW ON YOUR LEFT" ............................... 4 SUNRISE AND SUNSET ...................................................... 13 MARE HUMBOLDTIANIUM AND THE NORTHEAST LIMB ......... 5 JUPITER AND ITS MOONS ................................................. 13 ONE YEAR IN SPACE ....................................................... 6 TRANSIT OF JUPITER'S RED SPOT ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest to Understand the Pioneer Anomaly
    The quest to understand the Pioneer anomaly I Michael Martin Nieto, Theoretical Division (MS-8285) Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alarnos, New Mexico 87545 USA E-mail: [email protected] +a l1 l I l uring the 1960's, when the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Pioneer 10 was launched on 2 March 1972 local time, aboard D first started thinking about what eventually became the an Atlas/Centaur/TE364-4launch vehicle (see Fig. l).It was the "Grand Tours" of the outer planets (the Voyager missions of the first craft launched into deep space and was the first to reach an 1970's and 1980's),the use of planetary flybys for gravity assists of outer giant planet, Jupiter,on 4 Dec. 1973 [l, 21. Later it was the first spacecraft became of great interest. The concept was to use flybys to leave the "solar system" (past the orbit of Pluto or, should we now of the major planets to both mowthe direction of the spacecraft say, Neptune). The Pioneer project, eventually extending over and also to add to its heliocentric velocity in a manner that was decades, was managed at NASAIAMES Research Center under the unfeasible using only chemical fuels. The first time these ideas were hands of four successive project managers, the legendary Charlie put into practice in deep space was with the Pioneers. Hall, Richard Fimrnel, Fred Wirth, and the current Larry Lasher. While in its Earth-Jupiter cruise, Pioneer 10 was still bound to the solar system. By 9 January 1973 Pjoneer l0 was at a distance of 3.40 AU (Astronomical Units'), beyond the asteroid belt.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Weather Impacts on Satellites at Different Orbits
    Space Weather impacts on satellites at different orbits ! Outline! Prelude" ! Orbits" ! Different types of SWx effects on satellites" ! Satellite anomalies from the recent March 2012 SWx events! Yihua Zheng" June 10, 2013" SW REDI" Internal Use Only" Please do not distribute" 1 1st satellite launched into space" The world's first artificial satellite, the Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. " marking the start of the Space Age" 4 October, 1957! International Geophysical Year: 1957" 2" Space dog - Laika" the occupant of the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 that was launched into outer space on November 3, 1957" Paving the way for human missions" 3" Explorer I – 1st U.S. Satellite" •! Explorer 1, was launched into Earth's orbit on a Jupiter C missile from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on January 31, 1958 - Inner belt" 4" Discovery of the outer Van Allen RB! Pioneer 3 (launched 6 December 1958) and Explorer IV (launched July 26, 1958) both carried instruments designed and built by Dr. Van Allen. These spacecraft provided Van Allen additional data that led to discovery of a second radiation belt" 5 Van Allen Probes – more than half- century later" 6 Orbits" 7" orbits" GEO" Yellow: MEO" Green-dash-dotted line: GPS" Cyan: LEO" Red dotted line: ISS" 8" orbits" 9" Orbits" •! A low Earth orbit (LEO) is generally defined as an orbit below an altitude of 2,000 km. Given the rapid orbital decay of objects below approximately 200 km, the commonly accepted definition for LEO is between 160– 2,000 km (100–1,240 miles) above the Earth's surface." •! Medium Earth orbit (MEO), sometimes called intermediate circular orbit (ICO), is the region of space around the Earth above low Earth orbit (altitude of 2,000 kilometres (1,243 mi)) and below geostationary orbit (altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi)).
    [Show full text]
  • Design Principles for Robust Grasping in Unstructured Environments
    Design Principles for Robust Grasping in Unstructured Environments A thesis presented by Aaron Michael Dollar to The Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Engineering Sciences Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts October 25, 2006 © 2006 Aaron Michael Dollar All rights reserved. Robert D. Howe Aaron Michael Dollar Thesis Advisor Author Design Principles for Robust Grasping in Unstructured Environments Abstract Grasping in unstructured environments is one of the most challenging issues currently facing robotics. The inherent uncertainty about the properties of the target object and its surroundings makes the use of traditional robot hands, which typically involve complex mechanisms, sensing suites, and control, difficult and impractical. In this dissertation I investigate how the challenges associated with grasping under uncertainty can be addressed by careful mechanical design of robot hands. In particular, I examine the role of three characteristics of hand design as they affect performance: passive mechanical compliance, adaptability (or underactuation), and durability. I present design optimization studies in which the kinematic structure, compliance configuration, and joint coupling are varied in order to determine the effect on the allowable error in positioning that results in a successful grasp, while keeping contact forces low. I then describe the manufacture of a prototype hand created using a particularly durable process called polymer-based Shape Deposition Manufacturing (SDM). This process allows fragile sensing and actuation components to be embedded in tough polymers, as well as the creation of heterogeneous parts, eliminating the need for fasteners and seams that are iii often the cause of failure.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)
    chl APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT (NASA SP-362) Chapter 1 - Introduction Harold Masursky, Farouk El-Baz, Frederick J. Doyle, and Leon J. Kosofsky [For a high resolution picture- click here] Objectives [1] Photography of the lunar surface was considered an important goal of the Apollo program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The important objectives of Apollo photography were (1) to gather data pertaining to the topography and specific landmarks along the approach paths to the early Apollo landing sites; (2) to obtain high-resolution photographs of the landing sites and surrounding areas to plan lunar surface exploration, and to provide a basis for extrapolating the concentrated observations at the landing sites to nearby areas; and (3) to obtain photographs suitable for regional studies of the lunar geologic environment and the processes that act upon it. Through study of the photographs and all other arrays of information gathered by the Apollo and earlier lunar programs, we may develop an understanding of the evolution of the lunar crust. In this introductory chapter we describe how the Apollo photographic systems were selected and used; how the photographic mission plans were formulated and conducted; how part of the great mass of data is being analyzed and published; and, finally, we describe some of the scientific results. Historically most lunar atlases have used photointerpretive techniques to discuss the possible origins of the Moon's crust and its surface features. The ideas presented in this volume also rely on photointerpretation. However, many ideas are substantiated or expanded by information obtained from the huge arrays of supporting data gathered by Earth-based and orbital sensors, from experiments deployed on the lunar surface, and from studies made of the returned samples.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of a Passively Cooled Cylindrical Spectrometer Array in Lunar Orbit
    AN EVALUATION OF A PASSIVELY COOLED CYLINDRICAL SPECTROMETER ARRAY IN LUNAR ORBIT by JASON WAGGONER A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering in The Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering to The School of Graduate Studies of The University of Alabama in Huntsville HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It cannot be understated how much I have benefitted from the assistance, attention and insight provided by a great deal of people. I always begin by thanking my God who gives me strength and wisdom only to be followed by my patient wife and children. Second, my thesis committee (in particular the chair and advisor) has been unbelievably patient and instructive. As this thesis pushed me in areas in which I have very little experience, my colleagues at work have demonstrated time and again why I am proud to be associated with such wonderful people and competent members of the scientific community. In no particular order of preference I list below the names of those individuals. Brain O’Connor Greg Schunk Deborah Hernandez Shawn Breeding John Sharp Jim Duffy Ron Hunt Patrick Hull Ken Kittredge Jeff Farmer I would also like to mention my immediate supervisors at NASA who allowed me great lee way and were understanding as I completed this thesis. Cynthia Ferguson Chris Coppens Tony Lavoie v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... VI LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: a Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 | Asifa
    dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 1 Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology ofDeep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 |Asif A.Siddiqi National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA SP-2002-4524 A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 Asif A. Siddiqi NASA SP-2002-4524 Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 2 Cover photo: A montage of planetary images taken by Mariner 10, the Mars Global Surveyor Orbiter, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2, all managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Included (from top to bottom) are images of Mercury, Venus, Earth (and Moon), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and its Moon, and Mars) and the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are roughly to scale to each other. NASA SP-2002-4524 Deep Space Chronicle A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 ASIF A. SIDDIQI Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 June 2002 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations NASA History Office Washington, DC 20546-0001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siddiqi, Asif A., 1966­ Deep space chronicle: a chronology of deep space and planetary probes, 1958-2000 / by Asif A. Siddiqi. p.cm. – (Monographs in aerospace history; no. 24) (NASA SP; 2002-4524) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Space flight—History—20th century. I. Title. II. Series. III. NASA SP; 4524 TL 790.S53 2002 629.4’1’0904—dc21 2001044012 Table of Contents Foreword by Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA and Planetary Exploration
    **EU5 Chap 2(263-300) 2/20/03 1:16 PM Page 263 Chapter Two NASA and Planetary Exploration by Amy Paige Snyder Prelude to NASA’s Planetary Exploration Program Four and a half billion years ago, a rotating cloud of gaseous and dusty material on the fringes of the Milky Way galaxy flattened into a disk, forming a star from the inner- most matter. Collisions among dust particles orbiting the newly-formed star, which humans call the Sun, formed kilometer-sized bodies called planetesimals which in turn aggregated to form the present-day planets.1 On the third planet from the Sun, several billions of years of evolution gave rise to a species of living beings equipped with the intel- lectual capacity to speculate about the nature of the heavens above them. Long before the era of interplanetary travel using robotic spacecraft, Greeks observing the night skies with their eyes alone noticed that five objects above failed to move with the other pinpoints of light, and thus named them planets, for “wan- derers.”2 For the next six thousand years, humans living in regions of the Mediterranean and Europe strove to make sense of the physical characteristics of the enigmatic planets.3 Building on the work of the Babylonians, Chaldeans, and Hellenistic Greeks who had developed mathematical methods to predict planetary motion, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria put forth a theory in the second century A.D. that the planets moved in small circles, or epicycles, around a larger circle centered on Earth.4 Only partially explaining the planets’ motions, this theory dominated until Nicolaus Copernicus of present-day Poland became dissatisfied with the inadequacies of epicycle theory in the mid-sixteenth century; a more logical explanation of the observed motions, he found, was to consider the Sun the pivot of planetary orbits.5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Overview the Pioneer Mission Set the Stage for U.S. Space
    Mission Overview The Pioneer mission set the stage for U.S. space exploration. Pioneer 1 was the first manmade object to escape the Earth's gravitational field. Later Pioneer 4 was the first spacecraft to fly to the moon, Pioneer 10 was the first to Jupiter, Pioneer 11 was the first to Saturn and Pioneer 12 was the first U.S. spacecraft to orbit another planet, Venus. The following table summarizes the Pioneer spacecraft and scientific objectives of the Pioneer mission. Name Launch Mission Status (as of 1998) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer 1 1958-10-11 Moon Reached altitude of 72765 miles Pioneer 2 1958-11-08 Moon Reached altitude of 963 miles Pioneer 3 1958-12-02 Moon Reached altitude of 63580 miles Pioneer 4 1959-03-03 Moon Passed by moon into solar orbit Pioneer 5 1960-03-11 Solar Orbit Entered solar orbit Pioneer 6 1965-12-16 Solar Orbit Still operating Pioneer 7 1966-08-17 Solar Orbit Still operating Pioneer 8 1967-12-13 Solar Orbit Still operating Pioneer 9 1967-11-08 Solar Orbit Signal lost in 1983 Pioneer E 1969-08-07 Solar Orbit Launch failure Pioneer10 1972-03-02 Jupiter Communication terminated 1998 Pioneer11 1972-03-02 Jupiter/Saturn Communication terminated 1997 Pioneer12 1978-05-20 Venus Entered Venus atmos. 1992-10-08 The focus of this document is on Pioneer Venus (12), the last spacecraft in a mission of firsts in space exploration. Probe Separation: Pioneer Venus separated into two spacecraft on Aug 8, 1978: an Orbiter (PVO) and a Multiprobe. The latter was separated into five separate vehicles near Venus.
    [Show full text]