DOCSLIB.ORG

6555 Aerospace Test Gp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6555 Aerospace Test Gp 6555th AEROSPACE TEST GROUP LINEAGE STATIONS Patrick AFB, FL, ASSIGNMENTS COMMANDERS HONORS Service Streamers Campaign Streamers Armed Forces Expeditionary Streamers Decorations EMBLEM EMBLEM SIGNIFICANCE MOTTO NICKNAME OPERATIONS On 1 April 1970, the 6555th Aerospace Test Wing was redesignated the 6555th Aerospace Test Group, and it was reassigned to the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing headquartered at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. That change amounted to a two-fold decline in the 6555th Test Wing's status, but there were good reasons for the action. First, DOD ballistic missile programs at the Cape had become decidedly "Navy Blue" by 1970. U.S. Navy ballistic missile tests constituted more than half of all the major launches on the Eastern Test Range between 1966 and 1972, and the Navy's demand for range services continued without interruption into the 1990s. In sharp contrast to its own ballistic missile efforts of the 1950s and 60s, the Air Force was about to conclude its final ballistic missile test program at the Cape (i.e., the MINUTEMAN III) in December 1970. Second, though the 6555th continued to support space operations from launch complexes 13, 40 and 41, NASA dominated manned space and deep space missions at the Cape. NASA commanded 50 percent of the Eastern Test Range's "range time" as early as 1967, and its status as a major range user was unquestioned. Last but not least, Air Force military space requirements accounted for only 11 percent of the Eastern Test Range's activity, but Air Force space and missile test requirements at Vandenberg accounted for 75 percent of the Western Test Range's workload. With the dramatic shift in Air Force space and missile operations from the Cape to Vandenberg, it was logical to give the 6555th a less prominent role. The 6555th joined the 6595th Space Test Group and the 6595th Missile Test Group as one of three groups under the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing. From the preceding comments, an observer might conclude that the 6555th Test Group's future looked far less promising than its past in 1970, but events over the next two decades were to prove otherwise. To appreciate the significance of the Test Group's accomplishments in this later period, we first need to examine the organizations, programs and strategies that shaped military space operations at the Cape in the 1970s and 80s. First, there was the Range. As a result of the inactivation of Air Force System Command's National Range Division on 1 February 1972, the Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR, pronounced "aff-eater") became the only Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) test range to operate as a separate field command in the 1970s. As such, AFETR had the status of a numbered air force, and it reported directly to AFSC for the next five years. On 1 February 1977, AFETR Headquarters was inactivated, and control of the Range passed to the Space and Missile Test Center (SAMTEC) headquartered at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. (SAMTEC was the parent organization for the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing, mentioned earlier). Elements of AFETR's old 6550th Air Base Group were reorganized as the 6550th Air Base Wing, which was given host responsibility for Patrick Air Force Base. The 6550th Air Base Wing was deactivated, and its resources were reassigned to the 6550th Air Base Group, which was resurrected under ESMC. The 6595th Shuttle Test Group, 6595th Satellite Test Group and 6595th Missile Test Group were assigned to WSMC, and the 6555th Aerospace Test Group was assigned to ESMC. Both new centers reported to SAMTO, and SAMTO reported to Space Division (formerly the Space and Missile Systems Organization [SAMSO]) headquartered at Los Angeles Air Force Station, California. After nearly twenty years as a tenant unit on the Cape, the 6555th returned to the command relationship it had enjoyed under the Air Force Missile Test Center in the 1950s This introduction applies equally to chapters II and III, since both medium and heavy launch vehicle systems will be addressed. At the beginning of 1971, the 6555th Aerospace Test Group consisted of a commander's office under Colonel Davis P. Parrish and three divisions (e.g., Support, ATLAS Systems and TITAN III Systems). The Group's overall mission was to provide field test management and launch support for AFSC and other agencies at the Cape. Its responsibilities included: 1) representing the Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) and the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing at the Cape in the areas of technical test direction and program control, 2) integrating Air Force, other government agency and contractor efforts in support of program field test management, prelaunch and launch support, 3) determining the test and/or launch readiness of launch vehicles and payloads and 4) providing liaison between the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing and the Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR) organization. Under the Test Group's concept of launch operations, Air Force launch operations engineers were placed "on the scene" to work closely with booster, payload and range support contractors. They observed individual and combined systems tests, and they helped contractors resolve problems and meet test objectives successfully under the pressure of time constraints. Based on their familiarity with those systems, the Test Group's "blue suit" engineers evaluated trend data and performed failure analysis in concert with the contractors. Their principal duties were those of field test engineers. When the 6555th Aerospace Test Group was transferred from the 6595th Aerospace Test Wing to the Eastern Space and Missile Center on 1 October 1979, the Group's three divisions were left intact. The Test Group created its Programs/Analysis Division around April 1981, but that division dealt with budget and facility planning matters, and it reinforced rather than diminished the basic missions of the other three divisions. Later on, following the first Shuttle missions, the Air Force saw a need to streamline Shuttle/DOD payload operations by simplifying "interfaces" between NASA, the Air Force and various contractors. The STS Division and the Satellite Systems Division were consolidated to form the Spacecraft Division on 1 November 1983. Until June 1988, the 6555th based its organization on the Space Launch Vehicle Systems Division, the Spacecraft Division and the Programs/Analysis Division. Under the KSC/6555th ASTG Joint Operations Plan for DOD Missions (dated 7 January 1985), the Spacecraft Division directed ground processing of Defense Department payloads and determined the technical readiness of spacecraft, ground support equipment and facilities. Its Air Force test controllers managed spacecraft hardware testing in the Shuttle Payload Integration Facility (SPIF), and the Division provided the Air Force Test Director for Space Shuttle missions involving Defense Department payloads. The Space Launch Vehicle Systems Division exercised field test management and control over all TITAN 34D, IUS, CENTAUR, and TITAN IV vehicles and upper stages associated with military missions launched from KSC and the Cape. The Cape, Chapter 2, Section 1,6555th Aerospace Test Group Responsibilities 1987, there was talk of creating a "DELTA Division" to handle the Test Group's new DELTA II launch vehicle program. On 1 June 1988, 20 manpower authorizations were transferred from the Space Launch Vehicle Systems Division to form the initial cadre for the Medium Launch Vehicle Division. (The Spacecraft Division transferred three of its manpower slots to the new division as well.) Under the 6555th Test Group's charter, the Medium Launch Vehicle Division became the focal point for all launch site activities related to medium launch vehicles. The new division would provide engineering direction for booster, upper stage and payload activities, and it would certify the vehicle and the payload for launch. The next important shift in the 6555th Test Group's organization occurred as a result of ESMC's transfer from Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) to Air Force Space Command (AFSPACECOM) on 1 October 1990. On that date, 175 out of 241 personnel were transferred "on paper" from the 6555th to the 1st Space Launch Squadron, the ATLAS II and TITAN IV Combined Test Forces (CTFs), "Payload Operations" and "Ops Resource Management." The Test Group's remaining personnel remained attached to the 6555th, but their numbers dwindled to approximately 25 military members and 11 civilians by the end of December 1991. Colonel Michael R. Spence assumed command of the 6555th Aerospace Test Group on 2 October 1990, and he was given an additional position on the ESMC staff as Deputy for Launch Operations. Under this new "dual- hatted" position, Spence supervised the resources formerly assigned to the 6555th Aerospace Test Group. The Payload Operations Office became the 45th Spacecraft Operations Squadron. Colonel Spence succeeded Colonel James N. Posey as 45th Operations Group Commander on 31 January 1992, and Lt. Colonel William H. Barnett became the 6555th Test Group's "Acting Commander" in addition to his duties as Director of the TITAN CTF. Lt. Colonel Barnett assumed command of the 6555th in his own right on 25 March 1992. The 6555th Aerospace Test Group is an inactive United States Air Force unit. It was last assigned to the Eastern Space and Missile Center and stationed at Patrick AFB, Florida. It was inactivated on 1 October 1990. Prior to the activation of the Air Force Space Command, the unit was responsible for the development of USAF missiles, both tactical surface-to-surface; CIM-10 Bomarc Interceptor; SM- 62 Snark Intercontinental Cruise Missile; Intercontinental ballistic missile and heavy launch rockets used for military for satellite deployment. The unit played a key role in the civilian NASA Project Mercury, Project Gemini and Project Apollo manned space programs along with military Space Shuttle flights. The mission of the unit today is performed by the 45th Space Wing (no direct lineage).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electronic Warfare Fundamentals
    ELECTRONIC WARFARE FUNDAMENTALS NOVEMBER 2000 PREFACE Electronic Warfare Fundamentals is a student supplementary text and reference book that provides the foundation for understanding the basic concepts underlying electronic warfare (EW). This text uses a practical building-block approach to facilitate student comprehension of the essential subject matter associated with the combat applications of EW. Since radar and infrared (IR) weapons systems present the greatest threat to air operations on today's battlefield, this text emphasizes radar and IR theory and countermeasures. Although command and control (C2) systems play a vital role in modern warfare, these systems are not a direct threat to the aircrew and hence are not discussed in this book. This text does address the specific types of radar systems most likely to be associated with a modern integrated air defense system (lADS). To introduce the reader to EW, Electronic Warfare Fundamentals begins with a brief history of radar, an overview of radar capabilities, and a brief introduction to the threat systems associated with a typical lADS. The two subsequent chapters introduce the theory and characteristics of radio frequency (RF) energy as it relates to radar operations. These are followed by radar signal characteristics, radar system components, and radar target discrimination capabilities. The book continues with a discussion of antenna types and scans, target tracking, and missile guidance techniques. The next step in the building-block approach is a detailed description of countermeasures designed to defeat radar systems. The text presents the theory and employment considerations for both noise and deception jamming techniques and their impact on radar systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Loran C Cycle Matching Operational Evaluation in North Pacific Area
    ~Opy 19 Report No. FAA ...RD-75-142 1-= FAA WJH Technical Center 1111\\\ 11\\1 11m 11111 11m 11111 1III1 11111 11111111 00090609 LORAN C CYCLE MATCHING OPERATIONAL EVALUATION IN NORTH PACIFIC AREA Jon R. Hamilton . .. NAFEC :~. LIBRARY DEC 2197~· # . October 1975 Final Report Document is avai lable to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Preparell for u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Systems Research &Development Service Washington, D.C. 20590 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of infor­ mation exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 1 -=~,....e;.,...~_r~_~.,...~.,...' ~T 'I";~T,iW', 1--:-_' -..,..7_5..,..-_1_4_2 ....'·-O:;;;;-"=;;;;=:--.-- (000'0' No 4. Tit'e and Subtitle 5. Rer,ort Dote Loran C Cycle Matching Operational Evaluation in October 1975 North Pacific Area I-:- ------::-------:::----~--_1 1'-::--:---:--:-:---------------------------- ,g. P .. rio-Ming Orgonlzation Report N.o. 7. Author/ .) Jon R. Hami 1ton P~rfo,mi"g 9. l.Ontlnenta Organitotjpi) I-\lr N.p[e. lneS, and Acld'fu nco In. Wark Unit No. /TRAIS) International Airport 11. Cont'oct or Grant No. Los Angeles, California 90009 DOT -FA75WA-3607 -:-. '--'~"--"----'-'" ._.---------­ 1J. 1" yp.. "f Qepc"t 01"1' Period Coy"r.d ~-....,.....-----_._---_._._._----.-_._--.-. __._._.__..._. __ ._---._.._." 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and ~cldr..". Final Department of Transportation I October 1975 Federal Aviation Administration Systems Research and Development Service 14. Spc.nsorinll Agene./ Code Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Air Force and Its Antecedents Published and Printed Unit Histories
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND ITS ANTECEDENTS PUBLISHED AND PRINTED UNIT HISTORIES A BIBLIOGRAPHY EXPANDED & REVISED EDITION compiled by James T. Controvich January 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS User's Guide................................................................................................................................1 I. Named Commands .......................................................................................................................4 II. Numbered Air Forces ................................................................................................................ 20 III. Numbered Commands .............................................................................................................. 41 IV. Air Divisions ............................................................................................................................. 45 V. Wings ........................................................................................................................................ 49 VI. Groups ..................................................................................................................................... 69 VII. Squadrons..............................................................................................................................122 VIII. Aviation Engineers................................................................................................................ 179 IX. Womens Army Corps............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, Atlas V Addendum
    ATLAS Atlas Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, Atlas V Addendum FOREWORD This Atlas V Addendum supplements the current version of the Atlas Launch System Mission Plan- ner’s Guide (AMPG) and presents the initial vehicle capabilities for the newly available Atlas V launch system. Atlas V’s multiple vehicle configurations and performance levels can provide the optimum match for a range of customer requirements at the lowest cost. The performance data are presented in sufficient detail for preliminary assessment of the Atlas V vehicle family for your missions. This guide, in combination with the AMPG, includes essential technical and programmatic data for preliminary mission planning and spacecraft design. Interface data are in sufficient detail to assess a first-order compatibility. This guide contains current information on Lockheed Martin’s plans for Atlas V launch services. It is subject to change as Atlas V development progresses, and will be revised peri- odically. Potential users of Atlas V launch service are encouraged to contact the offices listed below to obtain the latest technical and program status information for the Atlas V development. For technical and business development inquiries, contact: COMMERCIAL BUSINESS U.S. GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES BUSINESS INQUIRIES Telephone: (691) 645-6400 Telephone: (303) 977-5250 Fax: (619) 645-6500 Fax: (303) 971-2472 Postal Address: Postal Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. P.O. Box 124670 P.O. Box 179 San Diego, CA 92112-4670 Denver, CO 80201 Street Address: Street Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. 101 West Broadway P.O. Box 179 Suite 2000 MS DC1400 San Diego, CA 92101 12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road Littleton, CO 80127-5146 A current version of this document can be found, in electronic form, on the Internet at: http://www.ilslaunch.com ii ATLAS LAUNCH SYSTEM MISSION PLANNER’S GUIDE ATLAS V ADDENDUM (AVMPG) REVISIONS Revision Date Rev No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exceptional Release
    LEADING LOGISTICS INTO THE FUTURE: AN EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE “PERSPECTIVES” INTERVIEW WITH MR. STEVEN J. MORANI Interviewed by Maj Geno Fan THE US MILITARY AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP? AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER THE TWO ARE TRULY COMPATIBLE FALL 2020 Lt Col Michael Boswell and ER Capt Neal Gupta UNDERSTANDING ACE Maj James P. Guthrie TAKING CARE OF YOUR AIRMEN: THE POWER OF EXPERIENCES 1st Lt Annalise K. Blaylock HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: A UNIQUE DARE TO CHANGE: LOGISTICS MISSION IN THE UNITED SAFETY AND STATES SPACE FORCE MAINTENANCE CULTURE Lt Col Jacobson Capt Kori Lynn Johnson THE EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE THE PROFESSIONAL MILITARY LOGISTICS JOURNAL / ISSUE 152 THE EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE EXECUTIVE BOARD EXECUTIVE STAFF ISSUE 152 – FALL 2020 President Deputy, Chief Information Scott Fike Officer [email protected] Alex Pagano Vice President Chief Learning Officer Jason Kalin Jerry Ottinger LOA President’s Letter [email protected] [email protected] 4 Ret Col Scott Fike Symposium Directors Chief Financial Officer Kenneth Benton (Chairman) Holly Gramkow Dara Hobbs (Co-Director) Editor’s Letter [email protected] 6 Jennifer Fletcher (Co-Director) Montanna J. Ewers Chief Information Officer Legal Advisor Leading Logistics Into the Future: Ryan VanArtsdalen William Rogers 8 An Exceptional Release “Perspectives” Interview [email protected] with Mr. Steven J. Morani Membership Officers Chief Operations Officer Evin Greensfelder Interviewed by Maj Geno Fan Jondavid DuVall Rachel Weiler (Assistant) [email protected] [email protected] Understanding ACE 14 Maj James P. Guthrie Executive Senior Advisor LOA Historian THE EXCEPTIONAL Lt. Gen. Warren D. Berry Jeffrey Decker RELEASE The US Military and Servant Leadership? AOA Representatives 22 An Examination of Whether the Two Are Truly Compatible Zachary Matthews Lt Col Michael Boswell and Capt Neal Gupta Casey Kleisinger Chief Editor Montanna J.
    [Show full text]
  • HM 1281 United States Space Command and United States Space Force SPONSOR(S): Sirois and Others TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HM 1281 United States Space Command and United States Space Force SPONSOR(S): Sirois and others TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Local, Federal & Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 13 Y, 0 N Renner Miller 2) State Affairs Committee 20 Y, 0 N Renner Williamson SUMMARY ANALYSIS To recognize how vital space is to the United States economy and national security, in December 2018, President Trump announced the establishment of the United States Space Command as a unified combatant command that would be responsible for Joint Force space operations. President Trump subsequently directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a legislative proposal to establish a United States Space Force (USSF) as a sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces within the Department of the Air Force. On March 1, 2019, the DoD submitted its proposal to Congress to establish the USSF and outlined a five-year phase-in plan beginning October 1, 2020, to allow USSF leaders to prepare for mission transfer beginning in fiscal year 2021. Under the proposal, the USSF would be authorized to organize, train and equip space forces to provide for freedom of operation in, from and to the space domain; to provide independent military options for joint and national leadership; and to enable the lethality and effectiveness of the joint force. Florida is home to several strategic Air Force bases. Both Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station provide space launch operations support through the 45th Space Wing.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Options for the Future: a Buyer's Guide (Part 7 Of
    — Chapter 3 Enhanced Baseline CONTENTS , Page Improving the Shuttle . 27 Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRMs) . 27 Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs) . 28 Lighter Tanks . 29 Improving Shuttle Ground Operations . 29 Improving Existing ELVs . 29 Delta . 30 Atlas-Centaur . ● ● . .* . 30 Titan . ● . ✎ ✎ . 30 Capability . ✎ . ✎ ✎ . ● ✎ ✎ . 30 Table 3-1. Theoretical Lift Capability of Enhanced U.S. Launch Systems. 31 Chapter 3 Enhanced Baseline The ENHANCED BASELINE option is the U.S. Government’s “Best Buy” if . it desires a space program with current or slightly greater levels of activity. By making in- cremental improvements to existing launch vehicles, production and launch facilities, the U.S. could increase its launch capacity to about 1.4 million pounds per year to LEO. The investment required would be low compared to building new vehicles; however, the ade- quacy of the resulting fleet resiliency and dependability is uncertain. This option would not provide the low launch costs (e.g. 10 percent of current costs) sought for SDI deploy- ment or an aggressive civilian space initiative, like a piloted mission to Mars, IMPROVING THE SHUTTLE The Shuttle, though a remarkable tech- . reducing the number of factory joints and nological achievement, never achieved its in- the number of parts, tended payload capacity and recent safety . designing the ASRMs so that the Space modifications have further degraded its per- Shuttle Main Engines no longer need to formance by approximately 4,800 pounds. be throttled during the region of maxi- Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRMs) or mum dynamic pressure, Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs) have the potential to restore some of this perfor- ● replacing asbestos-bearing materials, mance; studies on both are underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Apollo 15: “The Problem We Brought Back from the Moon”
    Appendix A Apollo 15: “The Problem We Brought Back From the Moon” Postal Covers Carried on Apollo 151 Among the best known collectables from the Apollo Era are the covers flown onboard the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, mainly because of what the mission’s Lunar Module Pilot, Jim Irwin, called “the problem we brought back from the Moon.” [1] The crew of Apollo 15 carried out one of the most complete scientific explorations of the Moon and accomplished several firsts, including the first lunar roving vehicle that was operated on the Moon to extend the range of exploration. Some 81 kilograms (180 pounds) of lunar surface samples were returned for anal- ysis, and a battery of very productive lunar surface and orbital experiments were conducted, including the first EVA in deep space. [2] Yet the Apollo 15 crew are best remembered for carrying envelopes to the Moon, and the mission is remem- bered for the “great postal caper.” [3] As noted in Chapter 7, Apollo 15 was not the first mission to carry covers. Dozens were carried on each flight from Apollo 11 onwards (see Table 1 for the complete list) and, as Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott recalled in his book, the whole business had probably been building since Mercury, through Gemini and into Apollo. [4] People had a fascination with objects that had been carried into space, and that became more and more popular – and valuable – as the programs progressed. Right from the start of the Mercury program, each astronaut had been allowed to carry a certain number of personal items onboard, with NASA’s permission, in 1 A first version of this material was issued as Apollo 15 Cover Scandal in Orbit No.
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy Space Center
    1 . :- /G .. .. '-1 ,.. 1- & 5 .\"T!-! LJ~,.", - -,-,c JOHN F. KENNEDY ', , .,,. ,- r-/ ;7 7,-,- ;\-, - [J'.?:? ,t:!, ;+$, , , , 1-1-,> .irI,,,,r I ! - ? /;i?(. ,7! ; ., -, -?-I ,:-. ... 8 -, , .. '',:I> !r,5, SPACE CENTER , , .>. r-, - -- Tp:c:,r, ,!- ' :u kc - - &te -- - 12rr!2L,D //I, ,Jp - - -- - - _ Lb:, N(, A St~mmaryof MAJOR NASA LAUNCHINGS Eastern Test Range Western Test Range (ETR) (WTR) October 1, 1958 - Septeniber 30, 1968 Historical and Library Services Branch John F. Kennedy Space Center "ational Aeronautics and Space Administration l<ennecly Space Center, Florida October 1968 GP 381 September 30, 1968 (Rev. January 27, 1969) SATCIEN S.I!STC)RY DCCCIivlENT University uf A!;b:,rno Rr=-?rrh Zn~tituta Histcry of Sciecce & Technc;oGy Group ERR4TA SHEET GP 381, "A Strmmary of Major MSA Zaunchings, Eastern Test Range and Western Test Range,'" dated September 30, 1968, was considered to be accurate ag of the date of publication. Hmever, additianal research has brought to light new informetion on the official mission designations for Project Apollo. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy it was believed necessary ta issue revfsed pages, rather than wait until the next complete revision of the publiatlion to correct the errors. Holders of copies of thia brochure ate requested to remove and destroy the existing pages 81, 82, 83, and 84, and insert the attached revised pages 81, 82, 83, 84, 8U, and 84B in theh place. William A. Lackyer, 3r. PROJECT MOLL0 (FLIGHTS AND TESTS) (continued) Launch NASA Name -Date Vehicle -Code Sitelpad Remarks/Results ORBITAL (lnaMANNED) 5 Jul 66 Uprated SA-203 ETR Unmanned flight to test launch vehicle Saturn 1 3 7B second (S-IVB) stage and instrment (IU) , which reflected Saturn V con- figuration.
    [Show full text]
  • 10/2/95 Rev EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report, Entitled "Hazard
    10/2/95 rev EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, entitled "Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Transportation," is devoted to the review and discussion of generic hazards associated with the ground, launch, orbital and re-entry phases of space operations. Since the DOT Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) has been charged with protecting the public health and safety by the Commercial Space Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575), it must promulgate and enforce appropriate safety criteria and regulatory requirements for licensing the emerging commercial space launch industry. This report was sponsored by OCST to identify and assess prospective safety hazards associated with commercial launch activities, the involved equipment, facilities, personnel, public property, people and environment. The report presents, organizes and evaluates the technical information available in the public domain, pertaining to the nature, severity and control of prospective hazards and public risk exposure levels arising from commercial space launch activities. The US Government space- operational experience and risk control practices established at its National Ranges serve as the basis for this review and analysis. The report consists of three self-contained, but complementary, volumes focusing on Space Transportation: I. Operations; II. Hazards; and III. Risk Analysis. This Executive Summary is attached to all 3 volumes, with the text describing that volume highlighted. Volume I: Space Transportation Operations provides the technical background and terminology, as well as the issues and regulatory context, for understanding commercial space launch activities and the associated hazards. Chapter 1, The Context for a Hazard Analysis of Commercial Space Activities, discusses the purpose, scope and organization of the report in light of current national space policy and the DOT/OCST regulatory mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Patrol Aviation: 90 Years of Continuing Innovation
    J. F. KEANE AND C. A. EASTERLING Maritime Patrol Aviation: 90 Years of Continuing Innovation John F. Keane and CAPT C. Alan Easterling, USN Since its beginnings in 1912, maritime patrol aviation has recognized the importance of long-range, persistent, and armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in sup- port of operations afl oat and ashore. Throughout its history, it has demonstrated the fl ex- ibility to respond to changing threats, environments, and missions. The need for increased range and payload to counter submarine and surface threats would dictate aircraft opera- tional requirements as early as 1917. As maritime patrol transitioned from fl ying boats to land-based aircraft, both its mission set and areas of operation expanded, requiring further developments to accommodate advanced sensor and weapons systems. Tomorrow’s squad- rons will possess capabilities far beyond the imaginations of the early pioneers, but the mis- sion will remain essentially the same—to quench the battle force commander’s increasing demand for over-the-horizon situational awareness. INTRODUCTION In 1942, Rear Admiral J. S. McCain, as Com- plane. With their normal and advance bases strategically mander, Aircraft Scouting Forces, U.S. Fleet, stated the located, surprise contacts between major forces can hardly following: occur. In addition to receiving contact reports on enemy forces in these vital areas the patrol planes, due to their great Information is without doubt the most important service endurance, can shadow and track these forces, keeping the required by a fl eet commander. Accurate, complete and up fl eet commander informed of their every movement.1 to the minute knowledge of the position, strength and move- ment of enemy forces is very diffi cult to obtain under war Although prescient, Rear Admiral McCain was hardly conditions.
    [Show full text]