DOCSLIB.ORG

How the Apollo and Shuttle Decisions Shaped Nasa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How the Apollo and Shuttle Decisions Shaped Nasa University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects January 2012 Presidents, Politics, And Policy: How The Apollo And Shuttle ecD isions Shaped Nasa Marc Fusco Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/theses Recommended Citation Fusco, Marc, "Presidents, Politics, And Policy: How The Apollo And Shuttle eD cisions Shaped Nasa" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 1349. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1349 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESIDENTS, POLITICS, AND POLICY: HOW THE APOLLO AND SHUTTLE DECISIONS SHAPED NASA by Marc Antony Fusco Bachelor of Arts, Arizona State University, 1988 Master of Arts, Arizona State University, 1991 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Grand Forks, North Dakota December 2012 This thesis, submitted by Marc Fusco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts from the University of North Dakota, has been read by the Faculty Advisory Committee under whom the work has been done, and is hereby approved. _____________________________________ Dr. David Whalen, Chair _____________________________________ Dr. James Casler _____________________________________ Dr. David Livingston This thesis is being submitted by the appointed advisory committee as having met all of the requirements of the Graduate School at the University of North Dakota and is hereby approved. ____________________________________ Wayne Swisher Dean of the Graduate School ____________________________________ Date ii Title Presidents, Politics, and Policy: How the Apollo and Shuttle Decisions Shaped NASA Department Space Studies Degree Master of Science In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my thesis work or, in his absence, by the Chairperson of the department or the dean of the Graduate School. It is understood that any copying or publication or other use of this thesis or part thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of North Dakota in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Marc Fusco November 28, 2012 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... v ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER I. THE ELECTION OF 1960 ............................................................. 1 II. JOHN F. KENNEDY AND THE APOLLO DECISION .................. 31 III. RICHARD M. NIXON AND THE SHUTTLE DECISION ............ 106 IV. THE RECKONING .................................................................... 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 230 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. David Whalen, Dr. James Casler, and Dr. David Livingston for their guidance and support during my time in the Space Studies program at the University of North Dakota. v To Susan, Jane, and Laura, the stars in my constellation ABSTRACT The two most important decisions in the history of NASA after its founding have been John Kennedy’s decision to send humans to the moon and Richard Nixon’s decision to develop the space shuttle. This study examines the nature of each decision, and illustrates how each decision resulted from a confluence of world events, presidential personalities, and domestic political pressures. This examination of both primary and secondary historical and policy source materials demonstrates that the individual personalities of each president, especially how each reacted to domestic and international political and economic pressures, played a major role in the formulation of these space policy decisions. Furthermore, the presidential election of 1960 played a critical role in determining the focus of NASA's activities from the early 1960s to this day. These policy decisions directly shaped the nature of NASA's human spaceflight program in the short term, but had unintended consequences in the long term. While each decision produced spectacular results in the moon landings and in the space shuttle program, each decision affected NASA's ultimate growth and curtailed other space-related projects that had been proposed. vi CHAPTER I THE ELECTION OF 1960 A Tale of Two Men America entered the space race in October of 1957 with a shock: global news coverage of the successful launch of the Soviet satellite, Sputnik . Reactions to this news around the Western world were nothing short of hysterical, especially in the Western press. President Eisenhower, who secretly launched the American space effort in 1955 when he signed NSC memo 5520 outlining a civilian American space program largely as cover for a more aggressive spy satellite program, had advocated a more moderate space program with a modest budget. His proposals instead focused American space policy on ICBM and reconnaissance satellite development. The Sputnik launch, however, changed the whole character of the nascent space race, placing it firmly in the context of the already full-blown Cold War, at least in the eyes of the press, public, and Congress. Eisenhower remained reluctant to become involved in an all-out race for space supremacy with the USSR, but his hand was forced by political factors, the press, and the public, all of which favored a direct approach to address the apparent space gap. The American President favored a more measured response over a 1 crash program, whose high costs were anathema to him. Because he supported a civilian rather than a military response to Sputnik , the Vanguard project was given priority over Wernher von Braun’s effort with the Army’s Redstone Arsenal. The largely civilian nature of Project Vanguard was a factor in this decision; however, the US Navy was involved, as was Eisenhower’s reluctance to rely on von Braun and the former V-2 team—he loathed any dependence on a team of people he considered deplorable Nazis, which was understandable considering his history in the Second World War. Moreover, Eisenhower was concerned with the perception that von Braun’s project implied that America had to import rocket expertise from elsewhere. It was only when the Vanguard test flight failed spectacularly on live television that the ever-growing pressure from the press, public, and political forces prompted the US to turn to von Braun and his German-born team, now relocated to Huntsville, Alabama. America and von Braun answered the Soviet challenge with the successful Explorer I mission on January 31, 1958, and the space race was underway. NASA was formed later that same year, launching America’s civil space program under the more modest terms that Eisenhower favored. A key milestone in the development of the US space program, and one that still affects NASA more than 50 years later, was the US presidential election of 1960. The presidential campaign and ensuing election occurred at the beginning of the US space program, while national space policy was still being debated. It was contested by two public figures who would arguably play the most influential roles in the short- and long-term future of NASA, Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice 2 President Richard M. Nixon. These men both campaigned vigorously for the position in one of the closest presidential elections in US history. Each man would serve as US president and each, in turn, would have his presidency ended in a national tragedy, albeit one of his own making, in Nixon’s case. These two men competed for the presidency against each other by a strange turn of fate. They had each served as officers in the US Navy during the Second World War, although Nixon did not see combat. Richard Nixon served in the US Congress as a Representative from California from 1947 to 1950, when he was elected to the US Senate, and served as a Senator representing California from 1950 to 1953. Nixon left his Senate seat to serve as Eisenhower’s Vice President for two terms. John Kennedy was also elected to Congress in 1946, and served as a Representative from Massachusetts from 1947 to 1953, when he was elected as a Senator from Massachusetts, where he served until he was elected President in 1960. While they served in the House, both were strong anti-Communists and were interested in matters of national defense. They became friends while serving in the House, but this friendship ended during the presidential campaign, and in Nixon’s case, turned into hatred after the campaign ended in victory for Kennedy. Despite the similarities in political views while serving in Congress, the two men had drastically different personalities. Nixon was insecure, secretive, and obsessed with the fact that he did not come from wealth and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USGS Open-File Report 2005-1190, Table 1
    TABLE 1 GEOLOGIC FIELD-TRAINING OF NASA ASTRONAUTS BETWEEN JANUARY 1963 AND NOVEMBER 1972 The following is a year-by-year listing of the astronaut geologic field training trips planned and led by personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Branches of Astrogeology and Surface Planetary Exploration, in collaboration with the Geology Group at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas at the request of NASA between January 1963 and November 1972. Regional geologic experts from the U.S. Geological Survey and other governmental organizations and universities s also played vital roles in these exercises. [The early training (between 1963 and 1967) involved a rather large contingent of astronauts from NASA groups 1, 2, and 3. For another listing of the astronaut geologic training trips and exercises, including all attending and the general purposed of the exercise, the reader is referred to the following website containing a contribution by William Phinney (Phinney, book submitted to NASA/JSC; also http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ap-geotrips.pdf).] 1963 16-18 January 1963: Meteor Crater and San Francisco Volcanic Field near Flagstaff, Arizona (9 astronauts). Among the nine astronaut trainees in Flagstaff for that initial astronaut geologic training exercise was Neil Armstrong--who would become the first man to step foot on the Moon during the historic Apollo 11 mission in July 1969! The other astronauts present included Frank Borman (Apollo 8), Charles "Pete" Conrad (Apollo 12), James Lovell (Apollo 8 and the near-tragic Apollo 13), James McDivitt, Elliot See (killed later in a plane crash), Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10), Edward White (later killed in the tragic Apollo 1 fire at Cape Canaveral), and John Young (Apollo 16).
    [Show full text]
  • Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer”
    Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer” The Ultimate Engineer: The Remarkable Life of NASA's Visionary Leader George M. Low by Richard Jurek Foreword by Gerald D. Griffin From the late 1950s to 1976 the U.S. manned spaceflight program advanced as it did largely due to the extraordinary efforts of Austrian immigrant George M. Low. Described as the "ultimate engineer" during his career at NASA, Low was a visionary architect and leader from the agency's inception in 1958 to his retirement in 1976. As chief of manned spaceflight at NASA, Low was instrumental in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Low's pioneering work paved the way for President Kennedy's decision to make a lunar landing NASA's primary goal in the 1960s. After the tragic 1967 Apollo I fire that took the lives of three astronauts and almost crippled the program, Low took charge of the redesign of the Apollo spacecraft, and helped lead the program from disaster and toward the moon. In 1968, Low made the bold decision to go for lunar orbit on Apollo 8 before the lunar module was ready for flight and after only one Earth orbit test flight of the Command and Service modules. Under Low there were five manned missions, including Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing. Low's clandestine negotiations with the Soviet Union resulted in a historic joint mission in 1975 that was the precursor to the Shuttle-MIR and International Space Station programs. At the end of his NASA career, Low was one of the leading figures in the development of the Space Shuttle in the early1970s, and was instrumental in NASA's transition into a post-Apollo world.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6.Qxd
    CHAPTER 6: The NASA Family The melding of all of the NASA centers, contractors, universities, and often strong personalities associated with each of them into the productive and efficient organization necessary to complete NASA’s space missions became both more critical and more difficult as NASA turned its attention from Gemini to Apollo. The approach and style and, indeed, the personality of each NASA center differed sharply. The Manned Spacecraft Center was distinctive among all the rest. Fortune magazine suggested in 1967 that the scale of NASA’s operation required a whole new approach and style of management: “To master such massively complex and expensive problems, the agency has mobilized some 20,000 individual firms, more than 400,000 workers, and 200 colleges and universities in a combine of the most advanced resources of American civilization.” The author referred to some of the eight NASA centers and assorted field installations as “pockets of sovereignty” which exercised an enormous degree of independence and autonomy.1 An enduring part of the management problem throughout the Mercury and Gemini programs that became compounded under Apollo, because of its greater technical challenges, was the diversity and distinctiveness of each of the NASA centers. The diverse cultures and capabilities represented by each of the centers were at once the space program’s greatest resource and its Achilles’ heel. NASA was a hybrid organization. At its heart was Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory established by Congress in 1917 near Hampton, Virginia, and formally dedicated in 1920. It became the Langley Research Center. Langley created the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field, California, in 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • In Memory of Astronaut Michael Collins Photo Credit
    Gemini & Apollo Astronaut, BGEN, USAF, Ret, Test Pilot, and Author Dies at 90 The Astronaut Scholarship Foundation (ASF) is saddened to report the loss of space man Michael Collins BGEN, USAF, Ret., and NASA astronaut who has passed away on April 28, 2021 at the age of 90; he was predeceased by his wife of 56 years, Pat and his son Michael and is survived by their daughters Kate and Ann and many grandchildren. Collins is best known for being one of the crew of Apollo 11, the first manned mission to land humans on the moon. Michael Collins was born in Rome, Italy on October 31, 1930. In 1952 he graduated from West Point (same class as future fellow astronaut, Ed White) with a Bachelor of Science Degree. He joined the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to the 21st Fighter-Bomber Wing at George AFB in California. He subsequently moved to Europe when they relocated to Chaumont-Semoutiers AFB in France. Once during a test flight, he was forced to eject from an F-86 after a fire started behind the cockpit; he was safely rescued and returned to Chaumont. He was accepted into the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in California. In 1960 he became a member of Class 60C which included future astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Irwin, and Tom Stafford. His inspiration to become an astronaut was the Mercury Atlas 6 flight of John Glenn and with this inspiration, he applied to NASA. In 1963 he was selected in the third group of NASA astronauts.
    [Show full text]
  • President Richard Nixon's Daily Diary, July 16-31, 1969
    RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest 7/30/1969 A 2 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest from Don- 7/30/1969 A Maung Airport, Bangkok 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 7/23/1969 A Appendix “B” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 7/24/1969 A Appendix “A” 5 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 7/26/1969 A Appendix “B” 6 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 7/27/1969 A Appendix “A” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-3 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary July 16, 1969 – July 31, 1969 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) rnc.~IIJc.I'" rtIl."I'\ttU 1"'AUI'4'~ UAILJ UIAtU (See Travel Record for Travel Activity) ---- -~-------------------~--------------I PLACi-· DAY BEGA;'{ DATE (Mo., Day, Yr.) JULY 16, 1969 TIME DAY THE WHITE HOUSE - Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • PEANUTS and SPACE FOUNDATION Apollo and Beyond
    Reproducible Master PEANUTS and SPACE FOUNDATION Apollo and Beyond GRADE 4 – 5 OBJECTIVES PAGE 1 Students will: ö Read Snoopy, First Beagle on the Moon! and Shoot for the Moon, Snoopy! ö Learn facts about the Apollo Moon missions. ö Use this information to complete a fill-in-the-blank fact worksheet. ö Create mission objectives for a brand new mission to the moon. SUGGESTED GRADE LEVELS 4 – 5 SUBJECT AREAS Space Science, History TIMELINE 30 – 45 minutes NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS ö 5-ESS1 ESS1.B Earth and the Solar System ö 3-5-ETS1 ETS1.B Developing Possible Solutions 21st CENTURY ESSENTIAL SKILLS Collaboration and Teamwork, Communication, Information Literacy, Flexibility, Leadership, Initiative, Organizing Concepts, Obtaining/Evaluating/Communicating Ideas BACKGROUND ö According to NASA.gov, NASA has proudly shared an association with Charles M. Schulz and his American icon Snoopy since Apollo missions began in the 1960s. Schulz created comic strips depicting Snoopy on the Moon, capturing public excitement about America’s achievements in space. In May 1969, Apollo 10 astronauts traveled to the Moon for a final trial run before the lunar landings took place on later missions. Because that mission required the lunar module to skim within 50,000 feet of the Moon’s surface and “snoop around” to determine the landing site for Apollo 11, the crew named the lunar module Snoopy. The command module was named Charlie Brown, after Snoopy’s loyal owner. These books are a united effort between Peanuts Worldwide, NASA and Simon & Schuster to generate interest in space among today’s younger children.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Engineering Research Centers: Purposes, Goals, and Expectations
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 315 272 SE 051 142 TITLE The New Engineering Research Centers: Purposes, Goals, and Expectations. Symposium (District of Colombia, April 29-30, 1985). INSTITUTION National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, DC. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D. REPORT NO ISBN-0-309-03598-8 PUB DATE 86 GRANT NSF-MEG-8505051 NOTE 213p.; Prepared by the Cross-Disciplinary Engineering Research Committee. AVAILABLE FROM National Academy Press, 1201 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20418 ($25.95). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) -- Viewpoints (120) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Engineering; *Engineering Education; *Engineering Technology; *Research Administration; Research and Development; *Research and Development Centers; Research Directors; Research Proposals; Scientific Research IDENTIFIERS *Engineering Research Centers ABSTRACT The aympoisum was held to describe the roots and future plans of the Engineering Research Center's (ERC's) concept and program. The first section of this symposium compilation describes the national goals that the ERCs represent. The second section presents the point of view of the National Science Foundation on the ERCs--the concept behind them, their goals, selection criteria, and mechanisms for support. The next section provides the plans and programs of the six existing centers:(1) Systems Research Center; (2) Center for Intelligent Manufacturin3 Systems;(3) Center for Robotic Systems in Microelectronics; (4) Center for Composites Manufacturing Science and Engineering; (5) Engineering Center for Telecommunications; and (6) Biotechnology Process Engineering Center. Two of the presentations were on exchange methods among the centers and the relationship between engineering.education and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon John M
    Chapter Two Project Apollo: Americans to the Moon John M. Logsdon Project Apollo, the remarkable U.S. space effort that sent 12 astronauts to the surface of Earth’s Moon between July 1969 and December 1972, has been extensively chronicled and analyzed.1 This essay will not attempt to add to this extensive body of literature. Its ambition is much more modest: to provide a coherent narrative within which to place the various documents included in this compendium. In this narrative, key decisions along the path to the Moon will be given particular attention. 1. Roger Launius, in his essay “Interpreting the Moon Landings: Project Apollo and the Historians,” History and Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (September 2006): 225–55, has provided a com­ prehensive and thoughtful overview of many of the books written about Apollo. The bibliography accompanying this essay includes almost every book-length study of Apollo and also lists a number of articles and essays interpreting the feat. Among the books Launius singles out for particular attention are: John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970); Walter A. McDougall, . the Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age (New York: Basic Books, 1985); Vernon Van Dyke, Pride and Power: the Rationale of the Space Program (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1964); W. Henry Lambright, Powering Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Roger E. Bilstein, Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles, NASA SP-4206 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980); Edgar M.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SOVIET MOON PROGRAM in the 1960S, the United States Was Not the Only Country That Was Trying to Land Someone on the Moon and Bring Him Back to Earth Safely
    AIAA AEROSPACE M ICRO-LESSON Easily digestible Aerospace Principles revealed for K-12 Students and Educators. These lessons will be sent on a bi-weekly basis and allow grade-level focused learning. - AIAA STEM K-12 Committee. THE SOVIET MOON PROGRAM In the 1960s, the United States was not the only country that was trying to land someone on the Moon and bring him back to Earth safely. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also called the Soviet Union, also had a manned lunar program. This lesson describes some of it. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): ● Discipline: Engineering Design ● Crosscutting Concept: Systems and System Models ● Science & Engineering Practice: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions GRADES K-2 K-2-ETS1-1. Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want to change to define a simple problem that can be solved through the development of a new or improved object or tool. Have you ever been busy doing something when somebody challenges you to a race? If you decide to join the race—and it is usually up to you whether you join or not—you have to stop what you’re doing, get up, and start racing. By the time you’ve gotten started, the other person is often halfway to the goal. This is the sort of situation the Soviet Union found itself in when President Kennedy in 1961 announced that the United States would set a goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature Redacted Signature of Author: History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology Affd Society August 19, 2014
    Project Apollo, Cold War Diplomacy and the American Framing of Global Interdependence by MASSACHUSETTS 5NS E. OF TECHNOLOGY OCT 0 6 201 Teasel Muir-Harmony LIBRARIES Bachelor of Arts St. John's College, 2004 Master of Arts University of Notre Dame, 2009 Submitted to the Program in Science, Technology, and Society In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 2014 D 2014 Teasel Muir-Harmony. All Rights Reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author: History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology affd Society August 19, 2014 Certified by: Signature redacted David A. Mindell Frances and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Committee Chair redacted Certified by: Signature David Kaiser C01?shausen Professor of the History of Science Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Society Senior Lecturer, Department of Physics Committee Member Signature redacted Certified by: Rosalind Williams Bern Dibner Professor of the History of Technology Committee Member Accepted by: Signature redacted Heather Paxson William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor, Anthropology Director of Graduate Studies, History, Anthropology, and STS Signature
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Space Program
    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Influences of Human Factors on National Space Activities and Practices [United States, Russia, China, and Others]
    Comparative Influences of Human Factors on National Space Activities and Practices [United States, Russia, China, and others] ● National Space Biomedical Research Institute [NSBRI] ● Piloting Spacecraft Guidance & Control of Human Space Vehicles ● September 21-22, 2016 ● Houston, Texas ● James Oberg [WWW.jamesoberg.com] Approach ● How do external cultural and other national factors influence a space program? ● What illuminating analogies offer insights? ● What differences can we see in national programs that can be traced back to such human [as opposed to technological] factors? ● How can lack of appreciation for these subtle influences diminish assessment accuracy? ● Why is this BAD? ● How can realistic appreciation for these subtle influences help future joint projects? Professional specialty – human spaceflight operations [1975-1997] Baykonur & Star City etc. Congressional Testimony [1997,1998] Analogy with “Terroir” – influence of environmental factors on quality of wine “Terroir” for a space program CLIMATE SOIL TRADITION TERRAIN An analogy with wine, and how its quality reflects its environment – both NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL International Environmental Factors Space programs don’t exist in isolation Competition often spurs on each player Space programs develop special capabilities which they protect ‘Many justifications for learning from others Direct copying not always ‘best fit’ ASSUMING copying by others can be misleading CAUTIONARY COMMENT REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF “COPYING” Inspiration may be as influential as direct ‘copying’ Humanned spacecraft with aero shroud and ‘escape tower’: left, Russian Soyuz; center & right, Chinese Shenzhou. Huang Chunping on stabilization flaps: “This is the most difficult part of the escape system. We once wanted to inquire about it from Russian experts, but they set the price at $10 million.
    [Show full text]