View allAll Photos Tagged Payloader
A technician unpacks NASA’s Artemis I Orion capsule inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Jan. 6, 2023. Orion splashed down in the Pacific Ocean at 12:40 p.m. EST on Dec. 11, 2022. The spacecraft was secured inside the well deck of the USS Portland for the voyage to U.S. Naval Base Sand Diego, arriving on Dec. 13, 2022. Orion was offloaded and transported back to Kennedy for deservicing inside the MPPF. Orion launched atop the Space Launch System rocket on Nov. 16, 2022 at 1:47 a.m. EST from Kennedy’s Launch Complex 39B for a 25-day trip beyond the Moon and back. During the flight, Orion flew farther than any human-rated spacecraft has ever flown, paving the way for human deep space exploration and demonstrating NASA’s commitment and capability to extend human presence to the Moon and beyond. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
“This artist's concept depicts the separation of the Skylab payload shroud. The payload shroud was both an environmental shield and an aerodynamic fairing. Attached to the forward end of the fixed airlock shroud, it protected the airlock, the docking adapter, and the solar observatory before and during launch. It also provided structural support for the solar observatory in the launch configuration. The payload shroud was jettisoned once Skylab reached orbit after separation of the S-II second stage of the Saturn V vehicle. Five major assemblies clustered together made up the orbiting space station called Skylab. The largest of these was the orbital workshop, that housed the crew quarters and a major experiment area. The airlock module, attached to the forward end of the workshop, enabled crewmembers to make excursions outside Skylab. The docking adapter, attached to the forward end of the airlock module, provided the docking port for the Apollo command and service module. The Apollo Telescope Mount was the first manned astronomical observatory designed for solar research from Earth orbit.”
The above accompanies the image at Wikimedia Commons and is posted to accompany the below linked photo. The images are similar enough for me to consider G. S. Wright as the artist responsible for both.
The Orion spacecraft for the Artemis I mission is transported from Kennedy Space Center’s Multi-Payload Processing Facility to the Florida spaceport’s Launch Abort System Facility on July 10, 2021. Teams with Exploration Ground Systems and contractor Jacobs will integrate components of the launch abort system onto the spacecraft. Launching later this year, Artemis I will be a test of the Orion spacecraft and SLS rocket as an integrated system ahead of crewed flights to the Moon. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson
NASA’s Psyche spacecraft undergoes processing and servicing ahead of launch atop a work stand inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on May 3, 2022. Psyche is targeting to lift off aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket on Aug. 1, 2022. The spacecraft will use solar-electric propulsion to travel approximately 1.5 billion miles to rendezvous with its namesake asteroid in 2026. The Psyche mission is led by Arizona State University. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is managed for the agency by Caltech in Pasadena, California, is responsible for the mission’s overall management, system engineering, integration and testing, and mission operations. Maxar Technologies in Palo Alto, California, provided the high-power solar electric propulsion spacecraft chassis. NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP), based at Kennedy, is managing the launch. Psyche will be the 14th mission in the agency's Discovery program and LSP’s 100th primary mission. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson
Pt. 2/2
The Skycranes, or “derricks of the sky”, can and have carried pretty much anything that doesn’t exceed their payload capacity. Their tasks during Vietnam included: vehicle transport (trucks and other lighter, wheeled vehicles), fuselage salvage and recovery, makeshift bomber (could carry the 10,000 lb “daisy cutter” bomb for clearing jungle), carring “Brown Water Navy” boats, troops, field hospitals, command posts, artillery pieces, etc. The Skycranes salvaged 380 downed aircraft during the Vietnam War, saving $210 million.
In civil use, the S-64s are still a powerful and irreplaceable heavy-lifter. They install high-voltage powerline towers, lift AC units onto highrises, fight wildfires, install antennas on broadcast towers, aid in the restoration of the Statue of Freedom, and many other things.
The model:
Features - detailed cockpit with opening doors (easily accessible), working main winch, 4 external hooks, geared rotors, stowable blades, blade holders, cargo pod with technic motor and battery box for motorization (I’ll have to design some more cargo pods in Studio that actually have a detailed interior)
The stickers are from various Brickmania Huey sticker packs. I also based the main rotor design on the Brickmania CH-53E (which was derived from the Skycrane irl) main rotor. It’s generally the same technique, but I had to do some troubleshooting to get it down to 6 blades instead of 7.
Well, this was a really fun aircraft to design and then motorize. I really needed this to get my confidence and motivation back for going into my long term ship projects this summer. I hope I can get this in Studio soon so I can maybe release the instructions for reaching 5k followers (on Instagram). Oh, and instructions of my other models are very close to being ready on Rebrickable. I’ll have more info soon.
Workers assist as the payload fairing containing NASA’s Lucy spacecraft is lowered onto the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V Centaur second stage in the Vertical Integration Facility at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida on Oct. 7, 2021. Lucy is scheduled to launch no earlier than Saturday, Oct. 16, on the ULA Atlas V 401 rocket from Launch Pad 41. NASA’s Launch Services Program, based at Kennedy Space Center, America’s premier multi-user spaceport, is managing the launch. Over its 12-year primary mission, Lucy will explore a record-breaking number of asteroids, flying by one asteroid in the solar system’s main belt and seven Trojan asteroids. Additionally, Lucy’s path will circle back to Earth three times for gravity assists, making it the first spacecraft ever to return to the vicinity of Earth from the outer solar system. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson
Possible Hughes Aircraft Company (Hughes Space and Communications Group) artist’s depiction of an Intelsat IV-A satellite during payload shroud separation of its Atlas-SLV3D Centaur-D1AR launch vehicle.
A handsome piece of work. A refreshing change from the prevalent angled/pitched ascent photo, even those that depict the same sequence. It makes for a wonderful highly oblique, thus expansive view looking back at the Florida peninsula. I wonder which is more correct, this or those with the vehicle still pitching over? Actually, who cares!
It’s a shame I’m unable to make heads or tails of the signature. And I just don’t have it in me to pursue it.
Whoever it is, is probably responsible for plate [56] here:
history.nasa.gov/SP-4402/ch2.htm
The verso has an odd triangular surficial tear near the lower right-hand corner that seems to have removed the top ‘finished layer’. Fortunately, there’s no evidence of it on the obverse.
Good Intelsat IV-A reading:
space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/intelsat-4a.htm
Credit: GUNTER’S SPACE PAGE website
The Vega-C Payload Assembly Composite (PAC) with LARES-2 has been rolled out to the Vega Launch Zone (ZLV) and hoisted onto the Vega-C launch Vehicle on 7 July 2022 at Europe's Space Port in Kourou, French Guiana.
On the wave of Vega’s success, Member States at the ESA Ministerial meeting in December 2014 agreed to develop the more powerful Vega-C to respond to an evolving market and to long-term institutional needs.
Vega-C increases performance from Vega’s current 1.5 t to about 2.2 t in a reference 700 km polar orbit, covering identified European institutional users’ mission needs, with no increase in launch service and operating costs.
The participating states in this development are: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Credits: ESA-Manuel Pedoussaut
Tucked inside a payload canister, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer-2 (AMS) and Express Logistics Carrier-3 arrive at Launch Pad 39A for installation in space shuttle Endeavour's payload bay.
Photo credit: NASA/Cory Huston
The IXV Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle installed on its payload adapter, on 26 January 2015 at Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.
IXV will be launched 320 km into space on top of a Vega rocket, VV04, climbing up to 420 km before beginning a long glide back through the atmosphere. In the process, IXV will gather data on reentry conditions to help guide the design of future spaceplanes.
More about IXV: www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/IXV
Connect with IXV on Twitter: twitter.com/esa_ixv
Credit: ESA–M. Pedoussaut, 2015
This is the real thing (not a model), the original, full size in a new facility that they've built at Kennedy Space Center in honor of the Shuttle Program. You first watch a movie of its history, the doors open... and there it is, indoors, all lit up and suspended in air in front of you! An amazing closeup experience.
Atlantis was the fourth operational (and the next-to-the-last) Space Shuttle to be constructed by the Rockwell International Co. in Southern California, and it was delivered to the Kennedy Space Center in eastern Florida in April 1985. Atlantis was named after RV Atlantis, a two-masted sailing ship that operated as the primary research vessel for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution from 1930 to 1966.
The last mission of Atlantis was the last flight of the Shuttle program. This final flight, authorized in October 2010, brought additional supplies to the International Space Station and took advantage of the processing performed for the Launch on Need mission, which would only have been flown in the event that Endeavour's crew required rescue. Atlantis launched successfully for the final time on July 8th, 2011 at 16:29 UTC, landing at the John F. Kennedy Space Center on July 21st, 2011 at 09:57 UTC. By the end of its final mission, Atlantis had orbited the Earth 4,848 times, traveling nearly 126,000,000 miles in space or more than 525 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
At Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, Space Shuttle Atlantis is the new $100 million home of the priceless, historic spacecraft that tells the incredible story of NASA’s 30-year Space Shuttle Program. The 90,000 square-foot Space Shuttle Atlantis attraction is the marquee element of the Visitor Complex’s 10-year master plan. The Visitor Complex displays Atlantis suspended with its payload bay doors opened (above) such that it appears to be back in orbit around the Earth. A multi-story digital projection of Earth rotates behind the orbiter in a 64,000-square-foot indoor facility. Ground breaking of the facility occurred in 2012. The exhibit opened on June 29th, 2013.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis
www.kennedyspacecenter.com/the-experience/atlantis-shuttl...
Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde /ˈkɒŋkɔrd/ is a retired turbojet-powered supersonic passenger airliner or supersonic transport (SST). It is one of only two SSTs to have entered commercial service; the other was the Tupolev Tu-144. Concorde was jointly developed and produced by Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued commercial flights for 27 years.
Among other destinations, Concorde flew regular transatlantic flights from London Heathrow and Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport to New York JFK, Washington Dulles and Barbados; it flew these routes in less than half the time of other airliners. With only 20 aircraft built, the development of Concorde was a substantial economic loss; Air France and British Airways also received considerable government subsidies to purchase them. Concorde was retired in 2003 due to a general downturn in the aviation industry after the type's only crash in 2000, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and a decision by Airbus, the successor firm of Aérospatiale and BAC, to discontinue maintenance support.
A total of 20 aircraft were built in France and the United Kingdom; six of these were prototypes and development aircraft. Seven each were delivered to Air France and British Airways. Concorde's name reflects the development agreement between the United Kingdom and France. In the UK, any or all of the type—unusually for an aircraft—are known simply as "Concorde", without an article. The aircraft is regarded by many people as an aviation icon and an engineering marvel.
Early studies
Concorde
The origins of the Concorde project date to the early 1950s, when Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) asked Morien Morgan to form a committee to study the SST concept. The group met for the first time in February 1954 and delivered their first report in April 1955.
At the time it was known that the drag at supersonic speeds was strongly related to the span of the wing. This led to the use of very short-span, very thin rectangular wings like those seen on the control surfaces of many missiles, or in aircraft like the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter or the Avro 730 that the team studied. The team outlined a baseline configuration that looked like an enlarged Avro 730, or more interestingly, almost exactly like the Lockheed CL-400 "Suntan" proposal.
This same short span produced very little lift at low speed, which resulted in extremely long takeoff runs and frighteningly high landing speeds. In an SST design, this would have required enormous engine power to lift off from existing runways, and to provide the fuel needed, "some horribly large aeroplanes" resulted. Based on this, the group considered the concept of an SST unfeasible, and instead suggested continued low-level studies into supersonic aerodynamics.
Slender deltas
Soon after, Dietrich Küchemann at the RAE published a series of reports on a new wing planform, known in the UK as the "slender delta" concept. Küchemann's team, including Eric Maskell and Johanna Weber, worked with the fact that delta wings can produce strong vortexes on their upper surfaces at high angles of attack. The vortex will lower the air pressure and cause lift to be greatly increased. This effect had been noticed earlier, notably by Chuck Yeager in the Convair XF-92, but its qualities had not been fully appreciated. Küchemann suggested that this was no mere curiosity, and the effect could be deliberately used to improve low speed performance.
Küchemann's papers changed the entire nature of supersonic design almost overnight. Although the delta had already been used on aircraft prior to this point, these designs used planforms that were not much different from a swept wing of the same span. Küchemann noted that the lift from the vortex was increased by the length of the wing it had to operate over, which suggested that the effect would be maximized by extending the wing along the fuselage as far as possible. Such a layout would still have good supersonic performance inherent to the short span, while also offering reasonable takeoff and landing speeds using vortex generation. The only downside to such a design is that the aircraft would have to take off and land very "nose high" in order to generate the required vortex lift, which led to questions about the low speed handling qualities of such a design. It would also need to have long landing gear to produce the required angles while still on the runway.
Küchemann presented the idea at a meeting where Morgan was also present. Eric Brown recalls Morgan's reaction to the presentation, saying that he immediately seized on it as the solution to the SST problem. Brown considers this moment as being the true birth of the Concorde project.
Design
Concorde is an ogival (also "ogee") delta-winged aircraft with four Olympus engines based on those employed in the RAF's Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. Concorde was the first airliner to have a (in this case, analogue) fly-by-wire flight-control system; the avionics of Concorde were unique because it was the first commercial aircraft to employ hybrid circuits. The principal designer for the project was Pierre Satre, with Sir Archibald Russell as his deputy.
Concorde pioneered the following technologies:
For high speed and optimisation of flight:
Double delta (ogee/ogival) shaped wings
Variable engine air intake system controlled by digital computers
Supercruise capability
Thrust-by-wire engines, predecessor of today’s FADEC-controlled engines
Droop-nose section for better landing visibility
For weight-saving and enhanced performance:
Mach 2.04 (~2,179 km/h or 1,354 mph) cruising speed for optimum fuel consumption (supersonic drag minimum although turbojet engines are more efficient at higher speed) Fuel consumption at Mach 2.0 and altitude of 60,000 feet was 4,800 gallons per hour.
Mainly aluminium construction for low weight and conventional manufacture (higher speeds would have ruled out aluminium)
Full-regime autopilot and autothrottle allowing "hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing
Fully electrically controlled analogue fly-by-wire flight controls systems
High-pressure hydraulic system of 28 MPa (4,000 lbf/in²) for lighter hydraulic components
Complex Air Data Computer (ADC) for the automated monitoring and transmission of aerodynamic measurements (total pressure, static pressure, angle of attack, side-slip).
Fully electrically controlled analogue brake-by-wire system
Pitch trim by shifting fuel around the fuselage for centre-of-gravity control
Parts made using "sculpture milling", reducing the part count while saving weight and adding strength.
No auxiliary power unit, as Concorde would only visit large airports where ground air start carts are available.
Engines
Concorde's intake system
Concorde needed to fly long distances to be economically viable; this required high efficiency. Turbofan engines were rejected due to their larger cross-section producing excessive drag. Turbojets were found to be the best choice of engines. The engine used was the twin spool Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593, a development of the Bristol engine first used for the Avro Vulcan bomber, and developed into an afterburning supersonic variant for the BAC TSR-2 strike bomber. Rolls-Royce's own engine proposed for the aircraft at the time of Concorde's initial design was the RB.169.
The aircraft used reheat (afterburners) at takeoff and to pass through the upper transonic regime and to supersonic speeds, between Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.7. The afterburners were switched off at all other times. Due to jet engines being highly inefficient at low speeds, Concorde burned two tonnes of fuel (almost 2% of the maximum fuel load) taxiing to the runway. Fuel used is Jet A-1. Due to the high power produced even with the engines at idle, only the two outer engines were run after landing for easier taxiing.
The intake design for Concorde’s engines was especially critical.[Conventional jet engines can take in air at only around Mach 0.5; therefore the air has to be slowed from the Mach 2.0 airspeed that enters the engine intake. In particular, Concorde needed to control the shock waves that this reduction in speed generates to avoid damage to the engines. This was done by a pair of intake ramps and an auxiliary spill door, whose position moved in-flight to slow transiting air.
Engine failure causes problems on conventional subsonic aircraft; not only does the aircraft lose thrust on that side but the engine creates drag, causing the aircraft to yaw and bank in the direction of the failed engine. If this had happened to Concorde at supersonic speeds, it theoretically could have caused a catastrophic failure of the airframe. Although computer simulations predicted considerable problems, in practice Concorde could shut down both engines on the same side of the aircraft at Mach 2 without the predicted difficulties. During an engine failure the required air intake is virtually zero so, on Concorde, engine failure was countered by the opening of the auxiliary spill door and the full extension of the ramps, which deflected the air downwards past the engine, gaining lift and minimising drag. Concorde pilots were routinely trained to handle double engine failure.
Heating issues
Air compression on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight. Besides engines, the hottest part of the structure of any supersonic aircraft, due to aerodynamic heating, is the nose. The engineers used Hiduminium R.R. 58, an aluminium alloy, throughout the aircraft due to its familiarity, cost and ease of construction. The highest temperature that aluminium could sustain over the life of the aircraft was 127 °C (261 °F), which limited the top speed to Mach 2.02. Concorde went through two cycles of heating and cooling during a flight, first cooling down as it gained altitude, then heating up after going supersonic. The reverse happened when descending and slowing down. This had to be factored into the metallurgical and fatigue modelling. A test rig was built that repeatedly heated up a full-size section of the wing, and then cooled it, and periodically samples of metal were taken for testing. The Concorde airframe was designed for a life of 45,000 flying hours.
Owing to air friction as the plane travelled at supersonic speed, the fuselage would heat up and expand by as much as 300 mm (almost 1 ft). The most obvious manifestation of this was a gap that opened up on the flight deck between the flight engineer's console and the bulkhead. On some aircraft that conducted a retiring supersonic flight, the flight engineers placed their caps in this expanded gap, wedging the cap when it shrank again. To keep the cabin cool, Concorde used the fuel as a heat sink for the heat from the air conditioning. The same method also cooled the hydraulics. During supersonic flight the surfaces forward from the cockpit became heated, and a visor was used to deflect much of this heat from directly reaching the cockpit.
Concorde had livery restrictions; the majority of the surface had to be covered with a highly reflective white paint to avoid overheating the aluminium structure due to heating effects from supersonic flight at Mach 2. The white finish reduced the skin temperature by 6 to 11 degrees Celsius. In 1996, Air France briefly painted F-BTSD in a predominantly blue livery, with the exception of the wings, in a promotional deal with Pepsi. In this paint scheme, Air France were advised to remain at Mach 2 for no more than 20 minutes at a time, but there was no restriction at speeds under Mach 1.7. F-BTSD was used because it was not scheduled for any long flights that required extended Mach 2 operations.
Structural issues
Fuel pitch trim
Due to the high speeds at which Concorde travelled, large forces were applied to the aircraft's structure during banks and turns. This caused twisting and the distortion of the aircraft’s structure. In addition there were concerns over maintaining precise control at supersonic speeds; both of these issues were resolved by active ratio changes between the inboard and outboard elevons, varying at differing speeds including supersonic. Only the innermost elevons, which are attached to the stiffest area of the wings, were active at high speed. Additionally, the narrow fuselage meant that the aircraft flexed. This was visible from the rear passengers’ viewpoints.
When any aircraft passes the critical mach of that particular airframe, the centre of pressure shifts rearwards. This causes a pitch down force on the aircraft if the centre of mass remains where it was. The engineers designed the wings in a specific manner to reduce this shift, but there was still a shift of about 2 metres. This could have been countered by the use of trim controls, but at such high speeds this would have caused a dramatic increase in the drag on the aircraft. Instead, the distribution of fuel along the aircraft was shifted during acceleration and deceleration to move the centre of mass, effectively acting as an auxiliary trim control.
Range
In order to fly non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean, Concorde was developed to have the greatest supersonic range of any aircraft. This was achieved by a combination of engines which were highly efficient at supersonic speeds, a slender fuselage with high fineness ratio, and a complex wing shape for a high lift to drag ratio. This also required carrying only a modest payload and a high fuel capacity, and the aircraft was trimmed with precision to avoid unnecessary drag.
Nevertheless, soon after Concorde began flying, a Concorde "B" model was designed with slightly larger fuel capacity and slightly larger wings with leading edge slats to improve aerodynamic performance at all speeds, with the objective of expanding the range to reach markets in new regions. It featured more powerful engines with sound deadening and without the fuel-hungry and noisy reheat. It was speculated that it was reasonably possible to create an engine with up to 25% gain in efficiency over the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593. This would have given 500 mi (805 km) additional range and a greater payload, making new commercial routes possible. This was cancelled due in part to poor sales of Concorde, but also to the rising cost of aviation fuel in the 1970s.
Droop Nose
Concorde’s drooping nose, developed by Marshall Aerospace, enabled the aircraft to switch between being streamlined to reduce drag and achieve optimum aerodynamic efficiency, and not obstructing the pilot's view during taxi, takeoff, and landing operations. Due to the high angle of attack the long pointed nose obstructed the view and necessitated the capability to droop. The droop nose was accompanied by a moving visor that retracted into the nose prior to being lowered. When the nose was raised to horizontal, the visor would rise in front of the cockpit windscreen for aerodynamic streamlining.
A controller in the cockpit allowed the visor to be retracted and the nose to be lowered to 5° below the standard horizontal position for taxiing and takeoff. Following takeoff and after clearing the airport, the nose and visor were raised. Prior to landing, the visor was again retracted and the nose lowered to 12.5° below horizontal for maximum visibility. Upon landing the nose was raised to the five-degree position to avoid the possibility of damage.
The Federal Aviation Administration had objected to the restrictive visibility of the visor used on the first two prototype Concordes and thus requiring alteration before the FAA would permit Concorde to serve US airports; this led to the redesigned visor used on the production and the four pre-production aircraft. The nose window and visor glass needed to endure temperatures in excess of 100 °C (212 °F) at supersonic flight were developed by Triplex.
Retirement
Concorde's final flight; G-BOAF from Heathrow to Bristol, on 26 November 2003. The extremely high fineness ratio of the fuselage is evident.
On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11, 2001 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was dated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747. By its retirement, it was the last aircraft in British Airways' fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 747-400, had eliminated the role.
On 11 April 2003, Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing British Airways’ Concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £1 (US$1.57 in April 2003) each. British Airways dismissed the idea, prompting Virgin to increase their offer to £1 million each. Branson claimed that when BA was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another British airline to operate Concorde if BA ceased to do so, but the Government denied the existence of such a clause. In October 2003, Branson wrote in The Economist that his final offer was "over £5 million" and that he had intended to operate the fleet "for many years to come". The chances for keeping Concorde in service were stifled by Airbus's lack of support for continued maintenance.
It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically. A lack of commitment to Concorde from Director of Engineering Alan MacDonald was cited as having undermined BA’s resolve to continue operating Concorde.
Air France
Air France made its final commercial Concorde landing in the United States in New York City from Paris on 30 May 2003. Air France's final Concorde flight took place on 27 June 2003 when F-BVFC retired to Toulouse.
An auction of Concorde parts and memorabilia for Air France was held at Christie's in Paris on 15 November 2003; 1,300 people attended, and several lots exceeded their predicted values. French Concorde F-BVFC was retired to Toulouse and kept functional for a short time after the end of service, in case taxi runs were required in support of the French judicial enquiry into the 2000 crash. The aircraft is now fully retired and no longer functional.
French Concorde F-BTSD has been retired to the "Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace" at Le Bourget (near Paris) and, unlike the other museum Concordes, a few of the systems are being kept functional. For instance, the famous "droop nose" can still be lowered and raised. This led to rumours that they could be prepared for future flights for special occasions.
French Concorde F-BVFB currently rests at the Auto & Technik Museum Sinsheim at Sinsheim, Germany, after its last flight from Paris to Baden-Baden, followed by a spectacular transport to Sinsheim via barge and road. The museum also has a Tu-144 on display – this is the only place where both supersonic airliners can be seen together.
British Airways[edit]
BA Concorde G-BOAB in storage at London Heathrow Airport. This aircraft flew for 22,296 hours between its first flight in 1976 and its final flight in 2000.
BA Concorde G-BOAC in its hangar at Manchester Airport Aviation Viewing Park]]
British Airways conducted a North American farewell tour in October 2003. G-BOAG visited Toronto Pearson International Airport on 1 October, after which it flew to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. G-BOAD visited Boston’s Logan International Airport on 8 October, and G-BOAG visited Washington Dulles International Airport on 14 October. It has been claimed that G-BOAD’s flight from London Heathrow to Boston set a transatlantic flight record of 3 hours, 5 minutes, 34 seconds. However the fastest transatlantic flight was from New York JFK airport to Heathrow on 7 February 1996, taking 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds; 90 seconds less than a record set in April 1990.
In a week of farewell flights around the United Kingdom, Concorde visited Birmingham on 20 October, Belfast on 21 October, Manchester on 22 October, Cardiff on 23 October, and Edinburgh on 24 October. Each day the aircraft made a return flight out and back into Heathrow to the cities, often overflying them at low altitude. On 22 October, both Concorde flight BA9021C, a special from Manchester, and BA002 from New York landed simultaneously on both of Heathrow's runways. On 23 October 2003, the Queen consented to the illumination of Windsor Castle, an honour reserved for state events and visiting dignitaries, as Concorde's last west-bound commercial flight departed London.
British Airways retired its Concorde fleet on 24 October 2003. G-BOAG left New York to a fanfare similar to that given for Air France’s F-BTSD, while two more made round trips, G-BOAF over the Bay of Biscay, carrying VIP guests including former Concorde pilots, and G-BOAE to Edinburgh. The three aircraft then circled over London, having received special permission to fly at low altitude, before landing in sequence at Heathrow. The captain of the New York to London flight was Mike Bannister. The final flight of a Concorde in the US occurred on 5 November 2003 when G-BOAG flew from New York's Kennedy Airport to Seattle's Boeing Field to join the Museum of Flight's permanent collection. The plane was piloted by Mike Bannister and Les Broadie who claimed a flight time of three hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds, a record between the two cities. The museum had been pursuing a Concorde for their collection since 1984. The final flight of a Concorde world-wide took place on 26 November 2003 with a landing at Filton, Bristol, UK.
All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn. Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again. BA maintain ownership and have stated that they will not fly again due to a lack of support from Airbus. On 1 December 2003, Bonhams held an auction of British Airways’ Concorde artifacts, including a nose cone, at Kensington Olympia in London. Proceeds of around £750,000 were raised, with the majority going to charity. G-BOAD is currently on display at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York. In 2007, BA announced that the advertising spot at Heathrow where a 40% scale model of Concorde was located would not be retained; the model is now on display at the Brooklands Museum.
Chrysler Concorde (1998)
The Concorde was completely redesigned for the 1998 model year. The new design was similar to the new Chrysler LHS, however the two models each had a unique front end shape and different rear fascias. The "Second Generation" design was introduced in 1996 as the Chrysler LHX Concept Car. This concept vehicle had large 20" wheels, and a centrally located instrument cluster. The wheelbase was expanded to 124 inches (3,100 mm) to allow for rear passenger supplement restraints, rear occupant entertainment center and storage compartment.
Despite overall length increasing by 7.5 inches (190 mm), the second generation's weight dropped by nearly a hundred pounds. This was achieved by extensive use of aluminum for the rear suspension, hood, as well as the two new engines. In addition the 214 hp (160 kW) 3.5-liter V6 engine, there was also a new 200 hp (149 kW) 2.7-liter V6 and 225 hp (168 kW) 3.2-liter V6. The 3.5-liter was redone and output upgraded to 253 hp (189 kW) and was available on the 2002-2004 Concorde Limited (formerly LHS).
Much was done in the design process to make the second generation LH sedans look more distinct from each other. The 1998 Concorde differed far greater from the Dodge Intrepid and the new 1999 Chrysler 300M (successor to the Eagle Vision), than did the first generation models. With the exception of the doors and roof, the Concorde shared little sheetmetal with the Intrepid and 300M. The new Concorde's front end was underscored by a striking full-width grille, relocated to the front bumper to give the impression of a bottom breather. Sweeping curves and a more rounded front end also helped set the Concorde apart from the Intrepid and 300M. The second generation Chrysler LHS had an appearance very similar to the Concorde; The only major differences being its more centrally located single frame grille and amber turn signals on the taillights.
As in the previous generation, six passenger seating with a front bench seat and column shifter was optional. Cloth seating was standard on base LX with leather seating optional. Leather was standard on upscale LXi and later Limited models.
The Concorde, 300M, and Intrepid were discontinued in 2004. The all-new Chrysler 300 replaced the Concorde (and 300M) in late 2004 as a 2005 model.
The Concorde 2nd generation replaced the first generation car (launched in 1991), itself derived from the AMC division Eagle Premier (and Dodge Monaco). Interestingly, these two AMC products were directly related to the then-new Renault 25 and inherited the Renault north-south installation of the powertrains, with the engine mounted ahead of, and driving, the front axle. This layout is very similar to that used in the larger Audis, thus permitting the installation of a all-wheel-drive system for added traction, though there were no volume models of either the AMC division cars, or the latter LHS platform Chryslers that used this system.
Notes on each of the aircraft Concorde and automotive Concorde are taken from excerpts published on Wikipedia.
The two models shown here, the Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde and the second generation Chrysler Corcorde have been designed in Lego. The aircraft in approximately 1:50 scale, and the car in miniland (1:21) scale for Flickr LUGNuts 79th Build Challenge, - "LUGNuts goes Wingnuts" - featuring automotive models named after, inspired by, or related to aircraft.
Workers assist as the payload fairing containing NASA’s Lucy spacecraft is lowered onto the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V Centaur second stage in the Vertical Integration Facility at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida on Oct. 7, 2021. Lucy is scheduled to launch no earlier than Saturday, Oct. 16, on the ULA Atlas V 401 rocket from Launch Pad 41. NASA’s Launch Services Program, based at Kennedy Space Center, America’s premier multi-user spaceport, is managing the launch. Over its 12-year primary mission, Lucy will explore a record-breaking number of asteroids, flying by one asteroid in the solar system’s main belt and seven Trojan asteroids. Additionally, Lucy’s path will circle back to Earth three times for gravity assists, making it the first spacecraft ever to return to the vicinity of Earth from the outer solar system. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson
The german Armed Forces did ordered 4000 Trucks with the Payload System " Wechsellader " by RMMV. the Vehicles will be manufactored by RMMV at Vienna. The first vehicles will be delivered in 2021, the last in 2027 . here a prototyp of these new Vehicle Generation
ENGLISH:
Engine under chassis, payload 5t.
Diorama in scale 1/87 (gauge H0). Truck from Wiking, People from Noch.
ESPAÑOL:
Motor debajo del chasis, carga útil 5t.
Diorama en la escala 1:87 (ancho de vía H0). Camión de Wiking, Hombre de Noch.
DEUTSCH:
Mit Unterflurmotor, Nutzlast 5t
Diorama im Massstab 1:87 (Spurweite H0). Lastwagen von Wiking, Mensch von Noch.
The Solar Orbiter spacecraft is moved by crane from a work stand to the payload adapter inside Astrotech Space Operations in Titusville, Florida on Jan. 16, 2020. Solar Orbiter is an international cooperative mission between ESA (European Space Agency) and NASA. The mission aims to study the Sun, its outer atmosphere and solar wind. The spacecraft will provide the first images of the Sun’s poles. NASA’s Launch Services Program based at Kennedy is managing the launch. The spacecraft has been developed by Airbus Defence and Space. Solar Orbiter will launch in February 2020 aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Photo credit: European Space Agency
B-1B Lancer
Mission
Carrying the largest conventional payload of both guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory, the multi-mission B-1 is the backbone of America's long-range bomber force. It can rapidly deliver massive quantities of precision and non-precision weapons against any adversary, anywhere in the world, at any time.
Features
The B-1B's blended wing/body configuration, variable-geometry wings and turbofan afterburning engines, combine to provide long range, maneuverability and high speed while enhancing survivability. Forward wing settings are used for takeoff, landings, air refueling and in some high-altitude weapons employment scenarios. Aft wing sweep settings - the main combat configuration -- are typically used during high subsonic and supersonic flight, enhancing the B-1B's maneuverability in the low- and high-altitude regimes. The B-1B's speed and superior handling characteristics allow it to seamlessly integrate in mixed force packages. These capabilities, when combined with its substantial payload, excellent radar targeting system, long loiter time and survivability, make the B-1B a key element of any joint/composite strike force.
The B-1 is a highly versatile, multi-mission weapon system. The B-1B's synthetic aperture radar is capable of tracking, targeting and engaging moving vehicles as well as self-targeting and terrain-following modes. In addition, an extremely accurate Global Positioning System-aided Inertial Navigation System enables aircrews to navigate without the aid of ground-based navigation aids as well as engage targets with a high level of precision. The addition of a fully integrated data link (FIDL) with Link-16 capability provides improved battlefield situation awareness and secure beyond line of sight reach back connectivity. In a time sensitive targeting environment, the aircrew can use targeting data received from the Combined Air Operations Center or other command and control assets to strike emerging targets rapidly and efficiently.
The B-1B's onboard self-protection electronic jamming equipment, radar warning receiver (ALQ-161) and expendable countermeasures (chaff and flare) system and a towed decoy system (ALE-50) complements its low-radar cross-section to form an integrated, robust defense system that supports penetration of hostile airspace. The ALQ-161 electronic countermeasures system detects and identifies the full spectrum of adversary threat emitters then applies the appropriate jamming technique either automatically or through operator inputs.
Current modifications build on this foundation. Radar sustainability and capability upgrades will provide a more reliable system and may be upgraded in the future to include an ultra high-resolution capability and automatic target recognition. The addition of Link-16 and FIDL combined with associated cockpit upgrades will provide the crew with a much more flexible, integrated cockpit, and will allow the B-1 to operate in the fast-paced integrated battlefield of the future. Several obsolete and hard to maintain electronic systems are also being replaced to improve aircraft reliability.
Background
The B-1A was initially developed in the 1970s as a replacement for the B-52. Four prototypes of this long-range, high speed (Mach 2.2) strategic bomber were developed and tested in the mid-1970s, but the program was canceled in 1977 before going into production. Flight testing continued through 1981.
The B-1B is an improved variant initiated by the Reagan administration in 1981. Major changes included and additional structure to increase payload by 74,000 pounds, an improved radar and reduction of the radar cross section by an order of magnitude. The inlet was extensively modified as part of this RCS reduction, necessitating a reduction in maximum speed to Mach 1.2.
The first production B-1 flew in October 1984, and the first B-1B was delivered to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, in June 1985. Initial operational capability was achieved on Oct. 1, 1986. The final B-1B was delivered May 2, 1988.
The United States eliminated the nuclear mission for the B-1 in 1994. Even though the Air Force expended no further funding to maintain nuclear capabilities, the B-1 was still considered a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armament until 2007. The conversion to conventional only began in November 2007 under the original START treaty and was completed in March 2011 under the New START treaty. To make that conversion possible, two steps were taken:
During the first step a metal cylindrical sleeve was welded into the aft attachment point of each set of B-1 pylon attachments. This prevented installing B-1 Air Launched Cruise Missile pylons.
During the second step two nuclear armament-unique cable connectors in each of the B-1 weapons bays were removed. This prevented the pre-arm signal from reaching the weapons.
The B-1B holds almost 50 world records for speed, payload, range, and time of climb in its class. The National Aeronautic Association recognized the B-1B for completing one of the 10 most memorable record flights for 1994. The most recent records were made official in 2004.
The B-1B was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. In 1999, six B-1s were used in Operation Allied Force, delivering more than 20 percent of the total ordnance while flying less than 2 percent of the combat sorties.
During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used. The B-1 continues to be deployed today, flying missions daily in support of continuing operations.
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Long-range, multi-role, heavy bomber
Contractor: Boeing, North America (formerly Rockwell International, North American Aircraft); Offensive avionics, Boeing Military Airplane; Defensive Avionics, EDO Corporation
Power plant: Four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner
Thrust: 30,000-plus pounds with afterburner, per engine
Wingspan: 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended forward, 79 feet (24.1 meters) swept aft
Length: 146 feet (44.5 meters)
Height: 34 feet (10.4 meters)
Weight: approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (216,634 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 265,274 pounds (120,326 kilograms)
Payload: 75,000 pounds (34,019 kilograms)
Speed: 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level)
Range: Intercontinental
Ceiling: More than 30,000 feet (9,144 meters)
Armament: 84 500-pound Mk-82 or 24 2,000-pound Mk-84 general purpose bombs; up to 84 500-pound Mk-62 or 8 2,000-pound Mk-65 Quick Strike naval mines; 30 cluster munitions (CBU-87, -89, -97) or 30 Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispensers (CBU-103, -104, -105); up to 24 2,000-pound GBU-31 or 15 500-pound GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions; up to 24 AGM-158A Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles; 15 GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions
Crew: Four (aircraft commander, copilot, and two combat systems officers)
Unit Cost: $317 million
#Orion #NASASocial participants are getting an insider's look at the work being done at the Payload Operations Integration Center at #NASAMarshall. The POIC manages all of the science experiments for the agency on the International Space Station.
#ISS
The Challenger crewmember remains are being transferred from 7 hearse vehicles to a MAC C-141 transport plane at the Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility for transport to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. The STS-51L crew consisted of: Mission Specialist, Ellison S. Onizuka, Teacher in Space Participant Sharon Christa McAuliffe, Payload Specialist, Greg Jarvis and Mission Specialist, Judy Resnik. In the front row from left to right: Pilot Mike Smith, Commander, Dick Scobee and Mission Specialist, Ron McNair.
As we investigate the reasoning of the STS-107 breakup, we cannot ignore the horrible fate of the crew. Here is an account of the final moments of not only the Columbia, but the Challenger crew.
_______________________________
Was Columbia in reentry LOS at the time of breakup?
No. Both voice communication and data telemetry were still being received right up to the breakup of Columbia. Unlike previous manned programs - Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, as well as the Russian Soyuz vehicles - the Shuttle does not have a loss-of-signal phase during reentry. The reason is actually pretty simple.
First off, understand that the blackout period is caused by a sheath of ionized air, formed during the high-heating, high-deceleration phase of re-entry, through which radio waves cannot penetrate. This is what every manned flight from Mercury thru Apollo experienced, and provided much of the suspense and drama during the reentry phase of John Glenn's Friendship 7 Mercury flight. Even the Shuttle experienced the same effect during its early flights.
The communications loss due to the blackout period was resolved after the second Tracking Data and Relay Satellite (TDRS) was placed in orbit. The reason is that the ionization sheath is open at the trailing end behind the Shuttle, providing a hole through which communication with the shuttle can be maintained with the favorably positioned TDRS. This second TDRS also allows communication during the other portions of entry that did not exist prior to its placement in 1988 - a period roughly from the time of the de-orbit OMS burn to an altitude of 200,000 feet for a landing at Edwards Air Force Base, barring passes over ground sites.
So, with two functioning TDRS satellites in operation, communications with the Shuttle can be maintained throughout the entire reentry phase of the mission.
What happened to the crew when Columbia broke up?
Actually, it's better to speculate on the fate of the crew cabin, and then decide for yourself what probably happened to the crew.
Once the cabin tore loose from the rest of the fuselage and all electrical power was lost, the cabin was probably hammered, buffeted and braked by atmospheric drag as it continued its re-entry. The cabin would have been heated by the surrounding shock-induced plasma, and as G-forces built up the integrity of the heat-weakened aluminum infrastructure would have been compromised and the cabin would eventually collapse in on itself. Some fragmentation would have no doubt taken place, and pieces would have broken loose and fallen behind and below the cabin's path as they slowed down quicker in the atmospheric drag.
This speculation is based on some of the findings of the investigation into the loss of Challenger in 1986. As with Columbia, the initial impressions on the fate of the Challenger crew was that they had perished instantly when the shuttle came apart a minute after launch. However, when the crew cabin was found relatively intact a few months later did it become apparent that the cabin had in fact separated cleanly from the fuselage, continued on a parabolic arc to an altitude of ~65,000 feet, and then fell back to impact in the Atlantic Ocean with a force of 200 G’s. Even then, the cabin was still relatively intact despite hitting the surface of the ocean with that degree of force.
When the cabin broke loose from the rest of Challenger, it became separated from all electrical and life support resources. Save for a few seconds of air in the lines, very shortly after separation the crew would have been without any life support. Upon recovery it was found that the state of some life-support equipment indicated that at least some of the crew had survived the initial breakup were able to activate their safety equipment. Three of the four Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAP) located behind each seat on the Shuttle had in fact been activated. However, because the crew were not wearing any sort of pressure suits, the PEAPs would not have provided the required amount of breathable air necessary to retain consciousness at the altitudes the cabin reached. The team of coroners and medical specialists that performed the autopsies of the remains concluded that that the crew were soon all unconscious shortly after the cabin began its final arc of transit, and were most likely not killed until the impact with the ocean, two minutes after the External Tank exploded.
It should be noted that since the loss of Challenger, many of the contingency plans were revised extensively. As a result, Columbia’s crew were equipped with better survival gear, including pressure suits and personal parachutes. Assuming they were conscious of the emergency, the Columbia crew would have closed their visors when cabin pressure was lost, which would have automatically pressurized the suits. At that point, the only thing the crew would have needed to do would have been to wait until the cabin fell below 15,000', blow the escape hatch, extend the egress pole, slide out and away from the orbiter down the pole, and parachute to safety. This is how the procedure works in theory, and provided the cabin stayed relatively intact until 15,000'. Since this did not happen, it can be assumed that the cabin was compromised in such a way that the crew had no opportunity to attempt any sort of egress.
In Hemphill, searchers found what are believed to be human remains, and what appeared to be gauges and other Columbia components in a farmer's field on 2/10/03. Although no details were given on the human remains, over 100 pieces of debris ranging from gauges to switches and other components, many of which still had the wires attached to them. Remains that a hospital employee identified as charred torso, thigh bone and skull on a rural road near other unspecified debris in Hemphill, east of Nacogdoches. Remains identified as a charred human leg on a farm in Sabine County, about 50 miles (80 km) east of Nacogdoches.
"Elsewhere around Norwood, even grimmer discoveries were being made. Deputy Faron Howell was in charge of search teams that soon began stumbling across human remains.
"There was a hand, and a foot, then a leg from the knee down. One of my men found a human heart. The biggest piece was a torso, the upper bit with the chest ripped in half." A thigh bone and a skull, the flesh torn away, were also located."
The Unthinkable Fate of the Challenger Crew
The last words captured by the fight voice recorder in Challenger were not Commander Francis Scobee's haunting, "Go at throttle up." Three seconds later, Pilot Michael Smith uttered, "Uh oh," at the very moment that all electronic data from the spacecraft was lost.
The public has never heard the inflection of Smith's words, nor the ambient noise in the cabin that underscored them (you can read a transcript here). Despite the existence of evidence of what happened after Challenger's 73 seconds of flight, little of that reality is part of the public's consciousness, understanding, or recollection of the events of January 28, 1986. In part, this can be attributed to a justifiable desire to believe in a merciful outcome: that Christa McAuliffe and the shuttle astronauts all died instantly in what appeared from the ground to be an explosion. But like Smith's instinctive interjection, telltale signs exist that our worst nightmare about the Challenger disaster may have been true. It was very likely that the mid-air blast was not strong enough to kill the crew - and that at least some of the seven astronauts were terrifyingly aware of the impending fate.
More about Challenger
On July 28, 1986, Dr. Joseph P. Kerwin, director of Life Sciences at the Johnson Space Center, submitted his report on the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts. The crew module was found that March in 100 feet of water, about 18 miles from the launch site in a location coded "contact 67." While references to the crew were stricken from the report, details about the condition of the module provide many clues about the fate of the astronauts. Kerwin wrote that the cause of the crew's death was inconclusive, but that the force of the initial explosion was too weak to have caused death or even serious injury. This was a direct contradiction to NASA's standard line about the crew's fate, that they were vaporized in the explosion and suffered no further.
If the astronauts were not killed by the blast, then how long did they survive? Challenger as a whole was destroyed at 48,000 feet, but the crew module continued its flight upward for 25 more seconds (to 65,000 feet) before pitching straight down and falling into the Atlantic Ocean.
Evidence that at least some of the crew survived included the recovered personal egress air packs, or PEAPs, designed to provide oxygen to the crew in case they had to ditch the craft in a ground emergency. (NASA had no protocol for in-flight shuttle emergencies in 1986.) Each pack contained several minutes of breathing air, but the tanks had to be opened manually. Salvagers recovered four PEAPs; three of them had been opened. The one belonging to Michael Smith was mounted behind his seat, so it's likely another crewmember had leaned forward to activate it.
Kerwin and his experts theorized that the loss of cabin pressure inside the module could have knocked out the crew within a matter of seconds, but damage from the 200-mph impact made determining the rate of depressurization impossible. The air from the PEAPs would not be enough to keep the crew conscious during a rapid drop in pressure. But a rapid drop in pressure would likely have ripped up the middeck floor, which did not occur. A slow or gradual drop in pressure would keep the crew conscious much longer, and the impact at the bottom of that tumble was harsher on the crew's bodies than any car or plane crash would have been.
In either scenario, it is likely that some - if not all - of the crew were awake and coherent after the disintegration of Challenger, and were conscious long enough to feel the module pitch its nose straight down, to see the blue sky in the cockpit window rotate away in favor of the continent below, and to experience a weightless free fall toward the ocean that lasted a full two minutes and 55 seconds. It is a horrifying scenario so extreme that it's unlikely that even 25 more years will be enough to contemplate it objectively.
For now, many still choose to believe that the men and women aboard the Challenger didn't survive the explosion and were unaware that their loved ones on the ground were watching them descend in a plume of smoke to their deaths. Perhaps that belief holds some truth. Or perhaps, it simply serves to bring some peace to the earthbound souls left in the wake of the Challenger's loss.
Challenger was one of NASA's greatest successes - but also one of its darkest legacies.
It was initially built between 1975 and 1978 to be a test vehicle, but was later converted into a fully fledged spacecraft.
In its heyday, it completed nine milestone missions - from launching the first female astronaut into space to taking part in the first repair of a satellite by an astronaut.
But it was also the vehicle that very nearly ended the space program when a probe into the 1986 disaster found that the shuttle was doomed before it had even taken off.
Roger Boisjoly, a NASA contractor at rocket-builder Morton Thiokol Inc, warned in 1985 that seals on the booster rocket joints could fail in freezing temperatures.
'The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order — loss of human life,' he wrote in a memo.
On the eve of the ill-fated flight, Boisjoly and several colleagues reiterated their concerns and argued against launching because of predicted cold weather at the Kennedy Space Center.
But they were overruled by Morton Thiokol managers, who gave NASA the green light.
After the accident, Boisjoly testified to a presidential commission investigating the Challenger accident.
The group determined that hot gases leaked through a joint in one of the booster rockets shortly after blastoff that ended with the explosion of the shuttle's hydrogen fuel.
Boisjoly died in 2012 aged 73.
HOW CREW DIED ACCORDING TO NASA STUDY
(The following information appeared on the NASA Headquarters Website.)
On July 28, 1986 Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Flight and a former astronaut, released this report from Joseph P. Kerwin, biomedical specialist from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, relating to the deaths of the astronauts in the Challenger accident. Dr. Kerwin had been commissioned to undertake this study soon after the accident on January 28, 1986. A copy of this report is available in the NASA Historical Reference Collection, History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.]
****************************************************************
RADM Richard H. Truly
Associate Administrator for Space Flight
NASA Headquarters
Code M
Washington, DC 20546
Dear Admiral Truly:
The search for wreckage of the Challenger crew cabin has been completed. A team of engineers and scientists has analyzed the wreckage and all other available evidence in an attempt to determine the cause of death of the Challenger crew. This letter is to report to you on the results of this effort. The findings are inconclusive. The impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface was so violent that evidence of damage occurring in the seconds which followed the explosion was masked. Our final conclusions are:
·the cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined;
·the forces to which the crew were exposed during Orbiter breakup were probably not sufficient to cause death or serious injury; and
·the crew possibly, but not certainly, lost consciousness in the seconds following Orbiter breakup due to in-flight loss of crew module pressure.
Our inspection and analyses revealed certain facts which support the above conclusions, and these are related below: The forces on the Orbiter at breakup were probably too low to cause death or serious injury to the crew but were sufficient to separate the crew compartment from the forward fuselage, cargo bay, nose cone, and forward reaction control compartment. The forces applied to the Orbiter to cause such destruction clearly exceed its design limits. The data available to estimate the magnitude and direction of these forces included ground photographs and measurements from onboard accelerometers, which were lost two-tenths of a second after vehicle breakup.
Two independent assessments of these data produced very similar estimates. The largest acceleration pulse occurred as the Orbiter forward fuselage separated and was rapidly pushed away from the external tank. It then pitched nose-down and was decelerated rapidly by aerodynamic forces. There are uncertainties in our analysis; the actual breakup is not visible on photographs because the Orbiter was hidden by the gaseous cloud surrounding the external tank. The range of most probable maximum accelerations is from 12 to 20 G's in the vertical axis. These accelerations were quite brief. In two seconds, they were below four G's; in less than ten seconds, the crew compartment was essentially in free fall. Medical analysis indicates that these accelerations are survivable, and that the probability of major injury to crew members is low.
After vehicle breakup, the crew compartment continued its upward trajectory, peaking at an altitude of 65,000 feet approximately 25 seconds after breakup. It then descended striking the ocean surface about two minutes and forty-five seconds after breakup at a velocity of about 207 miles per hour. The forces imposed by this impact approximated 200 G's, far in excess of the structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels.
The separation of the crew compartment deprived the crew of Orbiter-supplied oxygen, except for a few seconds supply in the lines. Each crew member's helmet was also connected to a personal egress air pack (PEAP) containing an emergency supply of breathing air (not oxygen) for ground egress emergencies, which must be manually activated to be available. Four PEAP's were recovered, and there is evidence that three had been activated. The nonactivated PEAP was identified as the Commander's, one of the others as the Pilot's, and the remaining ones could not be associated with any crew member. The evidence indicates that the PEAP's were not activated due to water impact.
It is possible, but not certain, that the crew lost consciousness due to an in-flight loss of crew module pressure. Data to support this is:
·The accident happened at 48,000 feet, and the crew cabin was at that altitude or higher for almost a minute. At that altitude, without an oxygen supply, loss of cabin pressure would have caused rapid loss of consciousness and it would not have been regained before water impact.
·PEAP activation could have been an instinctive response to unexpected loss of cabin pressure.
·If a leak developed in the crew compartment as a result of structural damage during or after breakup (even if the PEAP's had been activated), the breathing air available would not have prevented rapid loss of consciousness.
·The crew seats and restraint harnesses showed patterns of failure which demonstrates that all the seats were in place and occupied at water impact with all harnesses locked. This would likely be the case had rapid loss of consciousness occurred, but it does not constitute proof.
Much of our effort was expended attempting to determine whether a loss of cabin pressure occurred. We examined the wreckage carefully, including the crew module attach points to the fuselage, the crew seats, the pressure shell, the flight deck and middeck floors, and feedthroughs for electrical and plumbing connections. The windows were examined and fragments of glass analyzed chemically and microscopically. Some items of equipment stowed in lockers showed damage that might have occurred due to decompression; we experimentally decompressed similar items without conclusive results.
Impact damage to the windows was so extreme that the presence or absence of in-flight breakage could not be determined. The estimated breakup forces would not in themselves have broken the windows. A broken window due to flying debris remains a possibility; there was a piece of debris imbedded in the frame between two of the forward windows. We could not positively identify the origin of the debris or establish whether the event occurred in flight or at water impact. The same statement is true of the other crew compartment structure. Impact damage was so severe that no positive evidence for or against in-flight pressure loss could be found.
Finally, the skilled and dedicated efforts of the team from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and their expert consultants, could not determine whether in-flight lack of oxygen occurred, nor could they determine the cause of death.
/signed/
Joseph P. Kerwin
"Exactly what happened..."
In February 2001 a visitor to my "Icarus Rising" site asked if I could tell her "exactly what happened" in the Challenger disaster. After chuckling for a moment over the fact that whole books have been written on that topic, I sat down and typed out for her the following summary of events, which is based upon my examination of print and video records of the disaster.
The extreme cold of the night before had chilled the rubber insulating O-rings in the right solid rocket booster's aft field joint (the joint near the SRB's lower supporting strut that attached it to the external fuel tank) well below their specified operating temperature. Because no shuttle had ever been launched in such cold weather, engineers at Morton Thiokol (the company that manufactures the boosters) had no data to say just what would happen in such conditions, although their examination of retrieved boosters from previous launches had led them to conclude that lower launch temperatures directly affected the O-rings' ability to seal the joints properly upon SRB ignition. This sealing failure was called "blow-by" and was indicated by evidence of hot gases from the firing of the SRBs having eroded the O-rings during flight. The lower the temperature, the greater the blow-by. In fact, one SRB used on a 1983 Challenger launch had actually sustained a complete O-ring failure resulting in hot gases escaping from the joint, but the moment of failure had occurred after the SRBs had separated from the external tank. If it had happened half a minute or so earlier, we would today be talking about the 1983 Challenger disaster. Nevertheless, Morton Thiokol engineers could not categorically say that the seal would fail if the shuttle were launched in sub-freezing temperatures, only that it might, and so their "no-go" recommendation was overruled by Morton Thiokol managers, who in turn gave the "go" to NASA managers. In fairness to those who approved the launch, evidence of "blow-by" had been observed during launches when the air temperature was as high as 73 degrees, and they argued that "blow-by" appeared to happen no matter what the temperature was (of course, this should have been taken as evidence that the entire O-ring and joint configuration needed to be redesigned anyway).
When the SRBs were ignited at liftoff on January 28, both the primary and the secondary O-rings at the right SRB's aft field joint failed as engineers had feared they would. Evidence of this failure took the form of high-speed video images that showed seven discrete puffs of dark black smoke emanating from the area of the right SRB's aft field joint during the first two seconds after liftoff. However, the leak apparently sealed itself after that, probably plugged by debris from burned fuel and the failed O-ring seals.
This temporary plug appeared to stay in place for the next 56 seconds until the shuttle entered the zone of maximum dynamic pressure, called Max Q, during which shuttles ordinarily experience increased atmospheric stress as they climb toward orbit (later data showed that the stress Challenger endured that day was greater than on any previous launch but still within design specifications). At 58 seconds after launch, however, long-range video showed a flicker appearing in the area of the right SRB's aft field joint and quickly expanding to a continuous plume of flame; the stress of going through Max Q coupled with the throttling up of the shuttle's main engines apparently had broken the debris plug at the joint, allowing a 6,000 degree flame to escape through the side of the booster. The slip stream caused by the shuttle's nearly 1,500 mile-per-hour speed deflected the plume toward the SRB's lower supporting strut and the external fuel tank. The increasing loss of chamber pressure in the right SRB due to the leak caused the shuttle's guidance system to compensate for the loss of thrust on the right side by swiveling the shuttle's engines and the SRBs' nozzles in an attempt to keep Challenger on course. At 66 seconds after liftoff, data showed a significant loss of fuel pressure from the external tank to the main engines, indicating a growing hydrogen fuel leak, which fed the growing flame from the right SRB's failed joint. By this time the SRB's supporting strut had been severely weakened by exposure to the flame, as had the surface of the external tank. At 70 seconds after liftoff, long-range video showed a circumferential leak of hydrogen gas about a third of the way up on the external tank, indicating that the hydrogen innertank had failed. A bright, sustained glow also appeared between the external tank and the underside of the shuttle. At 72 seconds, data showed extreme movement of the right SRB relative to the left booster and the shuttle, indicating that the lower supporting strut had broken away completely.
At this point several simultaneous events occurred that resulted in the destruction of the shuttle. Probably at the same time that the SRB supporting strut failed, the lower third of the external tank fell away, releasing the hydrogen innertank's remaining load of liquid hydrogen. This release propelled the upper part of the hydrogen innertank upward into the liquid oxygen tank above it. At about the same moment, the right SRB pivoted around its remaining upper strut, its nose cone smashing into the top of the external tank. This resulted in the release of all of the remaining liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel, which vaporized instantly in the thin atmosphere nine miles up. This sudden fuel vaporization produced what appeared to be a fireball or fiery explosion but was really a combination of reflected sunlight, radiance from the brightness of the SRBs' exhaust nozzles and some local burning of gases within the expanding vapor cloud. Because of the right SRB's pivoting around its upper attachment, its motion suddenly pointed Challenger to the left, with the result that the shuttle was no longer pointed in the same direction that it was flying. The resulting aerodynamic stress from this "broadside" effect at nearly 2,000 miles per hour was more than the shuttle was built to withstand, and the forward part of the shuttle broke away from the payload bay. The nose of the shuttle became separated from the crew cabin, the steering rockets in the nose releasing their fuel in an explosive burn. The rest of the shuttle, its forward end suddenly opened like a tube to the supersonic wind, blew apart from the inside out. All of this happened within the space of a second or so. Contrary to initial speculation, there was no actual explosion (in spite of Tom Brokaw's citing of scientists at the time who likened the force of the "explosion" to that of "a small nuclear blast"); what we saw was the dramatic vaporization of Challenger's liquid fuel in the thin atmosphere as the shuttle broke up under severe aerodynamic stress. Challenger was not blasted to pieces by an explosion; it was blown apart by aerodynamics.
The crew cabin's momentum after the breakup quickly carried it upward to an altitude of around twelve miles before aerodynamics and gravity slowed its ascent and the cabin began the long fall to the ocean. What happened to the crew after the breakup and during the fall will never be fully answered. When the cabin broke away from the rest of the shuttle, it lost all its electrical power and oxygen supplies. If the cabin depressurized due to the breakup, then the crew would have quickly begun losing consciousness due to lack of oxygen. The fact that three out of four recovered PEAPs (Personal Egress Air Packs) had been activated and partially used indicates that at least some of the crew survived the breakup long enough to take some action to try to stay alive. Their having turned on the PEAPs does not prove that the cabin lost pressure but does show that at least some of the crew, all of whom were wearing air-tight flight helmets, believed that pressure had been lost or was being lost (otherwise, the packs wouldn't have been activated). If the cabin indeed lost pressure after the breakup, then the crew in all likelihood lost consciousness, although the short time between breakup and the cabin's impact with the ocean means that, barring cardiac arrest, they were alive but unconscious when the cabin hit the water. If, on the other hand, the cabin maintained its pressure, then they were likely alive and awake until the end. A third possibility is that the cabin depressurized at the altitude of shuttle breakup but repressurized as it fell into the denser atmosphere near sea level, which raises the nightmarish possibility that the astronauts passed out after the breakup only to regain consciousness in time to see the ocean's surface racing toward them at 200 miles per hour. Regardless of whether they were conscious or unconscious during the fall, any astronauts still alive died instantly upon impact with the ocean's surface. Damage to the cabin from its hitting the ocean's surface made it impossible to determine what damage, if any, had happened to the cabin during the breakup, which is why it's impossible to say just what happened to the crew during the fall. (The alleged "transcript" of the crew's fall to the ocean that has been published in tabloid magazines and on some Internet sites is only a hoax.)
Both halves of a United Launch Alliance Atlas V payload fairing come together around the Solar Orbiter spacecraft inside the Astrotech Space Operations facility in Titusville, Florida, on Jan. 20, 2020. The fairing provides a protective, aerodynamic cover to the payload inside during the early minutes of ascent. Solar Orbiter is an international cooperative mission between ESA (European Space Agency) and NASA. The mission aims to study the Sun, its outer atmosphere and solar wind. The spacecraft will provide the first images of the Sun’s poles. NASA’s Launch Services Program based at Kennedy Space Center in Florida is managing the launch. The spacecraft has been developed by Airbus Defence and Space. Solar Orbiter will launch aboard an Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Liftoff is scheduled for Feb. 5, 2020. Photo credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
A United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket blasts off from Space Launch Complex-41 with NASAs Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-K) payload. This was the first of 13 ULA launches scheduled for 2013, the 35th Atlas V mission, and the 67th ULA launch.
Photo courtesy United Launch Alliance
----
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The first of NASA's three next-generation
Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS), known as TDRS-K, launched
at 8:48 p.m. EST Wednesday from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in
Florida.
"TDRS-K bolsters our network of satellites that provides essential
communications to support space exploration," said Badri Younes,
deputy associate administrator for Space Communications and
Navigation at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "It will improve the
overall health and longevity of our system."
The TDRS system provides tracking, telemetry, command and
high-bandwidth data return services for numerous science and human
exploration missions orbiting Earth. These include the International
Space Station and NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.
"With this launch, NASA has begun the replenishment of our aging space
network," said Jeffrey Gramling, TDRS project manager. "This addition
to our current fleet of seven will provide even greater capabilities
to a network that has become key to enabling many of NASA's
scientific discoveries."
TDRS-K was lifted into orbit aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V
rocket from Space Launch Complex-41. After a three-month test phase,
NASA will accept the spacecraft for additional evaluation before
putting the satellite into service.
The TDRS-K spacecraft includes several modifications from older
satellites in the TDRS system, including redesigned
telecommunications payload electronics and a high-performance solar
panel designed for more spacecraft power to meet growing S-band
requirements. Another significant design change, the return to
ground-based processing of data, will allow the system to service
more customers with evolving communication requirements.
The next TDRS spacecraft, TDRS-L, is scheduled for launch in 2014.
TDRS-M's manufacturing process will be completed in 2015.
NASA's Space Communications and Navigation Program, part of the Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at the agency's
Headquarters in Washington, is responsible for the space network. The
TDRS Project Office at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in
Greenbelt, Md., manages the TDRS development program. Launch services
were provided by United Launch Alliance. NASA's Launch Services
Program at the Kennedy Space Center was responsible for acquisition
of launch services.
For more information about TDRS, visit:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Find us on Instagram
NASA has selected three commercial Moon landing service providers that will deliver science and technology payloads under Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) as part of the Artemis program. Each commercial lander will carry NASA-provided payloads that will conduct science investigations and demonstrate advanced technologies on the lunar surface, paving the way for NASA astronauts to land on the lunar surface by 2024.
The selections are:
• Astrobotic of Pittsburgh has been awarded $79.5 million and has proposed to fly as many as 14 payloads to Lacus Mortis, a large crater on the near side of the Moon, by July 2021.
• Intuitive Machines of Houston has been awarded $77 million. The company has proposed to fly as many as five payloads to Oceanus Procellarum, a scientifically intriguing dark spot on the Moon, by July 2021.
• Orbit Beyond of Edison, New Jersey, has been awarded $97 million and has proposed to fly as many as four payloads to Mare Imbrium, a lava plain in one of the Moon’s craters, by September 2020.
This commercial lander from Orbit Beyond of Edison, New Jersey, will carry NASA-provided science and technology payloads to the lunar surface, paving the way for NASA astronauts to land on the Moon by 2024.
All three of the lander models were on display for the announcement of the companies selected to provide the first lunar landers for the Artemis program, on Friday, May 31, 2019, at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
Read more: go.nasa.gov/2Ki2mJo
Credit: NASA/Goddard/Rebecca Roth
Technicians attach the Landsat 9 spacecraft to the evolved expendable vehicle secondary payload adapter (ESPA) inside the Vertical Integration Facility at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on Aug. 11, 2021. The ESPA connects Landsat 9 and the payload adapter (PMA) â the PMA then will attach to the second stage of a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket. Landsat 9 will launch on the Atlas V from Space Launch Complex 3 at Vandenberg in September 2021. The launch is being managed by NASAâs Launch Services Program based at Kennedy Space Center, America;s multi-user spaceport. The Landsat 9 satellite will continue the nearly 50-year legacy of previous Landsat missions. It will monitor key natural and economic resources from orbit. Landsat 9 is managed by the agency's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The satellite will carry two instruments: the Operational Land Imager 2, which collects images of Earth's landscapes in visible, near infrared and shortwave infrared light, and the Thermal Infrared Sensor 2, which measures the temperature of land surfaces. Like its predecessors, Landsat 9 is a joint mission between NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey. Photo credit: NASA/Randy Beaudoin
STS042-S-001 (October 1991) --- Designed by the crew members, the International Microgravity Lab-1 (IML-1) insignia depicts the orbiter with the Spacelab Module aboard. The spacecraft is oriented in a quiescent, tail-to-Earth, gravity-gradient attitude to best support the various microgravity payloads and experiments. The international composition of the crew is depicted by symbols representing both the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). The number 42 is represented by six white stars -- four on one side of the orbiter and two on the other. The single gold star above Earth's horizon honors the memory of astronaut Manley L. (Sonny) Carter, who was killed earlier this year in a commuter plane crash. A crew spokesperson stated that Carter "...was our crew mate, colleague and friend." Blue letters set against white give the surnames of the five astronauts and two payload specialists for the flight.
The NASA insignia design for space shuttle flights is reserved for use by the astronauts and for other official use as the NASA Administrator may authorize. Public availability has been approved only in the form of illustrations by the various news media. When and if there is any change in this policy, which is not anticipated, it will be publicly announced. Photo credit: NASA
Southern Spain
Found during an exploration of the deserted mining village of San Diego, one of three Rodalquilar lost gold mines, in the Cabo de Gata Natural Park, not far from Almería. © Tom Kisjes May 2012
The IXV Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle installed on its payload adapter, on 26 January 2015 at Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana.
IXV will be launched 320 km into space on top of a Vega rocket, VV04, climbing up to 420 km before beginning a long glide back through the atmosphere. In the process, IXV will gather data on reentry conditions to help guide the design of future spaceplanes.
More about IXV: www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/IXV
Connect with IXV on Twitter: twitter.com/esa_ixv
Credit: ESA–M. Pedoussaut, 2015
Inside SpaceX's Payload Processing Facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the U.S.-European Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich ocean-monitoring satellite is being encapsulated in the SpaceX Falcon 9 payload fairing on Nov. 3, 2020. Sentinel-6 is scheduled to launch on Nov. 21, 2020, at 12:17 p.m. EST (9:17 a.m. PST), atop the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Launch Services Program at Kennedy is responsible for launch management. Photo credit: NASA/Randy Beaudoin
The IXV Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle, installed on its payload adapter, is being prepared for launch, at Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, on 27 January 2015.
IXV will be launched 320 km into space on top of a Vega rocket, VV04, climbing up to 420 km before beginning a long glide back through the atmosphere. In the process, IXV will gather data on reentry conditions to help guide the design of future spaceplanes.
Credit: ESA–M. Pedoussaut, 2015
More about IXV: www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/IXV
Connect with IXV on Twitter: www.twitter.com/esa_ixv
Inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at NASAâs Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the agencyâs Mars 2020 Perseverance rover is being prepared for encapsulation in the United Launch Alliance Atlas V payload fairing on June 18, 2020. The Mars Perseverance rover is scheduled to launch in July 2020, atop the Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The rover is part of NASAâs Mars Exploration Program, a long-term effort of robotic exploration of the Red Planet. The roverâs seven instruments will search for habitable conditions in the ancient past and signs of past microbial life on Mars. The Launch Services Program at Kennedy is responsible for launch management. Photo credit: NASA/Christian Mangano
Guemes Channel.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Story Number: NNS160225-13Release Date: 2/25/2016 3:05:00 PM
ANACORTES, Wash. (NNS) -- The Navy's Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research Vessel (AGOR), R/V Sally Ride (AGOR 28), successfully completed Builder's Trials, Feb. 21, off the coast of Anacortes.
Builder's Trials for Sally Ride tested various shipboard systems and ensured readiness prior to conducting Acceptance Trials with the U.S. Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey.
The propulsion system, mission-over-the-side handling equipment, anchor handling system, and work/rescue boat launch system were among the systems successfully demonstrated.
"R/V Sally Ride performed remarkably well during Builder's Trials these past few weeks," said Mike Kosar, program manager for Support Ships, Boats, and Craft. "Our entire Navy and shipbuilder team have done an outstanding job in preparing the vessel for upcoming acceptance trials."
Based on a single-hull commercial design, R/V Sally Ride is approximately 238 feet long and incorporates the latest technologies, including high-efficiency diesel engines, emissions controls for stack gasses, and new information technology tools both for monitoring shipboard systems and for communicating with the world. Oceanographic Research Vessels provide scientists with the tools and capabilities to support ongoing research, including in the Atlantic, Western Pacific and Indian Ocean regions across a wide variety of missions.
Upon delivery, the ship will be operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography under a charter party agreement with Office of Naval Research. The vessel has accommodations for 24 scientists and will operate with a crew of 20.
This is the second ship of its class built by Dakota Creek Industries. The shipbuilder also constructed R/V Neil Armstrong (AGOR 27), which delivered to the Navy in September 2015.As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all destroyers, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships, and boats and craft.
The Neil Armstrong-class of research vessels are modern research vessels based on a commercial design, capable of integrated, interdisciplinary, general purpose oceanographic research in coastal and deep ocean areas. The Neil Armstrong-class will feature a modern suite of oceanographic equipment, state of the art acoustic equipment capable of mapping the deepest parts of the oceans, advanced over-the-side handling gear to deploy and retrieve scientific instruments, emissions controls for stack gasses, and new information technology tools both for monitoring shipboard systems and for communicating with land-based sites worldwide. Enhanced modular onboard laboratories and extensive science payload capacity will provide the ships with the flexibility to meet a wide variety of oceanographic research challenges in the coming decades.
U.S. Navy research vessels being built at Dakota Creek Industries in Anacortes will be named after Neil Armstrong & Sally Ride
Mission: Integrated, interdisciplinary, general purpose oceanographic research in coastal and deep ocean areas.Oceanographic sampling and data collection of surface, midwater, sea floor, and sub-bottom parameters.
Quantity: Two (2)
User: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (AGOR 27),
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (AGOR 28)
Ship Names: R/V Neil Armstrong (AGOR 27)
R/V Sally Ride (AGOR 28)
Builder: Dakota Creek Industries, Inc.
Contract: FFP (Firm Fixed Price)
Contract Value: $177.4M
ROM Unit Cost: $74.1 M (lead), $71.0M (follow)
Key Characteristics:
• Hull Material Steel; Aluminum pilothouse
• Length 238 ft
• Beam (Max) 50 ft
• Draft 15 ft
• Displacement 3043 LT (Full Load)
• Sustained Speed 12 kts
• Range 10,545 nm
• Endurance 40 days
• Propulsion 4 x 1044 kW Diesels, 2 x 879 kW Electric
Propulsion Motors, 2 x Controllable Pitch
Propellers, Bow & Stern Thrusters
• Accommodations 20 crew, 24 science berths
• ABS Classed/ABS Designed to ABS !A1 Circle E, !AMS
"The Hubble Space Telescope is backdropped over Madagascar, berthed in Endeavour's cargo bay, following its capture by the STS-61 astronauts."
Above is paraphrased to avoid propagating the butchering of the English language in the caption.
Online version, MUCH better & complete:
"The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), backdropped over Madagascar, is berthed in Endeavour's cargo bay following its capture by the STS-61 astronauts. The crew used TV cameras to survey the spacecraft before sending out four astronauts on five separate sessions of extravehicular activity (EVA) to perform a variety of servicing tasks."
Above at:
science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS61/1009...
See also:
nara.getarchive.net/media/sts061-79-089-sts-061-hubble-sp...
Credit: U.S. National Archives website
The conspicuous white rectangle is Wide-Field/Planetary Camera 1 (WFPC 1), more precisely, its radiator panel. WFPC 1 was one of the instruments replaced/upgraded during the mission.
Further:
www.nasa.gov/content/about-hubble-servicing-missions-sm1
asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/missions/sm1.html
Note the beaten/worn appearance of the solar arrays, and this perspective doesn’t show the prominent warping of them. Excellent HST solar array reading:
www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0203/
Credit: ESA Hubble Space Telescope website
Finally, the emblem seen at the upper right corner of... the...WFPC container(?):
images.app.goo.gl/sRRkqY9ybahnVc2x9
Credit: Sea and Sky website. First seen by me. Who knew?! Although I’m not into patches insignias or emblems at all, this site is really really cool, featuring others seldom seen, bravo!
The Mercedes-Benz T2 Series was the successor of the L319 Series. This bus was also available under brand name Hanomag-Henschel as F-Series until the early 1970s.
The old type T2 received two minor facelifts in 1977 (sliding window in front door was replaced by a vertically opening window) and 1981 (new black plastic grille and wider bumper bar).
Most of these roomy vans in NL are used as camper.
These Mercedes T2 Vans are also known as 'Düsseldorfer Transporter' because they were manufactured in the Düsseldorf Mercedes factory.
3758 cc L4 Diesel engine.
2660 kg.
Max. payload: 750 kg.
Production Mercedes-Benz T2 Series: 1967-1996.
Production M-B T2 Altes Typ: 1967-1986.
Production M-B T2 508D this version: 1977-1981.
Original Dutch reg. number: Jan. 8, 1980 (still valid, March 2024).
Bought at April 15, 2015.
Utrecht, Zuilen-Noord, Elinkwijk, July 3, 2018.
© 2018 Sander Toonen, Amsterdam/Halfweg / All Rights Reserved
m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ3YbwrXmkc
The Masquerade X-1 Nightwing is one of the true legends of aviation. Designed as a race plane, it first saw combat when utilized as a high speed scout aircraft aboard the battlecruiser and pirate ship Jackson's Revenge, known to all as the Whispering Mare, in the late 20's. When the great conspiracy unraveled and the aircraft designs were acquired by Skymaster Aviation, it's career as a luxury item began. When it's descendant, the F-5 Thunder was introduced in 1934, it broke the world speed record, and again in 1939. Up until WW2 it and it's many improvements secured the King's position in the air sports industry, with some special models going on to win three Schneider Trophies. The latest of the line, the F-30 Daredevil (Waagduiwel in Afrikaans), also saw some combat in WW2 when the desperate Confederacy deployed everything it could lay it's hands on to forestall the advance of the Republikan Army, in the Civil War of Suid Afrika. Although improvised, they had a degree of success. Even the high speed piston fighter aircraft of the late 40's had difficulty with keeping pace with the lightning-quick armed racers that soon earned a reputation as surprisingly fearsome combatants. There was even an upgrade package to improve the aircraft's strength to better suit this role. By the end of the war and with Confederate defeat, there were a surprising number of these aircraft lying around all over the countryside, and, to the alarm of the new Wêreldryk, very few of them were interned at the scrapyard as per Imperiaal decree.
With more of the civilian models being modified each year, the Daredevil has a legendary reputation for being used by rebel and guerrilla movements worldwide.
Skymaster Daredevil:
Payload: 4 hardpoints +1
Agility: Wow! +1
Range: 1000km +0
Speed: 820km/h -1
Perks:
Easy flyer +1
Low maintenance +1
Good visibility +1
Quirks:
Improvised -4 (brings cost down to 1 shekel)
-
As you can see it's been armed with two heavy machine guns, two rocket pods, and two missiles, but the armament on the four hardpoints can vary hugely.
It's also hilariously cheap.
And if you're a rebel group, NPC, or just really short on cash, ask for free production rights.
-
Updated version of this, my first LDD plane I built myself: www.flickr.com/photos/127366867@N03/25256780923/in/datepo...
Behind-the-scene image from inside our Payload Operations Integration Center, as our very own Bill Hubscher learned more about 3-D printing with Niki Werkheiser, NASA’s 3D Printing project manager.
“This artist's rendering illustrates a Mars Sample Return mission under study at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). As currently envisioned, the spacecraft would be launched in the mid to late 1990's into Earth-orbit by a space shuttle, released from the shuttle's cargo bay and propelled toward Mars by an upper-stage engine. A lander (left background) would separate from an orbiting vehicle (upper right) and descend to the planet's surface. The lander's payload would include a robotic rover (foreground), which would spend a year moving about the Martian terrain collecting scientifically significant rock and soil samples. The rover would then return to the lander and transfer its samples to a small rocket that would carry them into orbit and rendezvous with the orbiter for a return to Earth. As depicted here the rover consists of three two-wheeled cabs, and is fitted with a stereo camera vision system and tool-equipped arms for sample collection. The Mars Sample Return studies are funded by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications.”
Above per/at:
images.nasa.gov/details-S87-35313
And:
archive.org/details/HSF-photo-s87_35313
Credit: Internet Archive website
Note the subtle differences between my photo to those online. Primarily, and actually - not so subtle - are the differences in the sample return vehicle. The one in the posted version is more detailed, with what appear to be exposed fuel tanks, apparently belonging to both the descent stage/vehicle and ascent stage/vehicle, as there appears to be an open area between the two, with what looks to be the visible nozzle of the ascent stage. The most interesting & perplexing difference though is the presence of an open hatch near the top of the vehicle. To me, a hatch implies’manned’…hmm.
Multiple minor differences between the rovers are also obvious, notably the snazzy tires of the online version. Yeah, pimp my MRSR!
Graciously, the WIRED website permitted my viewing of their pertinent article (which I’m sure they appropriated from David S. F. Portree’s blog), before slamming the door on others…although offering a bargain price of 10 bucks for a year’s privilege of access. Unfortunately though, I couldn’t find the article at Mr. Portree’s blog. Nonetheless, my ‘copy/paste’ of it:
In 1986, NASA'S Solar System Exploration Committee (SSEC) published its report Planetary Exploration through Year 2000: An Augmented Program. Leading the pack of proposed advanced robotic planetary missions was Mars Rover Sample Return (MRSR), a mission NASA and contractor scientists and engineers had studied in 1984-1985 at the request of the SSEC. At the same time, enthusiasm was building in Congress for joint U.S.-Soviet space ventures.
NASA's Mars Exploration Strategy Advisory Group created the Mars Study Team (MST) in the autumn of 1986 to look at "a potential opportunity not previously examined; namely, a Mars Rover/Sample Return (MRSR) mission which would involve a significant aspect of international cooperation" with "minimum technology transfer, maximum sharing of scientific results, and independent credibility of each mission role." The MST included many participants from the 1984-1985 MRSR studies, as well as scientists and engineers from NASA Headquarters, the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Branch in Flagstaff, Arizona, and NASA Ames Research Center.
The MST assumed that NASA would provide the mission's large sample-collection rover and an unnamed "international partner" would provide the spacecraft that would convey the Mars samples to Earth. This division of labor reflected the institutional preference of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the home of NASA's robotic planetary program. In addition to the Rover and its lander, the NASA spacecraft would include a Rover Support Orbiter (RSO) which would image Rover traverse routes and relay radio signals from the Rover to Earth. The RSO would image objects on the surface smaller than 1.5 meters wide using a telescopic camera with a one-meter aperture.
The international MRSR mission would commence in 1996 with up to three launches to Earth orbit. The launch vehicles used would depend on the mission design selected; if, for example, the NASA spacecraft entered Mars orbit by aerocapture ("the preferred option"), then its mass would be low enough (2709 kilograms) that a solid-propellant Inertial Upper Stage could push it out of Earth orbit toward Mars. This in turn meant that it could reach Earth orbit on board a Space Shuttle orbiter.
If, on the other hand, the NASA spacecraft fired a rocket motor to slow down so that Mars's gravity could capture it into orbit, the braking propellant it would need, would boost its mass to 3571 kilograms. The 1984-1985 MRSR studies had tapped the powerful liquid-propellant Centaur G' upper stage for Earth-orbit departure. The Centaur G', a variant of the U.S. Air Force Centaur G, was designed to reach orbit in the Shuttle payload bay. Citing safety concerns in the wake of the January 1986 Challenger Shuttle accident, however, NASA had in June 1986 banned Centaur G' from the Shuttle. The NASA MRSR spacecraft and its Centaur upper stage would thus use a Titan IV or other large expendable rocket to attain Earth orbit.
The international partner MRSR spacecraft would comprise the orbiter/Earth Return System (ERS) and the lander/Sample Return System (SRS). In the MST's scenario, the international partner spacecraft would have about three times the mass of its NASA counterpart. The team acknowledged that this might "exceed the near-term, single launch capability of any international partner." It suggested that the international partner might launch its spacecraft and Earth-departure upper stage separately on a pair of rockets and link them together in Earth orbit.
Launch from Earth orbit on the nominal departure date of 17 November 1996, would see the two MRSR spacecraft arrive at Mars on 17 September 1997, after an Earth-Mars transfer lasting 302 days. The NASA lander/Rover/RSO combination would capture into an elliptical Mars orbit with a period of one Martian day and the international partner spacecraft would enter a low circular orbit. The two orbiters would then certify landing site safety through "coordinated orbital reconnaissance."
The MST noted that the dust storm season would begin shortly after the two MRSR spacecraft reached Mars, and that this might delay the MRSR landings. After clearance was given to land on Mars, the SRS would separate from the ERS, land, and activate its radio beacon. The Rover on its lander would then separate from the RSO and home in on the beacon to land close by.
The MST's agile Rover, which it called "one of the most complex elements of the MRSR mission," would be scaled to negotiate rocks and other obstacles up to 1.5 meters high. The 606.5-kilogram vehicle would comprise three "cabs," each with two wheels, linked by "passive axial flexural ties which [would] permit yaw, pitch, and roll motions."
The front cab would carry two robotic arms capable of brandishing a variety of sampling tools, plus a sampling drill and 90 kilograms of sample science equipment. A steerable binocular vision system would be mounted on a stalk on top of the center cab, and an antenna linking the Rover to the RSO would be mounted on top of the vision system. The aft cab would include the radioisotope thermal generator that would power the Rover.
Based on analysis of Viking Orbiter images, the MST proposed 11 candidate MRSR landing sites. Of these, the near-equatorial east Mangala Valles site was most thoroughly characterized. Mangala Valles consists of overlapping channels of different ages and characteristics, the most extensive of which is 80 kilometers long. The Rover would conduct four traverses with a total of 28 sampling stops. Each traverse would start and end at the SRS. The first and shortest traverse would measure seven kilometers long and include three sampling stops, while the last and longest would cover 86 kilometers and have seven stops. After each traverse, the Rover would hand its samples to the SRS, which would place them into a sample canister. In all, it would collect about five kilograms of Martian rock, sand, dust, and other materials.
After handing over the last of its samples, the Rover would move a safe distance away from the SRS. The SRS ascent vehicle would then carry the sample canister into Mars orbit. The ERS would then rendezvous with it and take it on board. The Rover, meanwhile, would begin an open-ended extended mission lasting at least two years.
On 14 August 1998, after 332 days near Mars, the ERS would fire its rocket motors to depart Mars orbit for a 357-day trip to Earth. The Mars samples would arrive in Earth orbit on 6 August 1999, where they would be retrieved and transferred to an Earth-orbiting space station for preliminary analysis and planetary protection quarantine.
The MST envisioned a second MRSR mission overlapping the first. The second mission would begin in late 1998 and would reach Mars at the end of 1999 (in the midst of another Martian dust storm season). After a 489-day stay at Mars, the second mission's ERS would depart Mars for Earth in early 2001. Its samples would reach Earth orbit late in that year. The second Rover's extended mission would last until at least late 2003.
The MST's "very preliminary" cost estimate for the NASA portion of the 1996 and 1998 MRSR missions was between $2 billion and $2.2 billion. The team called its international MRSR mission "technically feasible," though it cautioned that "[a]ll technical issues need to be addressed again in greater depth" before a decision to proceed could be made. Studies planned for 1987-1988 would, the MST explained, add further detail to the scenario of an international mission with a NASA lander/Rover. They would also examine an international scenario in which NASA contributed the lander/SRS and orbiter/ERS spacecraft, as well as a NASA-only scenario. "NASA intends to be prepared for any opportunity that may arise regarding Mars sample return," the MST declared.”
Above, with Mr. Portree’s nice graphics/illustrations, at:
www.wired.com/2014/02/international-mars-rover-sample-ret...
While all of the above is fine ‘n’ dandy, what’s really important here is that the online version left just enough of the artist’s signature strokes visible to allow identification. Ken Hodges. YES.
Thank you for your service Brother, continue to Rest In Peace:
www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/ken-hodges-obit...
Credit: Legacy website
Interesting:
LEGO model of a Western Star 4900SA day cab with Elphinstone Easysteer PBS Payloader with self steering suspension. Both models are equipped with LEGO Power Functions. Like with all my models this one is again in scale 1:17,5.
The truck features: solid axle suspension on all axles, PF L motor powered driving with power transmitted independently to both rear axles, Ackermann geometry on steering axle, PF Servo motor powered steering, fully functional fifth wheel, 2 sets of PF lights.
The trailer features: It features 2 sets of PF lights, remotely operated landing gear, remotely operated steering lock to enable easy reversing and solid axle suspension on all axles.
The F-105 was the fifth entry in the famous "Century" series of jet fighters. Designed as a supersonic, single-seater fighter/bomber able to carry nuclear weapons and heavy payloads over great distances at high speeds. The prototype F-105 made its first flight on October 12th, 1955. The first F-105D (BuNo 58-1146) flew on June 9th, 1959. The TAC at Nellis AFB, Nevada, accepted the first F-105D on September 28th, 1960. The initial contract for 59 F-105Ds was increased to nearly 300 by the end of 1961. Ultimately, a total of 610 F-105Ds were built. It was named the “Thunderchief” because Republic Aviation liked to give their military aircraft names with “Thunder.”
The F-105D variant was an all-weather fighter-bomber version, fitted with monopulse and Doppler radar for night and poor weather operations. This radar was capable of terrain avoidance commands. The original weapons bay, designed for nuclear stores, was sealed and fitted with additional fuel tanks. Bombs were carried on multiple weapons racks on the centerline of the fuselage and wing pylons. The aircraft was equipped with a retractable in-flight refueling probe. During the Vietnam War, the F-105s operated from allied bases in Thailand.
The F-105D was the major production version of the series. It was essentially an all-weather version of the daytime-only F-105B. Externally, the -D differed from the -B in having a slightly longer and wider nose, which housed the AN/ASG-19 "Thunderstick" system designed to meet the new all-weather requirements specified in November of 1957. The AN/ASG-19 was designed around the NASARR R-14A all-purpose monopulse radar. This was optimized in air-to-ground and air-to-air modes and could perform low-level and high-altitude missions. The aircraft was equipped with a General Electric FC-5 flight control system with the R-14A radar to provide the F-105D with full all-weather capability. The design included a bomb-toss computer, a sight system, an AN/APN-131 Doppler navigator, an air data computer, a missile launch computer, an autopilot, and a search and ranging radar. The radar installation also incorporated a terrain guidance mode permitting the pilot to descend through poor weather in unfamiliar territory and to hug the ground, thus avoiding enemy detection.
The F-105Ds were powered by a single Pratt & Whitney J75-P-19W jet engine equipped with water injection. A new cockpit was provided with a vertical instrument panel. The higher gross weight of the -D version required a stronger main landing gear and more robust brakes. In addition, a pitot tube was mounted on the extreme tip of the nose. The aircraft was otherwise quite similar to other F-105 models. The F-105D had an arrester hook mounted on the rear of the ventral fin. This hook was intended to engage a wire in case the aircraft overshot the end of the runway during landing. The Thunderchief was not capable of carrier-based operations.
The 335th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing was the first unit to receive the new F-105D. It exchanged its older F-105Bs for the new -D models in June of 1960. The Thunderchief's first European deployments came in May of 1961 when the 36th TFW based at Bitburg in West Germany received its first F-105Ds. The 49th TFW soon followed it. F-105Ds were also supplied to the 4520th Combat Crew Training Wing based at Nellis AFB, the 36th TFW (22nd, 23rd, and 53rd Squadrons), the 49th TFW (7th, 8th, and 9th Squadrons), the 18th Fighter Bomber Wing (12th, 44th, and 67th squadrons), the 355th FBW (354th and 357th Squadrons), and the 388th TFW. The 36th and 49th Wings went to Europe at the end of 1961 to provide NATO with nuclear strike capabilities. The 8th and 18th Wings were stationed at bases in Japan from 1962 onwards.
In June of 1961, during special tests at Eglin AFB in Florida, the F-105D demonstrated its ability to carry and deliver up to seven tons of bombs. This was the heaviest load of bombs ever carried by a single-engined fighter at the time. This feat was repeated in October 1961 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. President John F. Kennedy himself was one of the brass hats in attendance.
The F-105D was initially intended for the nuclear strike role, with the primary armament being a "special store" (a nuclear weapon) housed in the internal weapons bay. This weapon was usually either a Mk28 or Mk43. However, a Mk61 could be carried underneath the left or right inboard underwing pylon, and a Mk57 or Mk61 could be carried underneath the centerline pylon. But, as a nuclear war became less likely, the atomic weapon held in the internal weapons bay was usually replaced by a 390-gallon inner fuel tank for extended range.
The Thunderchief made for an excellent tactical bomber. All ordnance was carried externally except for the ammunition for the M61A1 cannon. With multiple ejector racks, the F-105D could have an impressive load of external fuel, ECM gear, and up to eight 750-lb. bombs on long-range missions. On short-range missions, it could carry up to sixteen 750-lb. bombs. Alternatively, payloads consisted of two 3000-lb. bombs or three drop tanks. On a typical mission over North Vietnam, the F-105D carried six 750-lb. bombs or five 1,000-lb bombs, along with two 450 US-gallon drop tanks. The F-105D also carried the Martin AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-surface missile. This weapon proved ineffective in Vietnam against hardened targets. The F-105D could also carry 2.75-inch rocket pods, napalm canisters, and four AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-homing air-to-air missiles. The M61A1 Gatling-type, 20-mm cannon proved highly effective in air-to-air combat and ground strafing. With its size and range, the F-105D could carry twice the bomb load further and faster than the F-100. Initially, the hydraulic system was susceptible to failure due to battle damage. Modifications in this system improved the F-105s' ability to withstand enemy fire later on.
The F-105D was somewhat less successful as an air-to-air fighter, often challenged by the enemy MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters. The "Thud" was not as maneuverable compared to the more nimble MiGs. Additionally, because the aircraft's ordnance was carried externally, maximum performance could only be reached once the bombs and rockets had been jettisoned or after the plane was clear of the target. However, when being attacked, the enormous thrust of the J-75 engine enabled a "slick" Thunderchief to fly supersonic "on the deck," quickly leaving its pursuers behind. F-105Ds did manage to shoot down 27.5 enemy fighters during 1966-1967. 20-mm Vulcan cannon shots accomplished most of these, and two more were downed by Sidewinder missiles.
Strikes against targets near Hanoi involved 1,250-mile round trips from Tahkli. High ambient temperatures, which were average for Thailand, handicapped takeoff performance. This required takeoffs with less than a maximum fuel load. Consequently, F-105Ds operating out of bases in Thailand usually were refueled by KC-135s over Laos before crossing into North Vietnam. Refueling operations were often repeated on the way back, mainly if afterburners had been used to evade enemy defenses. On occasion, KC-135 tanker crews would take extra risks and penetrate North Vietnamese airspace to come to the rescue of F-105Ds short on fuel or suffering from battle damage. Many F-105 pilots escaped from being an unwilling guest in the "Hanoi Hilton" because of the courage and skill of KC-135 crews.
When approaching Hanoi from Thailand, the F-105Ds had to cross "Thud Ridge," the name Thunderchief pilots gave to a series of hills between the Red and Black Rivers. Once over "Thud Ridge," the F-105s would approach their targets low and fast, an environment where the F-105D excelled. Maneuverability and stability during low-level, high-speed flight was excellent because of the aircraft's high wing loading.
Throughout the Vietnam War, the F-105D was modified to meet constantly changing conditions. Many F-105Ds were retrofitted with armor plating, backup flight control systems, X-band beacons, more effective radar altimeters, and AN/ASG-19 Thunderstick guns/bombsights. This sight provided either a blind or visual weapons delivery, using automatic or manually-controlled weapons release. The ejection seat was improved, and AN/APR-25(U)-26(V) radar homing and warning (RHAW) antennae were added to the tip of the vertical fin. The RHAW helped to warn the pilot when enemy MiGs were sneaking up on his tail and targeting his aircraft with radar. In addition, F-105D refueling probes were also improved.
Several F-105Ds were provided with a combat camera mounted in a protrusion on the lower nose just behind the radome. Many F-105Ds were fitted in the field with ram air intake scoops on the rear fuselage to address an afterburner cooling problem that had resulted in some engine fires. Unfortunately, heat and high humidity often wreaked havoc with the reliability of delicate electronic systems, with failures frequently occurring just at inopportune times.
In 1969, 30 F-105Ds were re-equipped with AN/ARN-92 LORAN equipment for more precise navigation. These planes can be identified by a long dorsal spine extending from the canopy to the tail fin. They were known as "Thunderstick IIs," T-Stick II for short. The first T-Stick aircraft flew on August 9th, 1969. They served with the 23rd TFW in the continental U.S. but never saw any combat.
Thunderchiefs in Vietnam flew more than 20,000 combat missions. As many as 350 Thunderchiefs (-Ds and -Fs) were lost in combat, most of them to North Vietnamese anti-aircraft fire. This was more than half of all Thunderchiefs built. 126 F-105s were lost in 1966 alone, 103 of them to AAA fire. From 1965-1968, it was calculated that any F-105 pilot stood only a 75% chance of surviving 100 missions over North Vietnam.
Following their withdrawal from Southeast Asia, the few Thunderchiefs to survive combat in Vietnam served with active duty Air Force units for two more years, primarily with the 23rd TFW at McConnell AFB, KS, and with the 18th TFW at Kadena AB on Okinawa. Beginning in 1971, some aircraft were handed to the Air National Guard. The ANG operated them until 1983, when the last “Thuds” were retired. Other F-105Ds were transferred to the Air Force Reserve. The Air Force Reserve acquired its first F-105Ds in July of 1972. The last Air Force reserve unit to operate the F-105D, the 466th TFS of the 508th TFW, made the final flight with the type on February 25th, 1984.
This F-105D, BuNo 62-4318, was built at Republic’s Farmingdale, NY plant in 1962 and delivered to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Itazuke AB, Japan, on May 28th, 1963. A little over a year later, it was transferred over to the 41st Air Division at Yokata AB, Japan. Her Vietnam War combat service record is quite extensive as well. While serving with the 355th TFW based out of Takhil RTAFB, Thailand, the aircraft was severely damaged during a combat exercise in 1968, repaired, and returned to service the next year. She was retired in November of 1983 with a total of 6,387 flight hours and placed on display at the old Kelly AFB in Texas before being moved to Fairview Park in Centralia, IL, where it remains today.
A unicorn, not only being the emblem for an obscure (at least to me) program, but also in that it doesn’t quite match up with the other ‘more prevalent’ version of it. Maybe it’s an “oops” printing, since “Manned Spaceflight Program” (MSP?), which is not an actual/recognized term/acronym ≠ MSE. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The design is a variation of the NASA Astronaut pin/device. See forthcoming linked image below.
Lengthy, but interesting:
“Blue Shuttle: The Manned Spaceflight Engineer Program
The Manned Spaceflight Engineer (MSE) Program was an attempt to train American military personnel as payload specialists for Department of Defense (DoD) Space Shuttle missions. Only two of the thirty-two MSE's selected flew in space in the nine years the program was active.
Since its official beginning in 1969, the US Air Force (USAF) and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) participated in the development of the Space Shuttle. The most prominent military influence on the vehicle is the size of the orbiter's payload bay. Still retaining the desire to fly all-military space missions, like with the previous decade's Man In Space, X-20 Dynamic Soarer, and Manned Orbiting Laboratory programs, the DoD wanted its own Shuttles flown by its own crews. When this so-called "Blue Shuttle" was not granted, the Air Force settled with their own astronauts hitching rides with NASA missions to handle highly classified payloads, thus beginning the MSE Program.
The DoD required the MSE program to consist of officers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Each officer would remain at NASA for four to six years during which he or she would fly at least one Space Shuttle mission before returning to their respective branch. The requirements for the first group of candidates were the following:
- Have at least three to ten years of service as an officer on active duty
- Hold rank from First Lieutenant to Major
- Be able to pass the NASA Class III physical exam (required for all NASA payload specialists)
- Hold a Bachelor of Science in engineering, science, or space operations
- Have a minimum of two years of experience in program acquisition or testing and launch support of flight and missile operations
Flight backgrounds were not required but candidates also needed appropriate security clearances to be able to work on specific classified payloads. Originally, twelve Air Force and two Navy officers were chosen but one from each branch declined. The naval officer was not replaced but the Air Force officer was replaced by Gary Payton. The thirteen MSE's were selected in 1979. All officers could anticipate flying at least once and some twice.
- 1st Lt. Frank Casserino, USAF
- 1st Lt. Jeffrey Detroye, USAF
- Capt. Michael Halem, USAF
- Capt. Terry Higbee, USAF
- Capt. Daryl Joseph, USAF
- Capt. Malcolm Lydon, USAF
- Capt. Gary Payton, USAF
- Capt. Jerry Rij, USAF
- Maj. Paul Sefchek, USAF
- Maj. Eric Sundberg, USAF
- Lt. Cmdr. David Vidrine, USN
- Capt. Keith Wright, USAF
- Capt. Brett Watterson, USAF
At the time, NASA had yet to define its own payload specialist training program so the agency was not sure how to train the new MSE's. The Air Force did not want the MSE's to go through standard NASA astronaut training because they were supposed to enter back into the service after their Shuttle flights— most military officers who became NASA astronauts never returned. When the Air Force refused to put its own astronaut candidates through general NASA training, the agency refused to provide any assistance: It was NASA's belief that since it did not select the MSE's, it did not have control over them. This led to persistent tension between NASA and the visiting MSE's. The DoD came up with its own training program, consisting of underwater EVA and manned maneuvering unit simulations at NASA Marshall and Martin Marietta [1], Shuttle mission simulations at Rockwell [2], and T-38 training at Edwards Air Force Base for those with previous flight experience. In late 1981, the first cadre of MSE's completed training.
The second class of MSE's, this time consisting of fourteen Air Force officers, was selected in August 1982 and began training the following May. Selection criteria were the same but did not emphasize science, engineering, and space operations backgrounds. For example, Captains James Armor and Craig Puz were commanders of Minuteman missile crews while Captain Randy Odle was a bio-environmental researcher at RAF Alconbury in the United Kingdom. This cadre included two women, 1st Lieutenant Maureen LaComb and Captain Katherine Roberts, and one African American, Captain Livingston Holder. Captain Charles Jones was killed in the September 11 hijacking in 2001 [3]. Due to the size of the MSE corps, the second class was told only half of them might fly in space.
- Capt. James Armor
- 1st Lt. Michael Booen
- Capt. Livingston Holder
- Capt. Larry James
- Capt. Charles Jones
- 1st Lt. Maureen LaComb
- Capt. Michael Mantz
- Capt. Randy Odle
- Capt. William Pailes
- Capt. Craig Puz
- Capt. Katherine Roberts
- Capt. Jess Sponable
- Capt. W. Davis Thompson
- Capt. Glenn Yeakel
MSE's Sefchek and Watterson worked on the STS-4 payload, the P-80-1 experiment package, while Casserino, Detroye, and Payton were "paycoms" (payload communicators) at the Air Force Satellite Control Facility in Sunnydale, California. In early 1982, seven MSE's were chosen as prime and backup candidates for three Shuttle missions scheduled for 1983 and '84. These flights were delayed due to issues with their payloads [4], which were developed by TRW, Hughes, Martin Marietta, and Lockheed under the direction of the NRO. Setbacks in the program reignited the decades-old debate inside the Air Force on the usefulness and feasibility of manned spaceflight. It also resulted in the DoD developing a new unmanned rocket capable of launching Shuttle payload bay-sized payloads into geosynchronous orbit, an orbit frequently occupied by military satellites. This vehicle became the Titan IV and flew from 1989 to 2005. Vidrine was a candidate for a payload specialist "observer" on STS-41-C (originally STS-13) and participated in flight simulations with commander Bob Crippen. One month before the scheduled April launch the Space Division refused to authorize Vidrine's flight because it had "no value" to the Air Force and he was removed from the crew. In late 1985 three officers from the Air Weather Service were selected for the Weather Officer in Space Experiment flight which never took place [5].
In late 1984, Brett Watterson was assigned as payload specialist to STS-62A, the planned first Shuttle mission from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Two successful DoD-dedicated Shuttle missions flew Gary Payton and William Pailes of the second class in 1985. This resulted in an additional five DoD missions scheduled for 1986 and '87 along with STS-62A and two launches of the Navstar GPS satellites. A third cadre of five more MSE's rounded out the program's astronaut corps in 1985.
- Capt. Joseph Caretto
- Capt. Robert Crombie
- Capt. Frank DeArmond
- Capt. David Staib
- 1st Lt. Teresa Stevens
After the Challenger disaster in early 1986, however, NASA was more concerned with making it safe to fly again than it was with the MSE's. Administrator James Fletcher expressed the desire to fly five-member crews and potentially eliminate the position of "payload specialist". By the end of 1987, only ten officers remained active. The Manned Spaceflight Engineer program ended in 1988 primarily due to lack of need for crewed DoD missions now that an uncrewed heavy-lift launch vehicle was available [6]. The DoD, yet again, had lost manned space capability.
Black and Blue: The Real DoD Shuttle Missions
Despite the unsuccessfulness of the Manned Spaceflight Engineer program, a total of eleven Shuttle flights flew with classified payloads and required a higher level of secrecy than regular NASA flights. Although the DoD requested the media not disclose flight details to maintain confidentiality, the press nonetheless reported whatever they could using open-source intelligence. An example of this is correlating the direction of the Shuttle after liftoff with orbital inclination— different payloads require different orbits to operate properly. Unlike with other Shuttle missions, NASA began public countdowns for DoD launches only a few minutes before liftoff, did not distribute press kits, and did not broadcast Shuttle-to-ground communications. With two exceptions, only active-duty military NASA astronauts flew these missions [7]. Below are those missions:
- STS-4
- STS-51C
- STS-51J
- STS-27
- STS-28
- STS-33
- STS-36
- STS-38
- STS-39
- STS-44
- STS-53
In 1993, after the final DoD mission flew, all crew members of classified flights were awarded the National Intelligence Achievement Medal. Some details of these missions are still classified three or four decades later.
California Dreamin': Vandenberg and the Space Shuttle
The DoD was also interested in flying polar-orbital Shuttle missions. These flights could not launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida because they would have flown over populated areas along the southeastern United States. Additionally, the external fuel tank would have traveled over not only Canada but Soviet Russia and possibly China. Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6 or "Slick Six") was constructed at Vandenberg Air Force Base (now Space Force Base) in California in the mid-1960s to support Titan III launches for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. It was refurbished and upgraded in the '80s for the Space Shuttle. The planned inaugural flight was to be STS-62A Discovery launching in the summer of 1986. Its primary objective was to deploy Teal Ruby, an experimental early warning satellite. The mission also would have performed a series of Earth atmospheric observations using telescopes and instruments in the orbiter's payload bay. Payload specialist no. 2 was Brett Watterson, an MSE from the first class of DoD astronauts. Due to the poor relationship between NASA astronauts and MSE's, Under Secretary of the Air Force and NRO Director Pete Aldridge was named payload specialist no. 1. After the mission was cancelled post-Challenger, STS-62A's pilot and two mission specialists (Guy Gardner, Mike Mullane, and Jerry Ross, respectively) flew STS-27 in 1988. Aldridge was promoted to Secretary of the Air Force.
Although STS-62-A was the only mission with a full crew planned before Californian operations ceased, two more missions were in the early planning stages. STS-62B, set to launch in late 1986 [8], would have included Kathrine Roberts as a payload specialist and would have deployed the KH-12 Advanced Kennan reconnaissance satellite. STS-82B would have deployed the Cosmic Background Explorer observatory, which later launched on a Delta rocket in 1989. Aldridge directed the Air Force to transfer all Shuttle assets from Vandenberg to the Kennedy Space Center and the Vandenberg extension of the Shuttle program was terminated on December 26, 1989. SLC-6 and its sister pads on the west coast are still active, though, and the most recent launch from SLC-6 was a Delta IV Heavy on April 26, 2021.
[1] Martin Marietta was responsible for the Manned Maneuvering Unit, a "jetpack" that allowed astronauts to perform untethered EVAs.
[2] Space Shuttle orbiters were assembled at Rockwell's facility in Palmdale, California.
[3] He is memorialized at the North Pool on Panel N-74 at the National 9/11 Memorial
[4] These missions are difficult to describe because they are listed by their original designations, such as STS-16. STS-16 was later designated STS-41-H. However, no mission called STS-41-H ever took place. The original STS-16 may have taken place in 1985 instead, giving it a new designation such as STS-51-[letter].
[5] I was unable to find any further information about the Weather Officer in Space Experiment but what I included in this post came from the reference with the asterisk (*)
[6] Similarly, twenty years earlier a more reliable unmanned reconnaissance satellite caused the cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program.
[7] The exceptions are former Marine Story Musgrave and former DoD scientist Kathryn Thornton, both of whom flew on STS-33.
[8] Discovery was the only Shuttle planned to launch from SLC-6. However, it was found that turnaround time at Vandenberg was not fast enough to have STS-62B launch in 1986 so it likely would have launched in the first half of 1987.”
The above, slightly paraphrased, at/from:
www.spaceflighthistories.com/post/blue-shuttle
Credit: Aeryn Avilla/”SPACEFLIGHT HISTORIES” website
The above individual I believe gleaned much/most of her content from the following 1989 article written by Michael Cassutt. Click at your own risk, even though it looks (or is made to look?) like it’s no longer maintained, it’s a Godless Russian website nonetheless, so anything nefarious is possible/to be expected:
epizodsspace.narod.ru/bibl/spaceflight/31/mse.html
Multiple other sites are available regarding the MSE Program, although it’s mostly circular reporting.
Another view of the ‘more prevalent’ version of the emblem:
www.spacepatchdatabase.com/patches/space-shuttle/manned-s...
Credit: “Space Patch Database” website
Interesting:
www.losangeles.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Articl...
Credit: LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE website
Who knew???
Did you!?!
I didn't!!!
The payload fairing containing NASA’s Lucy spacecraft is hoisted up at the Vertical Integration Facility at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on Oct. 7, 2021. It will be lowered onto the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V Centaur second stage. Lucy is scheduled to launch no earlier than Saturday, Oct. 16, on the ULA Atlas V 401 rocket from Launch Pad 41. NASA’s Launch Services Program, based at Kennedy Space Center, America’s premier multi-user spaceport, is managing the launch. Over its 12-year primary mission, Lucy will explore a record-breaking number of asteroids, flying by one asteroid in the solar system’s main belt and seven Trojan asteroids. Additionally, Lucy’s path will circle back to Earth three times for gravity assists, making it the first spacecraft ever to return to the vicinity of Earth from the outer solar system. Photo credit: NASA/Isaac Watson
The United Launch Alliance Atlas V payload fairing containing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Joint Polar Satellite System-2 (JPSS-2) is readied for its move to the vertical integration facility at Space Launch Complex 3 at Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) in California on Oct. 18, 2022. Inside the fairing, JPSS-2 is stacked atop NASA’s Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) secondary payload. JPSS-2 is the third satellite in the Joint Polar Satellite System series. It is scheduled to lift off from VSFB on Nov. 1 from Space Launch Complex-3. JPSS-2, which will be renamed NOAA-21 after reaching orbit, will join a constellation of JPSS satellites that orbit from the North to the South pole, circling Earth 14 times a day and providing a full view of the entire globe twice daily. The NOAA/NASA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite, and NOAA-20, previously known as JPSS-1, are both already in orbit. Each satellite carries at least four advanced instruments to measure weather and climate conditions on Earth. LOFTID is dedicated to the memory of Bernard Kutter. LOFTID will demonstrate inflatable heat shield technology that could enable a variety of proposed NASA missions to destinations such as Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as returning heavier payloads from low-Earth orbit. Photo credit: USSF 30th Space Wing/Carlos Velasco