No worries. And no Cardiac episodes to speak of.
PS. Over 60,000 views now. With over 600 posts. I'd call this a major success.
No worries. And no Cardiac episodes to speak of.
PS. Over 60,000 views now. With over 600 posts. I'd call this a major success.
No pictures for the moment--my AutoCAD license expired last week and I need to wait until I'm back on campus to re-activate it. However, getting some new pictures and adding info on Block III, Block III+, and Aardvark to the wiki is a priority once I get to someplace I can reliably access the web, right after my revised Dragon 3D model and right before pulling a bunch of images for the Freedom updates (did I mention I have a completely modular model of SSF for this TL? I do
).
Last edited:
No pictures for the moment--my AutoCAD license expired last week and I need to wait until I'm back on campus to re-activate it. However, getting some new pictures and adding info on Block III, Block III+, and Aardvark is a priority once I get to someplace I can reliably access the web, right after my revised Dragon 3D model and right before pulling a bunch of images for the Freedom updates (did I mention I have a completely modular model of SSF for this TL? I do
It's very cool
Titan II killed my uncle.
Srysly.
Y'all know I hated "dragon's blood" as the Russians called it before July, right?
That's when I found it it killed my uncle. At his funeral. When I was trying to tell my aunt his showing me, my Dad and Mom a Titan II from below in a silo in Wichita in the early 1970s was a cool memory of him.
I didn't realize it was a Titan; thought it was a Minuteman. Nope, it must have had 2 nozzles because Uncle Dennis was in the Titan division of SAC.
In 1979 a Titan in a silo at Little Rock, AR blew up and killed its crew.
My uncle was put in charge of cleaning up that that silo. All the men who went down there to take care of it died of the same cancer that my uncle did. My uncle outlasted them, he was a fighter. Still it got him, this past month. I went down for the funeral. That's where I learned what did it.
Dragon's blood is bad bad stuff. I've spoken out against it before, not knowing what it meant to me personally.
I hate the goddam Titans, OK? Gimme a Saturn 1C any old day. Or even a clunky old 1B.
Anything but a Titan II or later. They all use the same damn "storable" poison explosive corrorsive deadly junk.
Yep, they were used for Gemini. We were lucky. A Gemini capsule, a Blue Gemini, a Big Gemini, a MOL--these things are cool.
Just don't launch it on 2 deadly corrosive acids that together make a deadly big bang that is simultaneously toxic and blasty together, OK?
Srysly.
Y'all know I hated "dragon's blood" as the Russians called it before July, right?
That's when I found it it killed my uncle. At his funeral. When I was trying to tell my aunt his showing me, my Dad and Mom a Titan II from below in a silo in Wichita in the early 1970s was a cool memory of him.
I didn't realize it was a Titan; thought it was a Minuteman. Nope, it must have had 2 nozzles because Uncle Dennis was in the Titan division of SAC.
In 1979 a Titan in a silo at Little Rock, AR blew up and killed its crew.
My uncle was put in charge of cleaning up that that silo. All the men who went down there to take care of it died of the same cancer that my uncle did. My uncle outlasted them, he was a fighter. Still it got him, this past month. I went down for the funeral. That's where I learned what did it.
Dragon's blood is bad bad stuff. I've spoken out against it before, not knowing what it meant to me personally.
I hate the goddam Titans, OK? Gimme a Saturn 1C any old day. Or even a clunky old 1B.
Anything but a Titan II or later. They all use the same damn "storable" poison explosive corrorsive deadly junk.
Yep, they were used for Gemini. We were lucky. A Gemini capsule, a Blue Gemini, a Big Gemini, a MOL--these things are cool.
Just don't launch it on 2 deadly corrosive acids that together make a deadly big bang that is simultaneously toxic and blasty together, OK?
this is sad what happen to your uncle, Shevek23
but he is not only victim of Titan II and Soviet/chinese counter part ICBM, next to fatal accidents were toxic maintenance and cleaning.
the Titan II was wipe clean with rags soaked with Freon 113, it's fume are Toxic and carcinogenic.
only on refuel the crew wear protective suit
Also Two NASA technicians were not so lucky as one of the Shuttle OMS tanks leaks and fill the Launch pad with toxic fuel, what killed them in 1981.
we are lucky that Soviet not have build the UR-700 Monster rocket, with 4390 tons of highly toxic fuel !
but he is not only victim of Titan II and Soviet/chinese counter part ICBM, next to fatal accidents were toxic maintenance and cleaning.
the Titan II was wipe clean with rags soaked with Freon 113, it's fume are Toxic and carcinogenic.
only on refuel the crew wear protective suit
Also Two NASA technicians were not so lucky as one of the Shuttle OMS tanks leaks and fill the Launch pad with toxic fuel, what killed them in 1981.
we are lucky that Soviet not have build the UR-700 Monster rocket, with 4390 tons of highly toxic fuel !
My condolences on the Death of your uncle, Shevek. But the simple fact is the Titan II was built at a time when Hypergolic Propellants were the favoured choice for ICBMs and IRBMs. The reason being they remained liquid at ambient temperatures, allowing them to be stored fully fuelled, something that the military was strongly in favour of during the Cold War. It was only after the dangers of storing it for extended periods became clear - and a LOT of deaths later - that they made the switch to Solid Rockets for missiles.
When Chelomei was asked what would happen if one of his UR-700s exploded on the launch pad - the conclusion being that the entire Launch Complex would be a Dead-Zone for 18-20 years - he dismissed it declaring that Glushko's engines were reliable and would never fail like that. Less than two months later, one of Glushko's engines failed on the 10% sized UR-500. They were forced to wait for the rain to wash away the fumes and exhausts. This is one of the reasons that they decided that Hypergolic ICBMs were not such a good thing. That and the Nedelin Disaster, again caused by engine failure - in this case, the 2nd stage igniting when it wasn't supposed to.
When Chelomei was asked what would happen if one of his UR-700s exploded on the launch pad - the conclusion being that the entire Launch Complex would be a Dead-Zone for 18-20 years - he dismissed it declaring that Glushko's engines were reliable and would never fail like that. Less than two months later, one of Glushko's engines failed on the 10% sized UR-500. They were forced to wait for the rain to wash away the fumes and exhausts. This is one of the reasons that they decided that Hypergolic ICBMs were not such a good thing. That and the Nedelin Disaster, again caused by engine failure - in this case, the 2nd stage igniting when it wasn't supposed to.
Last edited:
We could go on in this vein. I'm willing not to, because I do recognize the advantages of the "storables." And any sort of rocket propellant poses some kind of risk or other, pretty much by definition--if you concentrate potential energy enough to lift something into orbit or a good long semiorbit you've made a bomb. Cryogenics poses its own risks, and concentrated oxygen is nasty stuff too.
Don't even get me started on nukes--this timeline isn't so much yet, though the Reagan Vulkan panic alluded to probably has much Grand Guignol potential. No doubt Timberwind or something like it will make an appearance, at least on paper, if people like Dr. Teller have anything to say about it. And Reagan loved Teller...
Anyway it's the considered judgement of the timeline authors, in other threads anyway, that nukes lack in thrust/weight ratios. Fine for upper stages, not so much for initial boost. And not so superior to LH2/LOX that there has been any compelling reason to go over to them. For manned interplanetary missions, maybe. But there, solar power is also very competitive.
So no matter how you slice it, for getting into orbit anyway, there are no benign choices.
I just think that when we've moved away from missiles, that need to be launched on minute's notice and for which we've developed quite good alternatives in the form of solids, over to launch vehicles for planned launches, the retention of Titans and other hypergolic acid-fueled options is rather egregious. The danger of explosion is always with us, why compound it with the danger of poisoning a vast area, not to mention the incremental, cumulative damage of the people working closely with it?
I suppose Titan launch vehicles were a bit less awful than ones buried for years in silos, where the micro-leakage would concentrate. Of course if the whole thing blows, as happened in 1979, it's better for the general public that it happens in a bottle. (This "bottle" had its cap blown off though, so I suppose the base as a whole and the neighborhood of Little Rock suffered anyway). I guess no American hypergolic launch vehicle ever blew on the pad, and for the workers it would have been a help that minor leakage dissipated in the air.
Kerlox gets us similar results in terms of density of propellant and ISP, so I'd think launch vehicles where the timing issues of liquid oxygen are manageable by planning should go that way, not using hypergolics just because a major military contractor happens to be in the biz of making the things.
I'm glad to note that the Atlas has at long last superseded the Titan family as the major heavy launch rocket on the shelf in the USA. I'm glad that in this timeline it's the kerlox/Hydrogen-Lox Saturn family that dominates the field of heavy launch in America.
In this timeline, there are many alternatives to the Titans and it isn't clear why there is a Titan lobby at all.
Then again, it isn't clear to me why we still had Titan ICBMs operational as late as 1979. I'm thinking, sheer military-industrial complex inertia, compounded by the fact that the Titan family was the Air Force's favored launch vehicle, which made the economics of retaining the Titan missiles that much more attractive.
Don't even get me started on nukes--this timeline isn't so much yet, though the Reagan Vulkan panic alluded to probably has much Grand Guignol potential.
No doubt Timberwind or something like it will make an appearance, at least on paper, if people like Dr. Teller have anything to say about it. And Reagan loved Teller...Anyway it's the considered judgement of the timeline authors, in other threads anyway, that nukes lack in thrust/weight ratios. Fine for upper stages, not so much for initial boost. And not so superior to LH2/LOX that there has been any compelling reason to go over to them. For manned interplanetary missions, maybe. But there, solar power is also very competitive.
So no matter how you slice it, for getting into orbit anyway, there are no benign choices.
I just think that when we've moved away from missiles, that need to be launched on minute's notice and for which we've developed quite good alternatives in the form of solids, over to launch vehicles for planned launches, the retention of Titans and other hypergolic acid-fueled options is rather egregious. The danger of explosion is always with us, why compound it with the danger of poisoning a vast area, not to mention the incremental, cumulative damage of the people working closely with it?
I suppose Titan launch vehicles were a bit less awful than ones buried for years in silos, where the micro-leakage would concentrate. Of course if the whole thing blows, as happened in 1979, it's better for the general public that it happens in a bottle. (This "bottle" had its cap blown off though, so I suppose the base as a whole and the neighborhood of Little Rock suffered anyway). I guess no American hypergolic launch vehicle ever blew on the pad, and for the workers it would have been a help that minor leakage dissipated in the air.
Kerlox gets us similar results in terms of density of propellant and ISP, so I'd think launch vehicles where the timing issues of liquid oxygen are manageable by planning should go that way, not using hypergolics just because a major military contractor happens to be in the biz of making the things.
I'm glad to note that the Atlas has at long last superseded the Titan family as the major heavy launch rocket on the shelf in the USA. I'm glad that in this timeline it's the kerlox/Hydrogen-Lox Saturn family that dominates the field of heavy launch in America.
In this timeline, there are many alternatives to the Titans and it isn't clear why there is a Titan lobby at all.
Then again, it isn't clear to me why we still had Titan ICBMs operational as late as 1979.
I'm thinking, sheer military-industrial complex inertia, compounded by the fact that the Titan family was the Air Force's favored launch vehicle, which made the economics of retaining the Titan missiles that much more attractive.I'm glad to note that the Atlas has at long last superseded the Titan family as the major heavy launch rocket on the shelf in the USA. I'm glad that in this timeline it's the kerlox/Hydrogen-Lox Saturn family that dominates the field of heavy launch in America.
In this timeline, there are many alternatives to the Titans and it isn't clear why there is a Titan lobby at all.
Then again, it isn't clear to me why we still had Titan ICBMs operational as late as 1979.
the reason why Titan-II ICBM was to 1987 in service, was it Warhead a W-53 with maximum yield of 9 MT
the W-53 favored by SAC to "wipe major Soviet City from the face of earth"
the Peacekeeper replaced the Titan II, because it's 10xW87 warhead could destroy a Soviet city more effective as a single W-53
About Titan Lobby: It's the USAF it self.
before Titan IIIC, USAF study allot alternative like: Saturn I or even new design of Space Launching System (a Ariane 5 design 40 year earlier!)
But some time at USAF, someone make the decision to use only rockets with storables fuels, what was in time the Titan II and IIIC design.
because the Titan II was in production and preformed very good.
About Shuttle in USAF use, here play NRO a major role, because USAF launch spysat on order of NRO and CIA.
The possibility to launch and recovery a Spysat (US or USSR) was a opportunity not to neglect.
The end of Titan began with fusion of Lockheed with Martin and terminate with the EELV program in 1990s.
For LockheedMartin became Titan IV a most expensive rocket, because handling the toxic fuels and high cost on reparations of the launch Pad
the Atlas with kerlox were much cheaper and easier to handle as a Titan IV.
and this TL ?
with Saturn IC is alternative to Titan IIIC in 1970s, the only question is: will USAF want the Saturn IC ?
Shevek,
I'm very sorry to hear about your uncle. My condolences to you and your family. Essentially what it came down to with operating hypergolic LVs was that developing new ones was more expense than the budget people wre willing to sign off on, even for the safety benefits. However, I can say that Eyes has favored non-toxic propellants where ever possible, perhaps even in some unrealistic cases--we've retired Proton, for instance, thanks to Vulkan's single-core variant filling the same niche at less cost, and like I said if you really asked a 70s NASA engineer for a cheap alternate LV for Apollo orbital missions they'd probably pick a Titan. Titan itself in ETS is a bit more complicated, for reasons that would be spoilers to disclose, but it's eventually also being retired in favor of more friendly propellant combinations.
I'm very sorry to hear about your uncle. My condolences to you and your family. Essentially what it came down to with operating hypergolic LVs was that developing new ones was more expense than the budget people wre willing to sign off on, even for the safety benefits. However, I can say that Eyes has favored non-toxic propellants where ever possible, perhaps even in some unrealistic cases--we've retired Proton, for instance, thanks to Vulkan's single-core variant filling the same niche at less cost, and like I said if you really asked a 70s NASA engineer for a cheap alternate LV for Apollo orbital missions they'd probably pick a Titan. Titan itself in ETS is a bit more complicated, for reasons that would be spoilers to disclose, but it's eventually also being retired in favor of more friendly propellant combinations.
First proposed Titan IIIC, later changed to Titan IIIM for launch Apollo CSM or Big Gemini.
the Titan IIIM was special equipped for manned launch of MOL station.
NASA look also in a unmanned version called Titan IIIF
but as MOL program was stop in 1968, all work on Titan IIIM/F were terminated.
and 1972 came the Space Shuttle
by the way
the ultimate toxic version: Titan IIIM/N with a Nerva third stage
before death of Titan rocket this idea resurface as "Timberwind" proposal in 1990s
Damn. I'd hate to see one of those things blow. Small wonder it never lifted off the design board - to best of knowledge.
your not the only one, i'm very very happy this never was realized.
next to risk that Titan III sometimes blow up during launch
Timberwind had another risk, it's orbit of 90x36000 km after use
After a while it's orbit lowers until the Nuclear stage hit the Atmosphere or crash in another Satellite.
ISS would have to take 14 km safety distance to nearest Nuclear stage !
Archibald
Banned
Sorry for your uncle, Shevek. That's a sad story.
The Titan missiles blew their silos two times, in '65 and '79. Each time with catastrophic death tolls. The '69 Proton disaster was equally dirty.
And Europe (and Kourou, and french Guyana) were damn lucky on February 24, 1990. Flight 36, when a failing Ariane 44L (400 tons of dirty hypergols) missed its launch tower by a mere two meters, only to be destroyed in flight seconds later.
And China, of course, lost a Long March in 1996 the same way: the damn thing slammed into a village, with only six dead according to the officials...
Yes, hypergols are nasty and damn dirty. At least they have been mostly phase out - except in Russia of course. And China.
Gone the Titan missiles and launchers, gone Ariane 4. All that is left are upper stages.
Kazakhs hate the Proton for that reason, too the spent stages falling in the steppe are damn dangerous. The "clean" Angara to replace it ASAP... if only money was not a problem.
The Titan missiles blew their silos two times, in '65 and '79. Each time with catastrophic death tolls. The '69 Proton disaster was equally dirty.
And Europe (and Kourou, and french Guyana) were damn lucky on February 24, 1990. Flight 36, when a failing Ariane 44L (400 tons of dirty hypergols) missed its launch tower by a mere two meters, only to be destroyed in flight seconds later.
And China, of course, lost a Long March in 1996 the same way: the damn thing slammed into a village, with only six dead according to the officials...
Yes, hypergols are nasty and damn dirty. At least they have been mostly phase out - except in Russia of course. And China.
Gone the Titan missiles and launchers, gone Ariane 4. All that is left are upper stages.
Kazakhs hate the Proton for that reason, too the spent stages falling in the steppe are damn dangerous. The "clean" Angara to replace it ASAP... if only money was not a problem.
I know about the Ariane 44L failure. Caused by a dirty rag left in either the fuel or oxidiser pipe. One of the three failures it suffered in 116 launches.
As for China, I think the actual death toll was well over 270.
And there's the problem. Money. They've never had enough of it to replace Soyuz or Proton. In fact, to date, only one part of the Angara - its Core Stage - has even been tested, and that was on a South Korean LV.
In other news. Less than one day to the return of Eyes Turned Skywards! I wait with baited breath...
Killing off both Soyuz and Proton with TKS/Vulkan is one of my points of pride in Eyes.
Copy that. We are at T-14 hours, 30 minutes and counting.
Part II: Post 1: Spacelab and International Astronauts
Well, it's a fine day here at the Lawnview Apartment Space Center in historic Dayton, OH. We're in a a nominal countdown to exiting our planned hold at 1200 local time, 1600 UTC. The update has undergone final proofing checks at T-1 hour, and final post preparations are underway including this introduction. I'm looking forward to getting things rolling again, and I'm hoping it'll all live up to the standards people have come to expect.
A few notes: First, I'd like to thank Brainbin for the guest posts he's contributed to both Part I and to Part II, and I'd also like to thank the readers and commentators on this thread for their assistance in making it what it is--several things in the TL owe their existence to reader feedback, and of course it's helped us focus on areas readers are interested in. I'll remind people that the wiki page (linked in my sig) contains a full list of all Part 1 posts, and some links to mission lists and vehicle specs (still a bit of a work in progress). With that aside, I'll just leave it to the update. This week: Eyes returns with a focus on Japan. Stand by...and we're go at startup!
Eyes Turned Skyward Part II, Post 1
With the advent of the Block III+ version of the Apollo capsule came new opportunities for NASA. While introduced in part due to pressure from the ESA over the small number of seats they were getting under the Spacelab/European Research Module program, it quickly became obvious that more than just placating European opinion was possible with the new design. Since the beginning of continuous habitation, "rotation" flights--that is, flights which carried a new team of astronauts up to replace a veteran crew--would launch a week or two in advance of their predecessor crew landing in order to get "hands-on" training and allow acclimatization to zero-g conditions without the stress of having to begin full-scale work immediately. However, this allowed an interesting opportunity, as astronauts launched with one crew do not necessarily have to land with another. Thus, a member of the old crew could stay aloft, gaining additional duration in space, while a member of the new crew could land with the older crew, experiencing a short duration flight of only a week or two. As the Soviets pressed forwards with duration records and space was increasingly seen again as a competitive field, this had the attraction of both allowing a US response and allowing the flight of less trained or experienced astronauts than the US and ESA programs had turned out, such as citizens of non-NATO allies or, perhaps, certain citizens of the US who would not normally be considered astronauts.
The State Department was the first to grasp the possible value of the program. While NASA had already started planning extra-long individual duration missions, they had not, understandably, thought of the potential diplomatic and propaganda value of launching people for short-term visits to Spacelab. The flight of Ulf Merbold and, earlier still, ASTP I and II had demonstrated to the State Department the possible value of space flights in diplomatic relations. While never a critical factor in even the most complex negotiation, the offer of a seat for a citizen of some country the US was negotiating with fit well into a long-standing language of compromises, concessions, and gifts, as a small additional tool in the State Department's belt. The first country to benefit from the soon-to-be-named Spaceflight Participation Program was Japan. At the time, Japan was becoming increasingly involved in Spacelab research, and there was a certain degree of feeling among Japanese researchers that a Japanese scientist ought to be launched to oversee their experiments or participate in Spacelab's research activity. Simultaneously, this was the beginning of the Japanese bubble, and Japanese industry was just beginning to be portrayed as the "next big thing" in the US, with attention increasingly being called to the lack of free trade between the two countries. NASA had already begun talks with NASDA about the possibility of a Japanese flight to the station when State Department negotiators, involved in ongoing discussions with Japan about the trade of advanced technologies in relation to the ongoing F-15J fighter project, offered to trade seats on several Spacelab flights in exchange for Japan giving up on the transfer of a few particularly sensitive technologies. Their Japanese counterparts, seeing that they were getting most of what they wanted plus an unexpected sweetener, agreed to the deal. This 1980 agreement marked the effective beginning of what would eventually become the Spaceflight Participation Program.
At the time, however, it was simply an unexpected acceleration on an already-fomenting plan to launch Japanese astronauts to Spacelab. In the agreed-on plan, Japan would have the opportunity to fly three astronauts to Spacelab, beginning with a short stay during a rotation overlap period tentatively marked for 1982. To prepare for this event, only two years in the future, Japan began an immediate program examining candidates to select their first class of astronauts. Over the next year, a pool of thousands of applicants was trimmed down to three, who then spent another 6 months in intensive training alongside NASA astronauts in Houston. Based on this final training, Japanese researcher Katsuyama Hideki was selected to fly in the “short stay” opportunity created by F. Story Musgrave’s double-rotation stay on Spacelab, overlapping from the September 1981 Spacelab 13 mission into the Spacelab 14 mission. The veteran space doctor had been selected to be the first extended duration astronaut on Spacelab, judged to be the most able to assess his overall condition as the mission went on. The flight went well overall, with Hideki spending the slightly-extended 10-day handover period checking Japanese experiment packages already in place on the station, setting up several additional packages for later Japanese astronauts, conducting press events with native Japanese media, and taking several images of the Home Islands. However, reactions to the flight in the United States were mixed.
The State Department viewed the flight and indeed the entire Japanese cooperation program as a valuable tool in securing alliances with both NATO and non-NATO allies, and was interested in continuing the program. NASA, however, was more interested in the possibility of flying Americans such as journalists or teachers to conduct outreach (or, some suggested, perhaps even some of the politicians in whose hands NASA’s funding rested), and while it was glad for the participation of the Japanese and the groundwork set for future cooperation on such projects as the long-studied Spacelab follow-up stations, it was interested in preserving the few slots that would be made available by the long-duration flight program for these alternate uses. Many astronauts, on the other hand, viewed the entire program as something of a stunt--while many were excited about the potential of the long-duration flight research, they also saw the short-duration flight slots as something that should go to existing astronauts. This view was particularly common among American scientist-astronauts, who were particularly hurt by the loss of “fifth-seat” slots, less common among the pilots who were guaranteed two slots on flights, and almost non-existent among the European astronaut corps, whose flight prospects were unchanged by the program and as international partners themselves could understand better the value of cooperation and (more cynically) political maneuvering.
The end result was a program that functioned, but truly satisfied no one except the biomedical community. The establishment of the Spaceflight Participant Program in 1982 called for eight slots to be made available over the next 5 years via multi-rotation stays on-station, with the exact timing and arrangements to be determined in accordance with the needs of the long-duration exposure study program. Two slots would be reserved for the remaining Japanese astronauts in accordance with the existing agreements, NASA would retain authority for dispersing three to American “spaceflight participants,” and State would have the authority for allocating the remaining three to major US allies. While the program details were sorted out, Hideki returned to Japan as a national hero, a living symbol of Japan’s rising star, both economically and technologically. NASDA requested the loan of his capsule, much as the capsules used on the flights of early ESA astronauts had been placed on long-term loan to museums in their home nations. Discussions were complicated by the fact that Hideki had returned to Earth in a different capsule than he had launched in, but in the end the landing capsule was available for display sooner and was officially transferred to Japanese control among much celebration in late 1982.
I'm looking forward to getting things rolling again, and I'm hoping it'll all live up to the standards people have come to expect.A few notes: First, I'd like to thank Brainbin for the guest posts he's contributed to both Part I and to Part II, and I'd also like to thank the readers and commentators on this thread for their assistance in making it what it is--several things in the TL owe their existence to reader feedback, and of course it's helped us focus on areas readers are interested in. I'll remind people that the wiki page (linked in my sig) contains a full list of all Part 1 posts, and some links to mission lists and vehicle specs (still a bit of a work in progress). With that aside, I'll just leave it to the update. This week: Eyes returns with a focus on Japan. Stand by...and we're go at startup!
Eyes Turned Skyward Part II, Post 1
With the advent of the Block III+ version of the Apollo capsule came new opportunities for NASA. While introduced in part due to pressure from the ESA over the small number of seats they were getting under the Spacelab/European Research Module program, it quickly became obvious that more than just placating European opinion was possible with the new design. Since the beginning of continuous habitation, "rotation" flights--that is, flights which carried a new team of astronauts up to replace a veteran crew--would launch a week or two in advance of their predecessor crew landing in order to get "hands-on" training and allow acclimatization to zero-g conditions without the stress of having to begin full-scale work immediately. However, this allowed an interesting opportunity, as astronauts launched with one crew do not necessarily have to land with another. Thus, a member of the old crew could stay aloft, gaining additional duration in space, while a member of the new crew could land with the older crew, experiencing a short duration flight of only a week or two. As the Soviets pressed forwards with duration records and space was increasingly seen again as a competitive field, this had the attraction of both allowing a US response and allowing the flight of less trained or experienced astronauts than the US and ESA programs had turned out, such as citizens of non-NATO allies or, perhaps, certain citizens of the US who would not normally be considered astronauts.
The State Department was the first to grasp the possible value of the program. While NASA had already started planning extra-long individual duration missions, they had not, understandably, thought of the potential diplomatic and propaganda value of launching people for short-term visits to Spacelab. The flight of Ulf Merbold and, earlier still, ASTP I and II had demonstrated to the State Department the possible value of space flights in diplomatic relations. While never a critical factor in even the most complex negotiation, the offer of a seat for a citizen of some country the US was negotiating with fit well into a long-standing language of compromises, concessions, and gifts, as a small additional tool in the State Department's belt. The first country to benefit from the soon-to-be-named Spaceflight Participation Program was Japan. At the time, Japan was becoming increasingly involved in Spacelab research, and there was a certain degree of feeling among Japanese researchers that a Japanese scientist ought to be launched to oversee their experiments or participate in Spacelab's research activity. Simultaneously, this was the beginning of the Japanese bubble, and Japanese industry was just beginning to be portrayed as the "next big thing" in the US, with attention increasingly being called to the lack of free trade between the two countries. NASA had already begun talks with NASDA about the possibility of a Japanese flight to the station when State Department negotiators, involved in ongoing discussions with Japan about the trade of advanced technologies in relation to the ongoing F-15J fighter project, offered to trade seats on several Spacelab flights in exchange for Japan giving up on the transfer of a few particularly sensitive technologies. Their Japanese counterparts, seeing that they were getting most of what they wanted plus an unexpected sweetener, agreed to the deal. This 1980 agreement marked the effective beginning of what would eventually become the Spaceflight Participation Program.
At the time, however, it was simply an unexpected acceleration on an already-fomenting plan to launch Japanese astronauts to Spacelab. In the agreed-on plan, Japan would have the opportunity to fly three astronauts to Spacelab, beginning with a short stay during a rotation overlap period tentatively marked for 1982. To prepare for this event, only two years in the future, Japan began an immediate program examining candidates to select their first class of astronauts. Over the next year, a pool of thousands of applicants was trimmed down to three, who then spent another 6 months in intensive training alongside NASA astronauts in Houston. Based on this final training, Japanese researcher Katsuyama Hideki was selected to fly in the “short stay” opportunity created by F. Story Musgrave’s double-rotation stay on Spacelab, overlapping from the September 1981 Spacelab 13 mission into the Spacelab 14 mission. The veteran space doctor had been selected to be the first extended duration astronaut on Spacelab, judged to be the most able to assess his overall condition as the mission went on. The flight went well overall, with Hideki spending the slightly-extended 10-day handover period checking Japanese experiment packages already in place on the station, setting up several additional packages for later Japanese astronauts, conducting press events with native Japanese media, and taking several images of the Home Islands. However, reactions to the flight in the United States were mixed.
The State Department viewed the flight and indeed the entire Japanese cooperation program as a valuable tool in securing alliances with both NATO and non-NATO allies, and was interested in continuing the program. NASA, however, was more interested in the possibility of flying Americans such as journalists or teachers to conduct outreach (or, some suggested, perhaps even some of the politicians in whose hands NASA’s funding rested), and while it was glad for the participation of the Japanese and the groundwork set for future cooperation on such projects as the long-studied Spacelab follow-up stations, it was interested in preserving the few slots that would be made available by the long-duration flight program for these alternate uses. Many astronauts, on the other hand, viewed the entire program as something of a stunt--while many were excited about the potential of the long-duration flight research, they also saw the short-duration flight slots as something that should go to existing astronauts. This view was particularly common among American scientist-astronauts, who were particularly hurt by the loss of “fifth-seat” slots, less common among the pilots who were guaranteed two slots on flights, and almost non-existent among the European astronaut corps, whose flight prospects were unchanged by the program and as international partners themselves could understand better the value of cooperation and (more cynically) political maneuvering.
The end result was a program that functioned, but truly satisfied no one except the biomedical community. The establishment of the Spaceflight Participant Program in 1982 called for eight slots to be made available over the next 5 years via multi-rotation stays on-station, with the exact timing and arrangements to be determined in accordance with the needs of the long-duration exposure study program. Two slots would be reserved for the remaining Japanese astronauts in accordance with the existing agreements, NASA would retain authority for dispersing three to American “spaceflight participants,” and State would have the authority for allocating the remaining three to major US allies. While the program details were sorted out, Hideki returned to Japan as a national hero, a living symbol of Japan’s rising star, both economically and technologically. NASDA requested the loan of his capsule, much as the capsules used on the flights of early ESA astronauts had been placed on long-term loan to museums in their home nations. Discussions were complicated by the fact that Hideki had returned to Earth in a different capsule than he had launched in, but in the end the landing capsule was available for display sooner and was officially transferred to Japanese control among much celebration in late 1982.
Last edited:
I bet, that this capsule is a major attraction on Expo'85 in Tsukuba, Japan.
ironically also family reunion with other Apollo CM in Germany and USA pavilion...
ironically also family reunion with other Apollo CM in Germany and USA pavilion...
I dont remember, but given that were up to III+, is there any discussion of reusing apollo capsules, like there was discussion of reusing gemini ones?
It lives. It lives! IT LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!!!
Seriously, this has been an extremely long wait for me, and I do hope it's well worth it.
A new programme for NASA in regards to securing notice in the public eye, though I remain convinced that it will be a trickier balancing act for them when you consider the simple fact that STS was built for 8 and Apollo Block III+ can carry only 5.
As for Japan......how the hell did I manage to forget that!?! Their decade-long bubble had only just started by this point, and things are definitely looking up for them at this point.
One point of confusion. You referred to a 09/1981 SkyLab 13 and SkyLab 14 Missions. I thought SkyLab had already been de-orbited by this point.
Seriously, this has been an extremely long wait for me, and I do hope it's well worth it.
A new programme for NASA in regards to securing notice in the public eye, though I remain convinced that it will be a trickier balancing act for them when you consider the simple fact that STS was built for 8 and Apollo Block III+ can carry only 5.
As for Japan......how the hell did I manage to forget that!?! Their decade-long bubble had only just started by this point, and things are definitely looking up for them at this point.
One point of confusion. You referred to a 09/1981 SkyLab 13 and SkyLab 14 Missions. I thought SkyLab had already been de-orbited by this point.